No, you’ve quoted my post and assigned it to the wrong part of your post, which is odd as I’d quoted the part of your post I was responding to?
Most of us figured out there was a force pushing our toys to the floor; when we were still in diapers; our parents called it gravity. Not hard to figure out it exists.
I’m sorry Sheldon, I wanted to reply to this part of your post, I was wrong.
The principle of the scientific method is experimental observation, from which the understanding of the physical phenomenon and its description in terms of a model derives.
The realization of the experiments proceeds through the measurement of the physical quantities, which allows to associate to each of them a number and a measure of its reliability (error). Consequently, the reproducibility of the measurements and the definition of their validity range are ensured.
I used the force of gravity as an example that the existence of something that can’t be seen can be proved by measuring it and observing it with the scientific method, which is what Galileo Galilei did with the experiment of the fall of bodies.
All this because I was told that I cannot define myself as an atheist because I’ve asserted that the non- existence of a god who created, invented, built, (as you prefer), the world in 6 days while on the seventh he rested. I was told that the burden of proof of his nonexistence rests with those who claim that he does not exist. I don’t think that the burden of proof lies with those who listen to fairy tales, but with those who tell them. So if someone thinks it is impossible for a woman to have conceived Jesus Christ without sexual intercourse (or without sin as Catholics like to say) when it was announced to him by the Holy Spirit, and if someone thinks it impossible that a man who died on the cross would be resurrected after three days, not I believe that the burden of proof for these lies lies with me nor with anyone else who says they don’t believe it.
So I’m not ashamed to define myself an atheist instead agnostic.
HUH? What a rambling bunch of nonsense?
First of all - Agnosticism and Atheism are not different or exclusive concepts.
Agnosticism (Without Knowledge) opposes (Gnosticism)
Atheism (Without Belief) opposes (Theism) God Belief.
*The burden of proof always exists on the person making the claim. That’s the way it works. You make the claim, you carry the burden of proof.
As soon as you assert, “It is impossible for a woman to conceive without sexual intercourse.” you have accepted a burden of proof. (Hint, you sound like an idiot on this one. Intercourse is NOT needed.)
If you assert “A man who died on a cross can not be resurrected after three days.” You do indeed have a burden of proof. That is the way it works. Do yourself a favor and stop sounding like an idiot. Leave the burden of proof where it belongs. ON THE THEIST. Ask them how they know someone can rise from the dead after three days. They have the burden of proof until you IGNORANTLY open your mouth.
You don’t have a fucking clue what an Atheist or Agnostic is. Your understanding of these terms is as ignorant as your understanding of “Burden of Proof.”
You can’t prove anything with measurement or the scientific method. You’ve had some pretty serious smoke blown up your ass.
Galileo didn’t prove anything with experiment.
I remember the days when the smoke blown up my ass clouded my ability to really learn.
My mind was taught and easily fell into the comfort of “ignoring pertinent information” …how else could I still believe “evolution was a lie”, “Noah’s flood really happened globally”, “I would never die”…
Anyway, my main point? @anon33523147 I sounded (and still may at times sound) stupid when it comes to science…hopefully, you’ll catch the nuances.
Pablito: Galileo “DESCRIBED” and then “EXPLAINED” the falling of objects. He did not ‘PROVE’ shit. He “DEMONSTRATED” what he had found, gave it a name, and then began to experiment with it.
It always sets off alarm bells when people try to explain the scientific method, and then include words like proof.
No one cares how you label yourself.
Seems they did……………….
They have been calling you Atheist for 2000 years dipwad. Either you are a theist or you are an atheist. It makes no fucking difference what you call yourself. You believe gods exist or you do not. DUH!
Do you think atheists pulled the word out of their asses? It is a slander, directed at apostates, heathen, non-believers, doubters, unbelievers, cynics, skeptics, non-believing agnostics, free-thinkers, non-believing humanists, nihilists, and anyone and everyone who doubts the FACT that Jesus Christ died on the Cross for their sins, or Muhammad the Child molesting prophet went into a cave and spoke with an angel, who told him that all the Christians are wrong and everyone must surrender to the one true god. …
Indeed. My fav is that the prophet had a flying horse called Buraq which took him to heaven. There he met the patriarchs and God, in that order. Buraq also flew him from Mecca to Jerusalem.
@arc06 I really don’t care about the personal superstitions of others, or if they call themselves Christians or Calathumpians. Or having no beliefs, atheists. Unless they get in my face. Then I may say some very unkind things, about them and their parentage
Wow! When will you i____s begin to THINK! “THINKING” about anything, is not a debatable position!
Do you even read this shit before you post it? Okay, okay, we all stick our feet in our mouths sometimes, but seriously, such an elementary mistake?
I can no more have a debate about the thoughts you are having than you can demonstrate actual evidence for a god. “Think” whatever the fuck you like. Do you understand the “CORE” of the scientific method?
INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION! Until you put that thought out there in the public domain and assert it is “real” or “true” no one gives a shit. Once you do put it out there, ‘YOU HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF.’ You must "DEMONSTRATE’ your claim to be true.
THEN ---- (and this is the good part) ---- other people look at that demonstration and weigh it against all we currently know. They test it, weigh it, turn it around and look at it again. They decide if it is useful in predicting or explaining anything at all. They see if it is logically sound/valid. Does it make sense? Can it stand against critical inquiry? (AND THAT IS WHEN THE F______ING DEBATE STARTS!
First of all, I didn’t claim a damn thing. Mine is a negation, which is the opposite of an assertion. Anyone who claims the existence of god or anything else that goes against the known and accepted laws of physics, biology, astronomy, chemistry must bear the burden of proof. If they tell me that a statue of St. Mary cries blood, it is not me who have to prove it, but who affirms it. The meaning of my speech is this, if it is difficult to understand it is not my problem.
I wrote that it can be said that a thing can be measured can be said to exist. I reported this example of Galileo because I wanted to talk about something invisible but real, unlike any divinity. Furthermore, Galileo Galilei is recognized as the first to use a scientific method for his experiments which is precisely called “experimental method”. It’s just an example.
If you claim there is a god, then the burden of proof is on you to prove your claim.
If you claim there is a no god, then the burden of proof is on you to prove your claim.
If you state that you are not convinced there is a god then there is no burden of proof.
If you state that you are not convinced there is a no god then there is no burden of proof.
You poor ignorant sod… A negation “ABSOLUTELY” requires evidence. Are you really that stupid? There is absolutely not distinction between the statements; “God exists!” or “God does not exist.” when it comes to a responsibility for evidence. You may not make either assertion and be free of the burden of proof.
A person making a claim has a burden of proof. That is the way it works. Frankly, I am ashamed to call you a non-believer of any kind at all. You are too ignorant to not believe in a God.
What you argue by writing such a thing is that the rules of evidence and all the scientific knowledge acquired up to now are as valid as the ideas about the origin of the world described in the Old Testament. If you think you give the same importance to religion as to science, I can’t say anything else. This is a problem of language, it is a problem of establishing what the expression “scientific proof” means and what the word “fairy tale” means.
Your continuing to insult me personally only shows how limited your mind is and how rude you are. Honestly, I just pity you, you would have been a good minister of god. Consider this idea for your future.