There’s also no proof a deity exists either. If one does not, none of us has lost anything. I was more trying to point out to Rat that there’s no evidence that a god exists.
I see and have research no reason to believe in any deity.
If one exists I will find that out when I die.
I will never believe in a thing which has no evidence of existing.
If a god exists I will find that out at death, and if no god exists I’ve lost nothing.
So far no one has proved ghosts exist.
It has been explained, and the non-evidence for any god keeps me an atheist. If one exists I will find that out when I die.
I have pointed out that one has nothing to do with the other.
God could (smallest possibly) “ exist” or have “existed” AND you can (with current demonstrable evidence) be dead natta - zip - unaware - nonexistent…
God does not exist (no demonstrable evidence for existing) AND you could die and some form of (yet undemonstrative) consciousness may continue …
We don’t know…
Yes we don’t know, but I have a problem with believing consciousness can exist outside the brain.
What has that to do with my question?
You’re simply proving over and over that you are incapable of understanding the burden of proof that a claim incurs. A lack of evidence doesn’t disprove a claim, how many time do you need this explained you ffs?
You didn’t say you disbelieve something, hence my question, you made a positive claim to knowledge, thus the lack of evidence to contradict that claim is irrelevant, you’re using a known logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam.
I don’t believe a deity exists, is not a claim, and carries no burden of proof.
Your claim that “Nothing of that nature exists nor does anything supernatural.” Is a claim and carries a burden of proof.
Both positions are atheistic.
How can you still not understand the difference, and what it means?
Fine, as do I, which is why I disbelieve the claim. However I do not claim it doesn’t exist, as that carries a burden of proof I don’t have.
What ever. I will still believe no god exists unless actual evidence surfaces, and I will still probably stay an atheist.
My question for a god would be, “Why did you not make it clear before?” So my belief position remains the same.
No god and one just ceases to exist.
Me either I just can not see anyway that a god can exist.
If there is one I’ll see you on the other side.
Oh ffs, I’ll dumb it down with bullet points for you…
- Not believing in deity makes you an atheist.
- Claiming to know a deity doesn’t exist makes you an atheist.
The first one is not a claim, and carries no burden of proof, the second one is a claim and does carry a burden of proof.
YOU KEEP USING THE SECOND ONE.
Oh ffs, you just did exactly that.
No one is arguing that a deity exists, both Cog and I are atheists ffs, it’s right next to our usernames.
We’re trying to make you understand there is a significant difference between disbelief in an extant deity, and claiming a deity doesn’t exist, as you keep doing.
Yes I would have the burden of proof, which I have none to prove a god does or does not exist.
Yes you do, because you made a claim that a deity doesn’t exist. That carries a burden of proof.
That second part is a claim, and thus it carries a burden of proof. As do all claims.
Yes I did. But neither of us can show any proof that a god or any deity exists or does not exist.
I would rather go with doesn’t exist as a belief if you can call it that, or the non belief that any deity exists. I will lose nothing if none exists…
So yeah I made claim there’s for sure no god, yet I can not prove that a god doesn’t exist either
So you made a claim a deity doesn’t exist, even though you cannot evidence it, just as theists do. Citing the fact your claim can’t be disproved is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, which theists use all the time. It is by definition irrational.
Yes it is irrational so I will believe a god doesn’t exist until I see some actual proof, then probably remain an atheist anyways.
I was trying to get an explanation from Rat, isn’t he around anymore?
I may be of help. You still cling to the insurance policy of Pascal’s wager, claiming there is no evidence of a god, yet acting as if they maybe one.
Let us examine your position from a different perspective, it may help.
Do you believe in Aten ( an ancient Egyptian god) in the same manner as the Abrahamic god? Do you also believe in Wodin, Ahura Mazda, and Shangti? Do you act as if they may exist, and you will meet them in the afterlife?
All of these gods are unfalsifiable, just like the Abrahamic god, each has the same level of evidence, zero.
My suggestion is that you place the Abrahamic god in the same classification as those other mythical beings.
I don’t believe in any deity, I pretty much listen to a sentence from Family Guy calling all gods pretty much bull crap? I think.
Unless I see proof of a god, no I don’t believe in any of those gods either. We have like four bibles, I don’t read any of them.
That is the Christian god, which I don’t believe in either.
Pretty much unless actual evidence surfaces I believe in no god at all. And I doubt any evidence will surface.
I am still open to this, I just doubt evidence will ever surface.