Near death experiences

[Thor 2]

Atheists have the burden of proof if they believe in no God.

I feel we are talking to a babe in the woods who has just emerged from the cabbage patch.

 

[Fudbucker]

No one has a burden of proof for declining to believe in someone else's unevidenced claims.

That's weak atheism. Strong atheists go further: not only do they not believe theistic claims, they make their own claims about reality (i.e., they claim reality is such that there are no god(s)). Any claim that reality is a certain way requires justification.

 

[Fudbucker]

I feel we are talking to a babe in the woods who has just emerged from the cabbage patch.

Except he's right (at least regarding strong atheism). Someone who claims to know no god(s) exist is going to be asked the obvious question: how do you know? In other words, the burden of proof is on the theist and the atheist. The agnostic is comfortably straddling the fence.

 

[JayUtah]

That's weak atheism. Strong atheists go further: not only do they not believe theistic claims, they make their own claims about reality (i.e., they claim reality is such that there are no god(s)). Any claim that reality is a certain way requires justification.

I'm holding him responsible only for claims he has made. Now that you tell me I'm responsible for defending a position I do not hold, I guess that means I can hold him accountable for every crackpot religious claim there is, whether he holds it or not.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

 

[slipknot0129]

Except he's right (at least regarding strong atheism). Someone who claims to know no god(s) exist is going to be asked the obvious question: how do you know? In other words, the burden of proof is on the theist and the atheist. The agnostic is comfortably straddling the fence.

True

 

[Slowvehicle]

We know enough that theres a afterlife.

Others will have, I am sure, asked this, but: Upon what do you base this unsupported assertion?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Near death experiences are evidence for afterlife. Full death will be even better.

I am confident others will have asked you this, but upon what do you base this unsupported assertion?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Yes near death experiences prove the afterlife exists.

It shows it's nothing but love on the other side.

Most are good near death experiences.

Most are good experiences, meaning most will go to heaven.

I know like 99% are good experiences. So I don't have to worry about going to hell.

Nope, not one where I actually died and came back.

I've seen higher beings in physical form before. It was cool.

Yeah the higher beings I seen were cool. That's a lot of evidence.

I am confident others will have asked you this, but upon what do you base these unsupported assertions?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Nonbeliever claims can be rejected too.

What "nonbeliever claims" are being made, in your opinion?

 

[Slowvehicle]

The claims of atheist aren't proven.

Which claims, specifically (links to examples would be nice...)?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Specify desired gender. I can't stress this enough.

...the whole spectrum, please...

 

[Beady]

That's weak atheism. Strong atheists go further: not only do they not believe theistic claims, they make their own claims about reality (i.e., they claim reality is such that there are no god(s)). Any claim that reality is a certain way requires justification.

Back up a moment, you skipped over something, something between your definitions of Strong and Weak atheism.

A weak atheist sees insufficient evidence for God's existence, true. But in the next step, the one you skipped, the existence of a theistic God, one who actively participates in our own existence, would violate what we have come to recognize as the way the universe works.

For example, one aspect of Special Relativity requires that physical laws operate identically in all parts of the universe at all times. There is no room here for a superbeing who can, does and has, at whim, violate, suspend or alter physical law wherever and whenever. Not only is there no room for such a being, there is no record in geology, paleontology, any other -ology, history or current events that such actions (ie miracles) have occurred.

This does not disprove the existence of God, but it does constitute a material reason for actively questioning His reality. To rephrase, I cannot say that God does not exist, but I can say that he probably doesn't.

Therefore, there is a state of disbelief that exists between lack of knowledge and certainty. And this state of disbelief, call it "Doubt," can probably be broken down even further.

This signature is intended to irritate people.

 

[Fudbucker]

I'm holding him responsible only for claims he has made. Now that you tell me I'm responsible for defending a position I do not hold, I guess that means I can hold him accountable for every crackpot religious claim there is, whether he holds it or not.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

I don't know, are you a strong atheist?

 

[Nay_Sayer]

Atheists have the burden of proof if they believe in no God.

Good thing that isn't what atheism is then.


Next

 

[bruto]

As expected, we've fallen once more down the linquistic rabbit hole in which our inability to speak of what does not exist without speaking as if it did seems to be taken as evidence of an assertion.

No, one does not have to provide evidence for not believing something. Not believing is not an alternative sort of believing.

Nor does one even have to disprove an assertion that something for which no evidence is present is not real. If one did, it would mean that every mushbrained speculation, no matter how far fetched or stupid, would have to be tentatively accepted. If there is no evidence of a god, then I can assert that there is no god without proving it. Perhaps I cannot bet lives on it, but I can say it, and if my argument is based on the lack of evidence, then it's obviously, utterly, patently absurd to suggest that I must produce evidence for my argument! If this were not so, nobody could assert that there is no green dragon in my basement, no fairies in my garden, no tigers in the woods behind my house, no hipphalosamus roaming in the alternate universe behind the sofa. We'd never have time for anything, gridlocked by the competing claims of gods and monsters, yelling like overgrown grade schoolers, 'tis too, 'tis not, 'tis too.

I do kind of like the idea of getting the afterlife we choose, but alas, I suspect a flaw there. I choose an afterlife of unbridled sexual excess and gluttony, interrupted from time to time with gleeful potshots at passing cars. There's more but that's the printable part. If not, why not?

 

[arthwollipot]

As expected, we've fallen once more down the linquistic rabbit hole...

Surprise surprise.

 

[Belz...]

Lack of evidence for no God makes me theist.

This is an irrational declaration. You are not listening to anything anyone says, and are not being logical.

You go to the place you like the most.

By what mechanism?

 

[Belz...]

I see plenty evidence for God.

Ok, aside from NDEs, what evidence do you have?

 

[Belz...]

Except he's right (at least regarding strong atheism). Someone who claims to know no god(s) exist is going to be asked the obvious question: how do you know? In other words, the burden of proof is on the theist and the atheist.

Absolutely not. "How do you know?" Because there is no evidence. There. The burden is entirely on the positive claim.

The agnostic is comfortably straddling the fence.

No. An "agnostic" is someone who claims to not know. You can have agnostic atheists and (theoretically) agnostic theists, but you can have just an agnostic. I'd wager that most agnostics are atheists, so you're simply using the word wrong.

 

[Peregrinus]

Atheists have the burden of proof if they believe in no God.

This is cart waaaaayyyyy before the horse.