From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Evidence for God
Date: 16 Nov 92 14:37:34 GMT
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov  5 1992

Who1: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
ID: 1992Nov11.114355.14940@nmsu.edu
With: <MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu> Martin Schulte
And: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org says:
 
DR> "I don't care if I have no evidence that God does not exist,
DR> though I assert God does not exist. I assert the negative,
DR> and it is up to the theist, whom asserts the positive, to
DR> produce the evidence.
 
MS> "Where do you get this? Does no one understand that there are
MS> more than two sides to this? Anyone who asserts something had
MS> better be prepared to back it up. I don't understand why you
MS> think that the other side has to prove you wrong. As if you
MS> can assert a belief and get away with it. Both sides, since
MS> they are asserting something, need to prove their assertions.
MS> Otherwise, I'm left with nothing at all--my present stance.
MS> Martin Schulte
 
SD> "It's like this:
SD> 
SD> Weak atheism: 'I do not believe that a God exists.'
SD> Strong atheism: 'There is no God.'
SD> 
SD> The strong atheist is making a positive assertion and needs to
SD> prove it. The weak atheist is merely noting that the evidence
SD> presented by theists for God's existence is unconvincing."
 
Hi!
 
No, I do NOT "need to prove it." What do I care about the non-
existance of God? Conversely, theists care A GREAT DEAL about
proving the existance of their Gods, but they never have, and
since God does not exist, they never will.
 
My point, such as it was, is that my asserting a negative does
not lend itself to proof, but the theists, whom assert the
positive, DOES lend itself to prove--- they need only present
their Gods for evaluation.
 
SD> The theist is making a positive assertion that God exists.
SD> The weak atheist finds fault with the theist's proof and so
SD> remains unconvinced.  Where do you see a weak atheist making
SD> any positive assertion for or against God's existence in this
SD> scenario?
SD> 
SD> Why in the world should I "sit on the fence" if I cannot, in
SD> the most rigorous sense, disprove the existence of God, Santa,
SD> Elvis, UFOs, Bigfoot etc. etc.?  Isn't it enough to note that
SD> evidence that would compel one to believe in said entities is
SD> sadly lacking in *all* of the above cases?  It's one thing to
SD> have an open mind, it's another to have a *weak* mind."
 
Blame it on my lack of scientific education (SMILE!), but I am quite
comfortable saying "There is no God(s)." Humans have deduced a
MASSIVE amount of information--- physics, chemistry, evolution,
biology---- all proven to be valid. Yet in 8 or 9 thousand years
not a single shread of evidence for Gods' existance. . . . and
there are hundreds of millions of theists who hold it as their
sacred duty to convince people, yet they haven't evidence to help
them out. Surely if God existed theists would have SOME kind of
evidence? But they do not.
 
Ergo, God does not exist. It's all smoke and mirrors by cult
leaders to keep the ignorant masses mailing in their socual
security checks.
 
I can see Martin's point--- "since I have no evidence that God does
not exist, how can I say God doesn't exist? Am I not doing the same
thing as theists asserting God does exist?" Martin said I should
not expect theists "prove me wrong." Perhaps he fails to understand
the concept of falsifiability?
 
SD> Martin Schulte
SD> Stephen Doe

--- Maximus 2.00
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:21541 talk.religion.misc:21403 sci.skeptic:19813 alt.politics.homosexuality:7348