You Cannot Prove Zeus doesn't Exist

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Please...just be quiet...your completely derailing the thread 😆

Then should this thread not be reported for trolling or member bashing, since that is afterall the essence of it.

Originally posted by Creshosk
I'm not angry in the slightest... were you angry when you were attacking me?

I NEVER attacked you. You have been the one antagonizing myself and Imperial, and everyone can see that. I have repeatedly made my point to this thread clear to you, and you persist in your childish argument.

Adam Poe, myself, and Imperial have made it clear what your problem is. You have derailed the thread by arguing semantics, instead of actually addressing the topic of the thread.

You claim you know what the thread is about, yet you don't address that point. Instead you continue with your childish ranting about how myself and Imperial are "hypocrites"

You then go on with personal insults, calling me "a big greasy gay penis"...you my freind, need to grow up.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Seriously is this all you have left? I called you on this thread being a soapbox, and this is how you choose to cry about it?

I am not the one crying. YOU are the one continuing to babble on like a little kid who didn't got the wrong toy from Kaybees.

I asked you to get on topic, or don't post. Stop with your little side argument. GEt on topic, or get off the thread.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Did you see any of the humor in the last post? I left it open to correct which definition (the subject of the hidden text) would be next to. and instead you choose to project your own anger upon me to further your attacks on me?

You are the one attacking myself and Imperial. Now...address the topic at hand, or don't post in this thread.

Everyone, myself, Leum, Adam Poe, and Imperial can see how immature and off topic your presentation has been. Save yourself further embarrasment.

Originally posted by Creshosk
If you were to look up hypocrite in the dictionary there'd be a picture of you[color=ececec]r big oily gay penis... sorry, had to say it.[color]

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
I [b]NEVER attacked you.[/b]

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
You have been the one antagonizing myself and Imperial, and everyone can see that. I have repeatedly made my point to this thread clear to you, and you persist in your childish argument.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Adam Poe, myself, and Imperial have made it clear what your problem is. You have derailed the thread by arguing semantics, instead of actually addressing the topic of the thread.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
You claim you know what the thread is about, yet you don't address that point. Instead you continue with your childish ranting about how myself and Imperial are "hypocrites"

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
You then go on with personal insults, calling me "a big greasy gay penis"...you my freind, need to grow up.[b]

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
[B]I am not the one crying. YOU are the one continuing to babble on like a little kid who didn't got the wrong toy from Kaybees. [quote] "oh noes! You're derailing my thread because you're not joining in in belittling the theists!"

That wasn't me, stud.

[QUOTE=9425313]Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
I asked you to get on topic, or don't post. Stop with your little side argument. GEt on topic, or get off the thread.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
You are the one attacking myself and Imperial. Now...address the topic at hand, or don't post in this thread.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Everyone, myself, Leum, Adam Poe, and Imperial can see how immature and off topic your presentation has been. Save yourself further embarrasment.

Sorry, but I'm not going to join your bandwagon and talk about how bad people are for their beliefs... at least not behind their backs.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Oh I didn't. Doesn't change things though.

Your opinion of my contribution to this thread is nothing more than an opinion.

You don't like how I was presenting my points so you made a hypocrite of yourself.

Because your contribution to the actual topic had been to such a degree you were able to go:

"In this post I pointed this out and it was relevant because... and in this post etc."

Rather then dodging and saying "ha, why don't you prove what I am saying is of no relevance!" Because ultimately you proved nothing other then you can type "opinion" without justifying why my "opinion" is incorrect.

Because I can post my relevant posts if you like and say how they relate to the topic on the nature of illogical arguments within debates between theists and Atheists.

And how would you like me to do that? "Yeah they're stupid for doing that." "Yes, they do that." This threrad has nothing to do with religon, despite imperial thinking it does. As you have clearly used non religious figures as counter examples to what you feel is an illogical belief. I'm not stupid, despite your implications to the contrary. I get your point. You simply don't get mine. And thus you attack me.

Strangely enough, just looking at my own and Adam Poes posts on the subject neither of us made statements like "Yeah, they're stupid for doing that" - in fact the only person to bring that up is you, because you say that is the only way you can see one contributing to the thread, which judging by the on-topic replies does not seem true.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Horse shit.

You call it childish, but you know its true. this thread is dedicated to attacking other members. It's not about weather or not these things actually exist. You said that yourself. IUts to discuss the actions of other members in a negative fashion. I'd say it's obvious but the others who backed you up on your "point" are willfully blind to the nature of this thread. You may have fooled them but you didn't fool me.

And how would you like me to do that? "Yeah they're stupid for doing that." "Yes, they do that." This threrad has nothing to do with religon, despite imperial thinking it does. As you have clearly used non religious figures as counter examples to what you feel is an illogical belief. I'm not stupid, despite your implications to the contrary. I get your point. You simply don't get mine. And thus you attack me.

Sorry if the truth hurts, babydoll. But you lost the right to decry my being off topic when you gleefully took part in belittling my intelligence. Because I'm certain that is off topic as well.

I didn't call you a big greasy gay penis. I was attempting to break the tension by setting up a joke using words you had previously used. You'll note that I didn't use anything insulting in the description of your genetillia. and I said oily, just as you corrected Rouge Jedi on his description.

Sorry, you already lost the right to tell me to do that.

Yeah those theists are sure ass[b]holes for not giving proof when challenged to do so. 🙄
right, bercause its apopular opinioon it must be the right one... which is why the world is flat and disease is caused by bad smells.

Sorry, but I'm not going to join your bandwagon and talk about how bad people are for their beliefs... at least not behind their backs. [/B]

In this thread I am attacking a debating technique, not any person in particular. It has been done before, and will be done again.

I will not argue in childish circles with you. Contribute to the topic at hand, or don't post. This will be the 5th time I asked you this.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Because your contribution to the actual topic had been to such a degree you were able to go:

"In this post I pointed this out and it was relevant because... and in this post etc."

Rather then dodging and saying "ha, why don't you prove what I am saying is of no relevance!" Because ultimately you proved nothing other then you can type "opinion" without justifying why my "opinion" is incorrect.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Because I can post my relevant posts if you like and say how they relate to the topic on the nature of illogical arguments within debates between theists and Atheists.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Strangely enough, just looking at my own and Adam Poes posts on the subject neither of us made statements like "Yeah, they're stupid for doing that"

"Theists are highly illogical for stating that their belief is fact but refuse to prove these so called facts true. It is much more logical to state that your belief that something does not exist is indeed fact. I refuse to prove that fact however and will hide behindhe assertation that you cannot prove a negative. "

There, nicer words, but left just blunt enough that you can pick up on the satire.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
- in fact the only person to bring that up is you, because you say that is the only way you can see one contributing to the thread, which judging by the on-topic replies does not seem true.

Cresh is too smart to be 15. But the hostility HAS derailed the thread, from both sides in the form of spam posts, flippant attemtps to quiet the other, or swearing/bashing. Both of you need a time-out or something. Get back on topic and be respectful, or take the debate elsewhere.

Originally posted by Creshosk
An opinion is neither correct nor incorrect. You personally feel like I did not contribute. That is your opinion and you are welcome to it. I feel like I did.

You did in the beginning, and then went down a spiral of insults and childish behavior. Stick to your initial method.

Originally posted by Creshosk
"Theists are highly illogical for stating that their belief is fact but refuse to prove these so called facts true.

Yes, that is the initial problem being addressed.

Originally posted by Creshosk
It is much more logical to state that your belief that something does not exist is indeed fact.

I don't totally agree with that, however, it is more logical to conclude that something does not exist if there is no evidense for its existance, as well as the possibility of its existance contradicting logic, reason, and scientific fact.

To conclude that there is no God, period, is as logical or illogical as concluding that there is definately a God.

To conclude that there is no Judeo Christian God, is fair, since no evidense supports such a diety's existance, as well as the textual references to this God contradicting science and reason. Refer to other threads for further explanation.

Originally posted by Creshosk
I refuse to prove that fact however and will hide behindhe assertation that you cannot prove a negative. "

That's what many Theists do. They will not try to prove thier claims as Fact, and instead throw the argument: "well you can't prove that God doesn't exist".

The fallacy is that it doesn't tip the balance of who is right or wrong, in fact, it leaves both sides right where they started.

If you claim what you beleive as Fact, then be ready to prove it. If you can't prove it, then don't claim it as Fact.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
In this thread I am attacking a debating technique, not any person in particular. It has been done before, and will be done again.

But as I pointed out. this thread is not about religon. So the only way to be on topic in your mind is to attack the same group of people... oops, forgot to hide that by saying its the debating technique I'm attacking, yeah people are stupid enough to believe that.. wait is this thing on?! turn it off! Turn it o-*

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
I will not argue in childish circles with you. Contribute to the topic at hand, or don't post. This will be the 5th time I asked you this.

I know you're smarter than that.

Originally posted by Creshosk
And yet when I do that people belittle me. and yes, you're attacking a group of people. You attempt to be clever about it by not naming names.

I don't exactly remember calling you names. You refer to me and everyone elses as hypocrites and bigots, as well as making a sexuality slur towards myself.

I forgive it..I don't care...just respond to the post I wrote above, which was ON TOPIC

Originally posted by Creshosk
But as I pointed out. this thread is not about religon. So the only way to be on topic in your mind is to attack the same group of people... oops, forgot to hide that by saying its the debating technique I'm attacking, yeah people are stupid enough to believe that.. wait is this thing on?! turn it off! Turn it o-*

Your accusation is empty. I already explained myself. I am attacking a common argument, not a group of people or any individual.

The argument has been used for too long, and this thread is meant to squash it.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Please don't tell me you're so stupid that you can't see how your rudeness is insulting.

No, I know I've been sarcastic, but that's because you continue with this pointless bickering. My insults have been indirect, while yours have been straight up and direct.

On top of that you make false and imaginary accusations, as well as claiming that I hate Christians.

Enough already !

Originally posted by Creshosk
I know you're smarter than that.

Yes I am. Now please....refer to my above post, it was on topic, and addressing your argument.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
You did in the beginning, and then went down a spiral of insults and childish behavior. Stick to your initial method.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Yes, that is the initial problem being addressed.

I don't totally agree with that, however, it is more logical to conclude that something does not exist if there is no evidense for its existance,[/b][/quote] No evidence is not a factor. A lack of evidence only confirms that there is no evidence.

To infer that something does not exist because their is no evidence for it is EXACTLY what I've been pointing out as being Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.

That very line:
"it is more logical to conclude that something does not exist if there is no evidense for its existance"

Is the fallacy that I was told almost ignorantly that I was citing incorrectly. But I'm not.

And that's what you're doing.

a lack of evidence for the other side, does not constitute as proof nor evidence for your side. Its a non-factor.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
as well as the possibility of its existance contradicting logic, reason, and scientific fact.

Things can contradict logic. and/or be illogical and exist. Logic is not a be all end all. Its not all binding.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
To conclude that there is no God, period, is as logical or illogical as concluding that there is definately a God.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
To conclude that there is no Judeo Christian God, is fair, since no evidense supports such a diety's existance,

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
as well as the textual references to this God contradicting science and reason.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Refer to other threads for further explanation.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
That's what many Theists do.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
They will not try to prove thier claims as Fact, and instead throw the argument: "well you can't prove that God doesn't exist".

Because all you have IS a lack of evidence for the other side and defining something, which we have no way of knowing if the definition is true or false.

It's not the same thing as telling you directly to prove that God does not exist, and it is their mistake to use it like that, and you are repeating the mistake and perpetuating it.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
The fallacy is that it doesn't tip the balance of who is right or wrong, in fact, it leaves both sides right where they started.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
If you claim what you beleive as Fact, then be ready to prove it. If you can't prove it, then don't claim it as Fact.

See, this is why I cannot call you a dumbass, nor infer that you are actually stupid. You are highly intelligent.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
I don't exactly remember calling you names. You refer to me and everyone elses as hypocrites and bigots,

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
as well as making a sexuality slur towards myself.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
I forgive it..I don't care...just respond to the post I wrote above, which was [b]ON TOPIC[/b]

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Your accusation is empty. I already explained myself. I am attacking a common argument, not a group of people or any individual.

The argument has been used for too long, and this thread is meant to squash it.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
No, I know I've been sarcastic, but that's because you continue with this pointless bickering. My insults have been indirect, while yours have been straight up and direct.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
On top of that you make false and imaginary accusations, as well as claiming that I hate Christians.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Enough already !

Yes I am. Now please....refer to my above post, it was on topic, and addressing your argument.

Originally posted by Creshosk
because I was getting sick of your condecending remarks of "me not getting it."

I didn't mean to be condecending, but that's how it seemed, as if you weren't getting the gist of what I was trying to say.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Which I understand and that point we both agree on however beyond that this crops up:

I don't totally agree with that, however, it is more logical to conclude that something does not exist if there is no evidense for its existance,- No evidence is not a factor. A lack of evidence only confirms that there is no evidence.

True, which is why the negative cannot be held as fact, but as a belief it is totally valid.

Originally posted by Creshosk
To infer that something does not exist because their is no evidence for it is EXACTLY what I've been pointing out as being Argumentum ad Ignorantiam..

But this is not a matter of claiming Fact, this is a matter of claiming beleif.

I do not beleive in Yahweh, Zeus, or any other man made deity, and one of those reasons is lack of evidense. I do not have to support my beleif any further than that.

If I claim it as fact, then yes. Just like If I say that ifs a Fact that the world isn't flat, then i would have to prove it.

But If I don't beleive it's flat, I don't have to prove it.

The problem is that most Theists do not recognize thier diety or religion as a beleif....they claim it as fact.

Most Atheists make it clear that they reject those beleifs, but do not claim thier position as fact.

Do you see the issue now ?

Originally posted by Creshosk
That very line:
"it is more logical to conclude that something does not exist if there is no evidense for its existance"

Is the fallacy that I was told almost ignorantly that I was citing incorrectly. But I'm not.

And that's what you're doing.

a lack of evidence for the other side, does not constitute as proof nor evidence for your side. Its a non-factor.

I never said it was proof. That's what you don't understand.

And that line is correct. It is more logical to conclude that something doesn't exist if there is no evidense for its existance, then to conclude that something exists without evidense.

A conclusion is not fact. It's just one's beleif.

Let me rephrase that into question form:

If there is no evidense available for something, it is more logical to beleive or not to beleive ?

Originally posted by Creshosk
And this and something below was why I was satirizing by "proving" that thomas the tank engine. Its a problem of definition. If you define something incorrectly it has no bearing on it actually existing.

Things can contradict logic. and/or be illogical and exist. Logic is not a be all end all. Its not all binding.

That is true, which is why Logic does not prove things, but it certainly supports it.

When there is lack of evidense, logic and reason is the next best thing.

Originally posted by Creshosk
No evidence on either side makes this part moot.

Only science as we currently understand it. And that really depends on the texual references you're using and your understanding of said textual references.

The Bible and Quran are the references I reject.

They pose too many logical problems, as well as contradictions, and moral conflicts. I safely and confidently conclude, that the God these books are based on, does not exist.

Originally posted by Creshosk
I've participated in other threads, I've been on other message boards. Different musicians same old tune.

Actually hiding behind the fact that you can't prove a negative is what the atheists do. The Theists ignore the fact that you cannot prove a negative.

Untrue. Completely untrue.

Atheists do not feel the need to prove anything, since they don't have a beleif to impose. They have nothing to prove, because they do not beleive in anything.

They simply reject the notion.

Theists stand behind thier belief, through Faith. No actual knowledge or evidense of the diety is present.

Originally posted by Creshosk
But as I said before, the statement is true. You cannot prove that a god exists anymore than you can prove that a god does not exist.

True, but if a certain god is based on references such as the Bible and Quran, then you have something to work with. The Bible and Quran are self conflicting books, which as I said before, cause too many logical problems, as well as other issues which give reason to reject thier version of God.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Because all you have IS a lack of evidence for the other side and defining something, which we have no way of knowing if the definition is true or false.

It's not the same thing as telling you directly to prove that God does not exist, and it is their mistake to use it like that, and you are repeating the mistake and perpetuating it.

It is the fact that they hide behind. While atheists do the same thing by hiding behind the fact "You can't prove a negtive." the wording is different by the concepts are identicle. The theists only use a specific negative. "The non-existence of God.

I do not promote the notion of having to prove that God exists. A religious person should not feel compelled to explain why he or she beleives what they do.

But when they make judgements upon others, as well as making laws and guidelines by which they expect others to follow, then yes, they have to prove that they are right. Otherwise, no one needs to follow.

Atheists do not evangelize. They don't go around trying to convert Theists into Atheists. They want to be left alone, and want nothing to do with the concept of God or religion in general.

Theists are the ones who push thier beleifs upon others, and therefore, since they are the ones who claim their beleifs as fact, the Burden of Proof falls upon them.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Correct, all I'm saying is that this is true of both sides. because this is a general truth that as this thread shows applies to other things as well.

Neither side can be proven, but that's not the point.

The point is, who does the Burden of Proof fall upon ? And why ?

Originally posted by Creshosk
See, this is why I cannot call you a dumbass, nor infer that you are actually stupid. You are highly intelligent.

Thank You

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
I didn't mean to be condecending, but that's how it seemed, as if you weren't getting the gist of what I was trying to say.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
True, which is why the negative cannot be held as fact, but as a belief it is totally valid.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
But this is not a matter of claiming Fact, this is a matter of claiming beleif.

I do not beleive in Yahweh, Zeus, or any other man made deity, and one of those reasons is lack of evidense. I do not have to support my beleif any further than that.

If I claim it as fact, then yes. Just like If I say that ifs a Fact that the world isn't flat, then i would have to prove it.

But If I don't beleive it's flat, I don't have to prove it.

The problem is that most Theists do not recognize thier diety or religion as a beleif....they claim it as fact.

Most Atheists make it clear that they reject those beleifs, but do not claim thier position as fact.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Do you see the issue now ?

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
I never said it was proof. That's what you don't understand.

And that line is correct. It is more logical to conclude that something doesn't exist if there is no evidense for its existance, then to conclude that something exists without evidense.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
A conclusion is not fact. It's just one's beleif.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Let me rephrase that into question form:

If there is no evidense available for something, it is more logical to beleive or not to beleive ?

Atoms existed before we had evidence of them. To believe that they did not exist before we had evidence of them is illogical.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
That is true, which is why Logic does not prove things, but it certainly supports it.

When there is lack of evidense, logic and reason is the next best thing.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
The Bible and Quran are the references I reject.

They pose too many logical problems, as well as contradictions, and moral conflicts. I safely and confidently conclude, that the God these books are based on, does not exist.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Untrue. Completely untrue.

Atheists do not feel the need to prove anything, since they don't have a beleif to impose. They have nothing to prove, because they do not beleive in anything.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
They simply reject the notion.

Theists stand behind thier belief, through Faith. No actual knowledge or evidense of the diety is present.

True, but if a certain god is based on references such as the Bible and Quran, then you have something to work with. The Bible and Quran are self conflicting books, which as I said before, cause too many logical problems, as well as other issues which give reason to reject thier version of God.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
I do not promote the notion of having to prove that God exists. A religious person should not feel compelled to explain why he or she beleives what they do.

VVVVVVyupVVVV looks like we're agreeing thus far.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
But when they make judgements upon others, as well as making laws and guidelines by which they expect others to follow, then yes, they have to prove that they are right. Otherwise, no one needs to follow.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Atheists do not evangelize. They don't go around trying to convert Theists into Atheists. They want to be left alone, and want nothing to do with the concept of God or religion in general.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Theists are the ones who push thier beleifs upon others, and therefore, since they are the ones who claim their beleifs as fact, the Burden of Proof falls upon them.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Neither side can be proven, but that's not the point.

The point is, who does the Burden of Proof fall upon ? And why ?

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Thank You

Hmm, true I believe. Though, I think it depends on what you define as Zeus, there are many stories about him that took place in our world, those can be proven or disproven scientifically, if you define Zeus as the God that did all that, you probably can disprove him, scientifically. Of course you could still say he made it so the rules of science don't apply, but that doesn't really change the argument. Just like a young earth/universe is scientifically disproven. Scientifically the God of the young earth creationists CAN NOT exist.

Yeah, that's about what I think of that.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Actually, it doesn;t seem that way to me at all. But I suppose that's the crux of the argument. But the burden of proof should be (though usually isn't) on the theists who claim a belief in something beyond that which we can see, measure, experience, etc.

Please elaborate why. I define deities simply as beings that are more powerful than us, for example they could manipulate time and space. Its a bit like saying that the existance of aliens is illogical.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Hmm, true I believe. Though, I think it depends on what you define as Zeus, there are many stories about him that took place in our world, those can be proven or disproven scientifically, if you define Zeus as the God that did all that, you probably can disprove him, scientifically. Of course you could still say he made it so the rules of science don't apply, but that doesn't really change the argument. Just like a young earth/universe is scientifically disproven. Scientifically the God of the young earth creationists CAN NOT exist.

Yeah, that's about what I think of that.

What do you think of my argument?

Originally posted by Alfheim
What do you think of my argument?

Point me to it, please?

This thread became very stressful to read.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Point me to it, please?

This thread became very stressful to read.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Please elaborate why. I define deities simply as beings that are more powerful than us, for example they could manipulate time and space. Its a bit like saying that the existance of aliens is illogical.

Well ok here it is, but you ahve to put into context of digis quote anyway I hope you understand my point.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Well ok here it is, but you ahve to put into context of digis quote anyway I hope you understand my point.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Please elaborate why. I define deities simply as beings that are more powerful than us, for example they could manipulate time and space. Its a bit like saying that the existance of aliens is illogical.

What do you think of my argument?

Well, I don't find it unreasonable to believe that there are beings more powerful in this Universe. But I think you would have to elaborate what makes them deities in your opinion. Maybe answer a few question, like: Where do they come from? How powerful are they? How do they interact in our world? Do they leave scientific evidence when they do? Why should they be considered Gods and not just more powerful beings than us? What is the source of their power? etc.