This guy is clearly not right in the head : religiouscringe

[-] JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 26 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I think a better way of phrasing it is that I don't know that a god exists (as in, any god, I can be quite certain that the god of the Torah or Bible is too logically incoherent to exist). I admit I don't know. But that doesn't mean I should act as though one does, especially as I wouldn't know which mutually exclusive one it would be if it did exist.

The burden of proof is on one who makes a claim to knowledge, either that a thing does exist, or that it doesn't exist. The default state is agnosticism, or admitting that you don't know, not simply disbelief.

Edit: In fact, the OP's original statement seemed to be agnostic in nature, admitting that they couldn't prove that god didn't exist, but since they couldn't prove that god did exist either, that they shouldn't waste their time acting as though it did ('pretending').

It was only the believer who misunderstood them as seeming to claim that god definitely didn't exist, but then they got into a sidetrack discussion about the burden of proof, rather than just correcting the believer's assumption about OP's belief.

[-] Zozano@aussie.zone 10 points 1 day ago

An even easier way of saying it is "I'm not convinced god exists"

[-] spankmonkey@lemmy.world -3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Yeah, no. It isn't the claim that requires proof, only the claim of something existing that requires proof.

Repeated attempt to verify whether something exists not supporting the thing's existence is strong evidence that it doesn't exist.

[-] JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

It's the claim of knowledge that requires proof, whether that knowledge is about a thing existing or about it not existing, of about anything else, such as it being red. The only belief that doesn't need proof is a lack of knowledge.

Edit: if I'd never seen a black swan, and therefore concluded that since I had no proof that black swans existed, to believe that black swans definitely don't exist, but then one day I was shown a black swan, my initial belief would have been proven incorrect.

However, if I instead initially believed that I didn't know if black swans existed, and that I had no evidence to believe that they did, when I was shown one I could update my belief to that they did exist, without my previous belief being wrong - it was simply a lack of knowledge.

[+] spankmonkey@lemmy.world -6 points 1 day ago

You are conflating ignorance of something existing (lack of knowledge) with lack of evidence despite many attempts to prove something exists (failure to find evidence to support something or finding evidence it is actually something else).

Let's take a myth that something causes something else, like say vaccines cause autism. What is initially an "I don't know for sure" turns into a "no they don't because all tests show zero causation or correlation" which doesn't prove that they don't directly but does prove that they don't by evidence not supporting the claim. Religions have claimed for millennia that deities exist but there has never been any proof and when tested scientifically all of the claims have been disproven by showing the actual causes of 'miracles' and other signs.

We know a lot of 'alternative' medicine is not effective because there is no proof that it is effective, because you can't prove a negative. Your approach means we have to be agnostic about literally everything because we can't prove that anything exists either as we might all be in a simulation!

[-] kopasz7@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

It's not about lack of knowledge, everyone lacks some knowledge. Rather, it's about noticing and acknowledging if you don't know.

The ignorant says he knows, when he doesn't; he is unaware of his lack of knowledge.

Somone who says 'I don't know' is aware of his lack of knowledge.

[-] JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 8 points 1 day ago

If you think the scientific method claims knowledge then you may be misunderstanding it. It is a way of constructing the best model we have of the universe, until a better one comes along to replace it. That means it is always evolving in light of new evidence and research, and any current model we have is almost certain to be wrong in some ways. We should act on the best model we have, but that is very far from claiming knowledge and true certainty.

[-] Zozano@aussie.zone 1 points 1 day ago

My claim is "there is not a unicorn in my garage", and I can prove that.

[-] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

It is invisible and pissed that you haven't let it out to eat in days!

You do realize you are claiming the same thing as someone who claims there is no god because all evidence points to a lack of a god the same way you would have proven the lack of a unicorn, right?

[-] Zozano@aussie.zone 2 points 1 day ago

Perhaps a bad example. My definition of unicorn is that it can't be invisible, and is the size of a normal horse.

Still, you can prove the non-existance of a thing given certain parameters like location or time.

[-] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

So all of human history when we are proving that deities don't exist.

[-] Zozano@aussie.zone 1 points 1 day ago

Not exactly, because we can't prove the non-existance of a spiritual realm we can't measure.

In this case it's less about burden of proof, and more about the basic epistemological stance of reserving judgment until evidence has been provided.

[-] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Atheism is a response to the claim that deities exist. They are fictional characters who are said to exist with literally zero proof of their existence.

How much evidence is needed to prove something doesn't exist? How do you prove that something doesn't exist?

Reserving judgement is a geeat stance, but how many more thousands of years of disproven religious and spiritual claims are needed to be enough to say gods don't exist any more than bigfoot, ghosts, vampires, and werewolves?

[-] Zozano@aussie.zone 1 points 1 day ago

The lack of evidence for something to exist is not inherently a problem. Take for example black holes, they were only theorized before discovery.

You don't need to prove something doesn't exist, it's just a moot point. For any skeptic, as a matter of epistemology, not having any proof is as redundant as having proof for its nonexistence.

The lesson religious people need to learn, is as aforementioned; not having proof should be the disqualifying factor, not proof to contradict their established beliefs

[-] bobdylans49thbeard@lemmy.world -2 points 1 day ago

Yeah, no. Any claim has the burden of proof. If you say, "there is no god," then it is absolutely on you to show your work. If you say, "I do not accept the claim that there is a god," that requires no proof because it's not a claim. This is basic logic.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

You're absolutely wrong. You cannot prove a negative. In a strictly logical sense it's the person making the positive claim that is required to show proof. A negative claim can only ever be strongly inferred.

[-] bobdylans49thbeard@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

I agree that negative claims cannot be proved, but that is actually a completely separate point t and doesn't just give free reign to anyone to make any and all negative claims without the burden of proof. If I claim there is no universe, it's still true that the burden of proof is on me and that I cannot prove my claim. Both are true.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago

Technically true, but it's childishly easy to disprove almost any god as defined by popular religions. It's easy because the followers make it easy, with their claims of action.

"Just pray and God will always reveal himself"

Well, that's easy then. I did A, B didn't occur, so obviously this god as defined doesn't exist. Of course, most religious people will immediately walk back their claims if you do this, but that's basically them changing their definition of god.

load more comments (1 replies)

[+] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca -15 points 17 hours ago

The technique used by many propagandists is to make a claim, then when someone says "that doesn't seem right..." immediately demand proof. See you can make any claim you want, then require others to prove you wrong, and then declare victory when they don't bother. The more of an ass you are, the less likely someone will want to make an effort to continue the conversation, so the propagandist will always "win" the conversation. Of course by "win" I mean the propagandist convinces everyone they're an insufferable asshole that's not worth talking to.

"God does not exist" is a claim. Declaring that your claim is unprovable, while also trying to demanding others to prove you wrong is a particularly malignant form of this technique. You're declaring that you're not required to prove your claim, while demanding others to prove you wrong.

Religion is about metaphysical concepts that are neither provable nor disprovable. Atheism is all about promoting fallacies, being insufferable assholes towards people that have different beliefs, and therefore "winning" the conversation.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] Wmrus@lemmy.world -5 points 1 day ago

[removed by mod]

[-] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago

Well, you're wrong. That's not how the burden of proof works.

[-] SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social 4 points 1 day ago

If I may re-state the issue here: Lanky_Pomegranate630 says, "You haven't proved your claim, so I don't believe it." Religious person says, "I'm axiomatically correct. You have to prove that I'm wrong."

[+] StarvingMartist@sh.itjust.works -23 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I mean he's got a point. You brought it up, why are you telling others to prove it?

Bro literally brought up logical fallacies that the first person was using

[-] Hylactor@sopuli.xyz 6 points 1 day ago

"A prayed for car gets better gas mileage", or alternatively "praying for a car does not effect gas mileage." Are either of these a true or a false statement? Well, at the very least there is no evidence to suggest a correlation. You could argue that you would need to collect data in order to prove or disprove either statement, but how could you even design an experiment let alone measure it? What is praying? Does it matter what time it is, or which direction you're facing? What if it only works on certain days, or with certain props? Which language? Does it only work on domestic cars? And besides, if at the end of the day you desire better gas mileage the most productive thing you could do is simply drive more conservatively.

Now, is there a god? There is no way to determine what the evidence even looks like. A scale measures weight, but what is the unit which measures god? What can it even be measured against if we can't have a control? If at the end of the day you believe there is a god, and that good an evil are definable, and there will be a big performance review in the sky, then the most practical thing to do would be to live conservatively.

But if we're talking evidence. It's, not, looking, particularly, promising.

load more comments (2 replies)

Religious Cringe