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.
I prefer the more accurate “there is no evidence that God exists.” What proof do I have there is no evidence? “Behold, my field of evidence of God’s existence, and notice it is barren. To my knowledge, there is no evidence. If you have any non-anecdotal evidence of God’s existence, I’d be happy to look at it, but absent that, there does not appear to be any evidence.”
If pressed, there’s no evidence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, unicorns, or leprechauns either. Does that mean they don’t exist? I guess that depends on who speaks first, right?
The only reasonable way to think and live is to only believe in things that have evidence they exist. To, as a default, believe in something and then require proof of its non-existence doesn’t make any sense. There is literally no end of things that “exist” if you just believe in things without evidence. Therefore, requesting “proof of non-existence” makes absolutely no sense in any context except when evidence of existence has already been established (e.g. someone declaring the moon landing was faked, where there is established evidence showing the moon landing having been real. A case would have to be made why that evidence was somehow illegitimate).
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.
Actually, “God does not exist” is not a claim. “God exists” is a claim, though. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell’s_teapot and my other comment for clarity on this
I prefer the more accurate “there is no evidence that God exists.” What proof do I have there is no evidence? “Behold, my field of evidence of God’s existence, and notice it is barren. To my knowledge, there is no evidence. If you have any non-anecdotal evidence of God’s existence, I’d be happy to look at it, but absent that, there does not appear to be any evidence.”
If pressed, there’s no evidence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, unicorns, or leprechauns either. Does that mean they don’t exist? I guess that depends on who speaks first, right?
The only reasonable way to think and live is to only believe in things that have evidence they exist. To, as a default, believe in something and then require proof of its non-existence doesn’t make any sense. There is literally no end of things that “exist” if you just believe in things without evidence. Therefore, requesting “proof of non-existence” makes absolutely no sense in any context except when evidence of existence has already been established (e.g. someone declaring the moon landing was faked, where there is established evidence showing the moon landing having been real. A case would have to be made why that evidence was somehow illegitimate).