Ah, "gawd"... America's favourite fairytale character. After centuries, nobody has provided a shred of empirical evidence for its existence. Yet Walsh (and all his DW cohorts) talks to this nonexistent entity every day.
Disappointing. Atheism is the natural conclusion of the "logic" that Walsh and Shapiro espouse.
He may be (probably is) mistaken about God; however, that does not in any way invalidate what he reveals in "What Is a Woman?" and "Am I Racist?", which is that woke people are dangerous lunatics and mindless acolytes.
shareAbsolutely. But religious people are "dangerous lunatics and mindless acolytes" as well. Sure, Catholicism (Walsh's fairytale of choice/birth) is having a moment in the sun, but it was historically an appallingly wicked force, and may be again down the line. Islam is far from the only naughty religion in history.
shareCompletely agree. I agree with a LOT of Matt Walsh's opinions but it's very difficult to take a man seriously that believe in a magic man in the sky
shareYou can't prove God doesn't exist. So, you go your way and others like Matt will go theirs. No need to mock, denigrate or vilify anyone for their beliefs, or in your case, non-beliefs.
Take your hatred elsewhere.
Oh...and, have a nice day.
That's not how burden of proof works, sir. The onus is on the person(s) claiming the existence of something. All these centuries later, and nobody's ever done anything but a laughably piss-poor job of evidencing the existence of "gawd".
shareYou're the accuser, so shouldn't the burden of proof be on you that God does not exist?
shareLol, no. The religious make the claim, us atheists ask for proof. The religious cannot provide a molecule of proof, and so us atheists ridicule their stupidity.
Same shit with CRT and the like. The disciples cannot provide a shred of proof for institutional racism in 2024, and so the non-believers correctly ridicule poisonous nonsense.
You used the term 'burden of proof'' which by definition is a legal term. If you accused me of theft, the burden of proof would be on you to prove I stole, correct? You are the one who is accusing. You are saying there is no god, so the burden of proof is on you to prove it.
Wrong analogy.
Yes, If I accuse you of theft I have to bring forth evidence. You don't have to, you can just say "no, I didn't do it, you don't have evidence". You don't need to prove the negative.
The same: if you say "my god exists" then you have to bring the evidence. Just how you don't need to prove the negative "I didn't steal" so I don't need to prove the negative "there is no god".
Usually the positive claim needs to be proven (or have evidence).
I didn't say God exists. You said God doesn't exist. You started the thread.
Then when people argued with you you said the burden of proof is on them, but I'm pointing out you're the accuser so the burden of proof is on you as the accuser.
Nope. I didn't start the thread.
Even if you start the tread with "I didn't steal it" I still don't come to you and say "prove you didn't steal it or you did steal it".
It's still ON YOU to prove the positive. The accuser is the one saying "you stole it" without any evidence.
How is that hard to understand?
OP even clearly stated "After centuries, nobody has provided a shred of empirical evidence for its existence."
Can you actually read?
I'm an atheist, but I acknowledge that I can't disprove god's existence any more than a religious person can prove it. The burden of proof falls on whoever is trying to persuade another person, which in your case is proving there isn't a god.
A religious person believes because of faith. He can't help having faith any more than I can help not having it. Neither one of us can prove we are right, so when you state outright that the other side is wrong, it's up to you to prove it.
And you don't understand the context or logic. Read the op again.
Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat
"nobody has provided a shred of empirical evidence for its existence. Yet Walsh (and all his DW cohorts) talks to this nonexistent entity every day."
No, if you believe in the tooth fairy and I tell you "no, that's not real" that doesn't mean that I Need to prove to you that's not real.
The one that postulates the existence has to bring the evidence. Period. Not the one that doesn't accept that claim.
And no one tries to persuade that there is no god, all we do is to ask for the evidence. You don't have evidence? Then most likely it doesn't exist.
Read:
https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialSciences/ppecorino/PHIL_of_RELIGION_TEXT/CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm
"You cannot claim that "miracles exist unless someone proves that they do not exist.
You cannot claim that "souls exist unless someone proves that they do not exist.
You cannot claim that "angels exist unless someone proves that they do not exist.
You cannot claim that "deities exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."
"The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.
The person making a negative claim cannot logically prove nonexistence. And here's why: to know that a X does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge would require simultaneous access to all parts of the world and beyond (omnipresence). Therefore, to be certain of the claim that X does not exist one would have to possess abilities that are non-existent. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes these special abilities. The claim that X does not exist is therefore unjustifiable."
"From X, which is the assertion, is not yet disproved. Therefore, X.
This is a Fallacy. If X is unproven, then it is unproven and remains unproven until reason and evidence is provided or secured to establish the proof or high probability of the claim being true..
Examples:
(1)Of course God exists. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?
(2)Of course pink elephants inhabit Mars. We don't see them because they blend in. Can you prove otherwise?
(3) Of course Santa Claus exists. No one has ever proved, to my knowledge, that Santa Claus does not exist. And if one were to fly to the North Pole and say: Well, look, there's no toy factory there. A believer could argue: Well, Santa Claus knew you were coming and moved his operations to the South Pole. So you fly down to the South Pole. No Santa Claus factory, toy factory there. So the believer would say: Oh, he moved it back up to the North Pole.
(4) Of course leprechauns exist. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?
(5) Of course ghosts exist. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?
(6) Of course yellow polka dotted aliens exist. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?
(7) Of course X exist. Has anyone ever proven otherwise? "
You need to study some logic.
Wow that's a lot of words there. What's important is that in the OP a claim was made that God doesn't exist. The conversation flowed from there. So then the initial claim was that God doesn't exist- not that he does, therefore the conversation is about proving he does not exist, there is no burden of proof for those in contention. I'm sure I'll get a word salad that dances around the sole important fact that I've stated here.
shareSigh. The OP didn't claim that.
The op literally said "After centuries, nobody has provided a shred of empirical evidence for its existence. Yet Walsh (and all his DW cohorts) talks to this nonexistent entity every day."
It is non-existent because there is NO evidence for it's existence.
Also, there are NOT my words, there is link there. Learn to read.
Actually the words you quote do indeed make that claim. He starts by stating that evidence has not been forwarded of the existence of God, but an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. He didn't get that memo though and concluded that God is "nonexistent", get this, MAKING THE CLAIM THAT GOD DOESN'T EXIST.
Being nasty doesn't make it OK to be wrong.
"MAKING THE CLAIM THAT GOD DOESN'T EXIST."
The initial claim is "god exists". Believers make this claim by believing. So the initial claim IS god exists. The initial claim IS the positive one. Without the initial claim "god exists" the negative makes no sense. Context.
And anyway, the burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim. ALWAYS.
Sigh, why is so hard to understand it?
https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialSciences/ppecorino/PHIL_of_RELIGION_TEXT/CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm
"If a person claims that X exists and is real then the burden is on that person to supply some support for that claim, some evidence or proof that others can and should examine before accepting it. It is incorrect to think that X exists and is real until someone can prove that there is no X. It is also wrong to think that just because you can not prove that X exists that does not mean that X does not exist and therefore X does exist."
You'd have a point if Walsh were in the conversation, but he isn't. The conversation that we're in then did not start with Walsh it started with the OP. The OP was not extending his conversation from Walsh to us, he was commenting on Walsh's belief, then he made a claim. If you disagree then quote me the words that Walsh typed in this conversation please.
shareYes, and Walsh's belief is that there is a god. It doesn't have to be in the conversation, we know his beliefs. Again, context.
But, AGAIN: "the burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim. ALWAYS."
Sigh, why is so hard to understand this?
The first claim made in this conversation was by the OP stating that God is "nonexistent". It doesn't matter what Walsh said- he's not in the conversation, so he cannot possibly back his claims should he have any. So then a new conversation was started and the first claim was that God is "nonexistent". It's not me that has difficulty understanding here, and for being as dim as you are you really don't have a reason to be an asshole also.
shareYes, and Walsh's belief is that there is a god. It doesn't have to be in the conversation, we know his beliefs. Again, context.
But, AGAIN: "the burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim. ALWAYS."
Sigh, why is so hard to understand this?
You still don't get it? And don't call others dim when you are that stupid to not understand this simple bit:
Regardless who made the first claim (and that claim IS made by religion) "the burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim. ALWAYS."
How many times do i need to repeat it until you understand?
http://www.artofwondering.com/2021/03/03/onus-of-the-burden-of-proof/
"The person making an assertion (a positive claim or proposition; or that something exists) has the burden to prove that claim as true. It’s the logical responsibility to provide sufficient supporting evidence for any arguments they make. Good reasoners and thinkers should always be able to provide reasons for their assertions."
I'm an asshole with idiots.
And even if we cater to your stupidity: his claim IS supported by the lack of evidence of a god.
A futile endeavor. Our little friend is somewhat dense. He's probably upset that someone insulted his imaginary friend. It seems he suspects the Jews are pulling the strings here.
shareIt does have to be in the conversation- what are you on? If Walsh is not in the conversation, which he is not, then his words don't matter. This did not start with "Let's debate: Is there a God or isn't there"? It started with a comment, then a claim. Your copy and paste doesn't work. You're wrong and you know it and the reason you can't learn is because your ego gets in the way, the ego of someone proven wrong in a public forum in embarrassing fashion. You also think that if you just cover your ears and scream then you win but you don't. Refusing to recognize points is a concession in itself.
shareDamn, you're really stupid.
"Ah, "gawd"... America's favourite fairytale character. After centuries, nobody has provided a shred of empirical evidence for its existence. Yet Walsh (and all his DW cohorts) talks to this nonexistent entity every day."
The existence of god is already implied in what Walsh is said to believe.
" You're wrong and you know it and the reason you can't learn is because your ego gets in the way, the ego of someone proven wrong in a public forum in embarrassing fashion. "
That applies to you my friend. In this case I'm not wrong.
If I say "That idiot Sparky believes that there's a god without any evidence" the context is set in you believing in a god. You don't need to be part of the conversation.
Plus: you ignore everything i said - several times, like "But, AGAIN: "the burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim. ALWAYS."
The positive claim is "god exists". "god doesn't exist" is NOT a positive claim.
You are too stupid to understand what is written, although I gave you several links.
"You also think that if you just cover your ears and scream then you win but you don't. Refusing to recognize points is a concession in itself."
That actually, my imbecile friend, applies to you. You didn't bother for a second to address the links I posted and you just shout "No no, it's like I say".
Stupid and dishonest.
GTFO.
PS: asking for evidence that there is no evidence is ... stupid and ilogic in itself.
You're the one making the claim, so it's up to you to prove it.
shareWhat claim? I lost track.
shareRead again.
If it's too complicated for you ... sorry.
Also, the claim:
"nobody has provided a shred of empirical evidence for its existence". So do you want me to bring evidence that there is no evidence?
Hahahahaahaha. You're dumb.
What are you being accused of here?
shareYou are correct, the existence of God/god(s) cannot be proven.
Believing in God/god(s) is a leap of faith. The same is truth for atheists; the non-existence of God/god(s) is a leap of faith and cannot be proven. The most intelligent answer to the question of (God/gods): "I don't know".
What I find to be an interesting irony about many atheists is they (like you) feel compelled to announce their faith and demand it be accepted. Almost like religious fundamentalists. No exactly like religious fundamentalists.
" the non-existence of God/god(s) is a leap of faith and cannot be proven. "
Nope, it's not.
Pink aliens don't inhabit the hollow earth. Is that a leap of faith? Or we can say "there is no evidence to support that pink aliens inhabit the hollow earth"
Or ... pink aliens have created humans. Is there any evidence to support that? Is there a leap of faith to say "there is no evidence that pink aliens have created humans". I don't know it's not quite enough.
The Earth & Universe and all living things inspire belief in a Creator; more than that, creation screams out God’s existence (as noted in ancient texts like Psalm 19:1-4 & Romans 1:18-20). To suggest that everything in the Universe came about through accident and that there’s no Intelligent Designer behind it all is like expecting a Boeing 747 to emerge out of a metal scrapyard after millions of years. It’s absurd. The hypothetical scrapyard can’t even produce a simple table or chair let alone a jet airplane!
Furthermore, the scientific axiom of biogenesis notes that life only proceeds from life. In other words, living things cannot manifest from something unliving. Only conscious life can produce conscious life. It’s a scientific fact, obvious to a simpleton. As such, there is some kind of God—a Creator—from which all life proceeds.
So, the question is not if there is a God, but rather…
Who is God?
As for how life arose, the primordial soup theory is a hell of a lot more compelling than "sky man did it". And life on earth has almost been eliminated, multiple times, by massive extinction events. 99% of species that have ever lived here, are extinct. Odd approach for a "gawd" overseeing his "creation".
shareAside from the fundamental logical problems that introducing a god-like figure creates, you can simply look at the true nature of nature to see that any benevolent "god" makes absolutely no sense whatsoever...
A biological molecule set on brute replication at any cost. Savagery on a scale impossible to comprehend - a cosmic gladiator war of dog-eat-dog survival where creatures viciously eat each other alive, infected by parasites and viruses which all exist to serve their own continuity. Unpredictable chaotic forces at work, where the most kind human being and the most malicious are on equal footing against them.
"God works in mysterious ways" is just a cope for "shit happens that has no moral rhyme or reason to it". There is zero evidence of any ghost in the machine. No unseen entity pulling the strings.
The "original sin" ;)
shareWho created God then? Oh, he always existed. Very convenient...
shareIsn't that what immortality means in the absolute sense? It's one of the (many) reasons the Almighty is to be awed and revered.
As such, God can give immortality to those who accept the gift of redemption:
Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.share
- 2 Timothy 1:10
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
- Romans 6:23
Whatever, dude.
In any event, as I stated before, there is no need to mock, denigrate or vilify anyone for their beliefs, or in your case, non-beliefs.
You're still a hater.
So we shouldn't vilify nazis, murderers, pedophiles, etc??
We SHOULD mock, denigrate and vilify anyone that has a belief that is detrimental or even harmful to society or other individuals or even to himself.
"...We SHOULD mock, denigrate and vilify anyone that has a belief that is detrimental or even harmful to society or other individuals or even to himself."
With that standard, 99.999% of the people of the world deserve mocking, denigration and vilification.
And, you're at the top of the list for posting such stupid shit.
Have a nice day.
“You can’t prove God DOESNT exist”
Sure you can! The Bible says the world was created in 7 days, but we know that this is extremely untrue. The Bible says men and women came from Adam and Eve, but we know this is untrue due to evolution, which has irrefutable evidence recorded and studied by thousands of scholars. I suppose you could argue the Bible and God can exist independently from eachother, but then why study the Bible at all if you recognize it’s entirely unreliable?
We don't know the entire truth yet...so, in the meantime some people have faith that there are other answers to be discovered.
In any event, why does the OP feel compelled to mock, vilify, denigrate and minimize others when their beliefs are different from his?
Well, I cant speak for the OP. I dont like it when atheists get all high and mighty. I dont believe in any religion but I understand why people believe. But, for your argument, I think you could argue argue an entire truth will never be discovered .
shareIt's really quite funny that you say
"No need to mock, denigrate or vilify anyone for their beliefs, or in your case, non-beliefs.
Take your hatred elsewhere."
When that's what Matt Walsh does
He mocks foolishness, not religious beliefs.
shareIf he mocked foolishness, he'd mock religious beliefs. Not people, situations, and ideas that he, and seemingly you, are too simple minded to understand.
shareZING! Wow! You sure skewered me with that one! That was THE best online juvenile anonymous insult from a mommy's basement dwelling troll licking his Cheeto-encrusted fingers EVAH.
Congratulations!
Now...go fuck yourself, little boy.
GOD is in the details. GOD is subatomic. We dont understand much of quantum physics yet, why would you assume we would understand or notice GOD like we do the tree across the street?
Just becuase you cant see it, doesnt mean it doesnt exist. And with Quantum physics getting weirder and more *awesome* by they day, i believe in GOD even more now.
You still think GOD is an old man in a white beard.
I don't see any evidence in there. You're just saying that we might have evidence of something, someday.
shareAssuming we arent in a simulatoin, i see evidence of GOD all around me in everything. And even if we are in a simulation, someone had to create our creators and so on and so on.
shareWhat evidence? And why is it that evidence an evidence for YOUR god and not a different god?
Because you see there are few problems here:
1. Evidence of a creator
2. Evidence that the creator is a god
3. Evidence that the god is actually the god you believe in.
And you have NO evidence for any of those. You just create a "god of gaps" - I don't know therefore god. The simplest and most idiotic form of a god.
How does Matt define "god"? An open-minded person realizes there is no simple answer.
"Walsh (and all his DW cohorts) talks to this nonexistent entity every day." Is that something you know or think?
Albert Einstein believed an intelligent mind or spirit that created the universe with immutable laws. He not believe in a personal God who answers prayers or interferes in human affairs. That indicates a god.
"Walsh (and all his DW cohorts) talks to this nonexistent entity every day." Is that something you know or think?
So you won’t mind because you think it’s make believe that I spout curses at you when I read the Bible every night. Don’t think I’ll do it you are wrong. Nasty boils and other afflictions.
shareVery true, all the rationality comes to a swift standstill as soon as their sky daddy and bible beliefs are in the picture. Both sides have their own pet delusions with heaping doses of hypocrisy.
shareMy favorite part of being an atheist is reminding everyone I'm the smartest person in the room (unless there's a vegan in the room. And if it's a vegan atheist, watch out, you're going to be told just how dumb you are!).
shareThe difference is that the left's delusions are provable.
My view as an atheist is that there is no God, but then, the fact that a universe exists or, in fact, *anything* at all goes against all the science we understand. There should be nothing. Of course, God shouldn't exist either hence my atheism. The stock answer is that God always existed doesn't work for me, but the existence or not of a God cannot be proven or dismissed.
But one thing I've learned over my life is that I'd greatly prefer to live among people of faith. I envy them a bit I think..
Are you really claiming that the bible has a more logical belief system than modern leftist ideology? Does moving a claim into the past, with unknown authors, make it any less irrational?
Because even if you were to give fair-weather logicians like Matt Walsh a pass for a general "god" belief (which you shouldn't, imo), you have to factor in their more specific beliefs. Virgin births, resurrection, original sin, etc. etc.
And these beliefs fundamentally tie into their political positions as well, so it's not like it's benign in its impact. Ultimately I think all illogical nonsense like this should be called out, and it's unfortunate that the modern rational human has no real place to call their own. The right is infested with religion, and the left is filled with its own cult-like delusions that many atheists have unfortunately bought into hook, line, and sinker.
Are you really claiming that the bible has a more logical belief system than modern leftist ideology?
So you're going to disingenuously sidestep the argument - so be it.
share
Not at all. I don't know what's in the bible so I won't comment on that but I do know that a lot of what the left ideology is is pure garbage that is *conclusively* proven wrong by science.
The fact that I don't believe in any God and probably wouldn't believe much of what is in the bible is immaterial - supernatural faith can't be disproved by science any more than it can be proved which is why I don't argue religion.
I have a very hard time believing you don't know the type of bullshit that's in the bible - things that are also conclusively proven wrong by science, in an even more overt way (including the fundamentals like virgin births, etc.). But I'm not going to sit here and try to force you to argue, so whatever.
share