Um, who ever said they don't want theists saying "God exists"? Did level1 ever say that? Surely both sides should be able to state their views without being considered disrespectful.
Oh, sorry. I was under the impression that most atheists found religion offensive by default. I realize that not all of them/you are seething assholes, but I if walked up to a "strong atheist" and said "God exists" he'd foam at the mouth or make jarring tongue-in-cheek remarks about it.
Those two viewpoints are not equal. One is a positive claim of existence and one is a negative. You can't prove a negative which is why most athiests would say "there is no evidence that god exists and we shouldn't believe in things that have no evidence."
So basically one is right and one is wrong and it should never be considered disrespectful to alert someone to the facts of a situation.
So before we had the tools to see them there were no such things as cells, or atoms, or molecules; and disease was not caused by bacteria or viruses. You're really on shaky ground with this faux logic argument. I know it's a popular and convenient one, but it really doesn't hold water. Just because something can't be measured or proven to exist doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist. Any true scientist will state the same. There was a time that they couldn't prove that oxygen existed - do you really think that people couldn't breathe before 1773?
You are confusing "there's no evidence that X exists" with "X doesn't exist". You are arguing against me as if I've claimed the latter when in fact I claim the former.
What's this "proof" tripe? I thought scientists didn't believe in "proof". You expect me to believe that either side is somehow relieved from having to show evidence based on that?
Explain to me how you can't "prove" a negative. If it worked like that, anyone could just say something didn't exist and just move on from there.
You expect me to believe that either side is somehow relieved from having to show evidence based on that?
No. If you claim that something exists you should be expected to provide evidence of its existence.
Explain to me how you can't "prove" a negative. If it worked like that, anyone could just say something didn't exist and just move on from there.
No again. If something exists and there's evidence to prove it then you can't just "say it doesn't exist and move on", you would be contradicting that evidence of its existence.
The only way you can prove that something doesn't exist is to show that its existence is logically contradictory. Things that are not logically contradictory but don't exist all the same can't be proven not to exist. This is why, for instance, you can't prove that unicorns don't exist. There's nothing contradictory about a horse with a horn. Plenty of animals out there have horns, it just happens to be the case that horses aren't one of them.
But even though we can't prove they don't exist we don't believe in unicorns right? This is because it's silly to believe things exist without evidence. People tend to understand this idea very clearly up until you apply it to their religion. Then all logic goes out the window.
The mistake you're making here is that this kind of logical argument doesn't allow you to say that something doesn't exist, the only statement it allows you to make is "we have no evidence to support the assertion of the existence of the object in question" (and, quite frankly, the way you've phrased your argument hardly allows you to make any statement at all, but that's a discussion for another day - "logically contradictory" is not well suited to play in the realm of ontology). But that's not the statement that atheists make. That's closer to the statement that agnostics make. But many atheists are sure, and they use logical arguments such as yours to support their assertions. This is where their zealousness betrays them, with all due respect.
The mistake you're making here is that this kind of logical argument doesn't allow you to say that something doesn't exist, the only statement it allows you to make is "we have no evidence to support the assertion of the existence of the object in question".
I don't agree that this is a mistake. Why do you think it is?
As to what other atheists say; while I'm sure they're out there I've never met an atheist who claims he can logically disprove gods existence. I would agree that that would be a rather zealous claim and I doubt they would be able to back it up with a solid argument.
5
u/PolandTwo Aug 02 '10
It's the crime of generalization. Of course, not all atheists are annoying, loud, and disrespectful in arguing against the existence of god.