Teacher Demands Her Students Deny the Existence of God

[bodecea]

This site claims: "You can’t prove it either way." Of course many people, including some renowned philosophers, have said otherwise.

Bullshit.

Is this the reaction of a rational thinker? lol You really should work on your thinking skills.

50 Nobel Laureates and Other Great Scientists Who Believe in God

That's fine. They believe in god. They have faith. Wonderful. Outstanding.

 

[Thunderbird]

This site claims: "You can’t prove it either way." Of course many people, including some renowned philosophers, have said otherwise.

Bullshit.

Is this the reaction of a rational thinker? lol You really should work on your thinking skills.

Um.... you're the one who just claimed to speak for "renowned philosophers" claiming to be able to prove the unprovable --- with no link whatsoever, Sparky.

So -- bullshit.

Read my sigline.

Obviously I did not claim to speak for renowned philosophers. I guess you should work on your reading comprehension as well. Maybe you should stop posting on public forums until you are less ignorant?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Schools are all about reality...God can't be proven so he doesn't belong in schools.

 

[guno]

Yeah, that's not proof of God. Please try again.

Why not?

Because there is no evidence the creation happened the way the bible says it did.

That has to do with the Bible, not God's existence.

The anti-Godists are simply so desperate to disprove the existence of God, but they can't.

Cannot disprove a negative, the onus is on the ones that claims a positive statement about a god. That's like me saying prove that invisible blue monkeys don't fly out of the exhaust of a car

That's why in religion its called faith and not fact

 

[ScienceRocks]

This site claims: "You can’t prove it either way." Of course many people, including some renowned philosophers, have said otherwise.

Bullshit.

Is this the reaction of a rational thinker? lol You really should work on your thinking skills.

50 Nobel Laureates and Other Great Scientists Who Believe in God

That's fine. They believe in god. They have faith. Wonderful. Outstanding.

That can't prove that failth. Schools teach things that are proven like math, science, writing and history!

 

[Thunderbird]

Where is your evidence that the teacher was a "devout Christian"? Just provide one link to prove this statement.

A Texas Middle School Teacher Did Not Force the Class to Admit God is a Myth

This site claims: "You can’t prove it either way." Of course many people, including some renowned philosophers, have said otherwise.

The site goes on to talk about faith, but many people think there is a God and don't rely on faith.

The site also says Jordan Wooley said the statement about God was a fact. She stated she said fact or opinion.

That's nice. Now are you still hanging onto your pitchfork and torch?

Wow are you out of it! The fanatics with the pitchforks and torches are of course on the left.

Not a Very P.C. Thing to Say

Ok, so you are deeply into denial. Now we know.

Really?

Microaggression | National Review Online

Students challenge free-speech rules on college campuses

UCLA Prof accused of racist “micro-aggression” for correcting student grammar

Religious Liberty Archives - FIRE

 

[Thunderbird]

Yeah, that's not proof of God. Please try again.

Why not?

Because there is no evidence the creation happened the way the bible says it did.

That has to do with the Bible, not God's existence.

The anti-Godists are simply so desperate to disprove the existence of God, but they can't.

Cannot disprove a negative, the onus is on the ones that claims a positive statement about a god. That's like me saying prove that invisible blue monkeys don't fly out of the exhaust of a car

That's why in religion its called faith and not fact

If you are an atheist you should be able to prove that there is no God.

Some people believe there is no God. It is an act of faith. You could call it faith-based pessimism.

Don't atheists make the positive statement: Belief in God is ill-considered. Don't they have to prove it?

 

[bodecea]

A Texas Middle School Teacher Did Not Force the Class to Admit God is a Myth

This site claims: "You can’t prove it either way." Of course many people, including some renowned philosophers, have said otherwise.

The site goes on to talk about faith, but many people think there is a God and don't rely on faith.

The site also says Jordan Wooley said the statement about God was a fact. She stated she said fact or opinion.

That's nice. Now are you still hanging onto your pitchfork and torch?

Wow are you out of it! The fanatics with the pitchforks and torches are of course on the left.

Not a Very P.C. Thing to Say

Ok, so you are deeply into denial. Now we know.

Really?

Microaggression | National Review Online

Students challenge free-speech rules on college campuses

UCLA Prof accused of racist “micro-aggression” for correcting student grammar.

Really.

 

[guno]

Yeah, that's not proof of God. Please try again.

Why not?

Because there is no evidence the creation happened the way the bible says it did.

That has to do with the Bible, not God's existence.

The anti-Godists are simply so desperate to disprove the existence of God, but they can't.

Cannot disprove a negative, the onus is on the ones that claims a positive statement about a god. That's like me saying prove that invisible blue monkeys don't fly out of the exhaust of a car

That's why in religion its called faith and not fact

If you are an atheist you should be able to prove that there is no God.

Some people believe there is no God. It is an act of faith. You could call it faith-based pessimism.

Don't atheists make the positive statement: Belief in God is ill-considered. Don't they have to prove it?

Prove what? That there isn't something?

Argument from ignorance
Arguments similar to, "Belief in proposition X is justified because you can't prove it's not true," are based on the premise that belief in something is justified until sufficient evidence refutes its existence (i.e. argument from ignorance). In this case, the theist is asserting that belief in God is justified even without evidence. While this view may seem reasonable to those who already accept the existence of God, this approach to belief merely represents a form of compartmentalization. If we were to broadly accept the general premise (i.e., "belief is warranted because you can't prove a negative"), we would be unable to develop any useful picture of reality because every claim would be necessarily accepted as true until it was disproved. This is a burden that is impossible to meet when dealing with supernatural claims. The theist is compartmentalizing his or her supernatural beliefs and applying standards different from those applied to other beliefs. To put it more bluntly, a rational person does not seriously claim that leprechauns or unicorns must be assumed to exist because we have not disproved their existence.

Tellingly, apologists typically apply this premise only to questions pertaining to their particular religion — and not to questions pertaining to other religions. The Christian who argues, "You can't prove God doesn't exist," would almost certainly reject such an argument from a Hindu who says, "You can't prove Vishnu doesn't exist!" This compartmentalization, in which one's cherished beliefs are subjected to a special set of standards, is a form of special pleading.

 

[Thunderbird]

Why not?

Because there is no evidence the creation happened the way the bible says it did.

That has to do with the Bible, not God's existence.

The anti-Godists are simply so desperate to disprove the existence of God, but they can't.

Cannot disprove a negative, the onus is on the ones that claims a positive statement about a god. That's like me saying prove that invisible blue monkeys don't fly out of the exhaust of a car

That's why in religion its called faith and not fact

If you are an atheist you should be able to prove that there is no God.

Some people believe there is no God. It is an act of faith. You could call it faith-based pessimism.

Don't atheists make the positive statement: Belief in God is ill-considered. Don't they have to prove it?

Prove what? That there isn't something?


Argument from ignorance
Arguments similar to, "Belief in proposition X is justified because you can't prove it's not true," are based on the premise that belief in something is justified until sufficient evidence refutes its existence (i.e. argument from ignorance). In this case, the theist is asserting that belief in God is justified even without evidence. While this view may seem reasonable to those who already accept the existence of God, this approach to belief merely represents a form of compartmentalization. If we were to broadly accept the general premise (i.e., "belief is warranted because you can't prove a negative"), we would be unable to develop any useful picture of reality because every claim would be necessarily accepted as true until it was disproved. This is a burden that is impossible to meet when dealing with supernatural claims. The theist is compartmentalizing his or her supernatural beliefs and applying standards different from those applied to other beliefs. To put it more bluntly, a rational person does not seriously claim that leprechauns or unicorns must be assumed to exist because we have not disproved their existence.

Tellingly, apologists typically apply this premise only to questions pertaining to their particular religion — and not to questions pertaining to other religions. The Christian who argues, "You can't prove God doesn't exist," would almost certainly reject such an argument from a Hindu who says, "You can't prove Vishnu doesn't exist!" This compartmentalization, in which one's cherished beliefs are subjected to a special set of standards, is a form of special pleading.

Atheism can be defined as "the doctrine or belief that there is no God." Following this definition you would have to prove there is no God to be an atheist, unless you were relying on faith.

Never said this: Belief in proposition X is justified because you can't prove it's not true.

Religions have different ideas about God, though they agree sometimes as well. This doesn't mean there isn't a God behind the speculation.

 

[bodecea]

Because there is no evidence the creation happened the way the bible says it did.

That has to do with the Bible, not God's existence.

The anti-Godists are simply so desperate to disprove the existence of God, but they can't.

Cannot disprove a negative, the onus is on the ones that claims a positive statement about a god. That's like me saying prove that invisible blue monkeys don't fly out of the exhaust of a car

That's why in religion its called faith and not fact

If you are an atheist you should be able to prove that there is no God.

Some people believe there is no God. It is an act of faith. You could call it faith-based pessimism.

Don't atheists make the positive statement: Belief in God is ill-considered. Don't they have to prove it?

Prove what? That there isn't something?


Argument from ignorance
Arguments similar to, "Belief in proposition X is justified because you can't prove it's not true," are based on the premise that belief in something is justified until sufficient evidence refutes its existence (i.e. argument from ignorance). In this case, the theist is asserting that belief in God is justified even without evidence. While this view may seem reasonable to those who already accept the existence of God, this approach to belief merely represents a form of compartmentalization. If we were to broadly accept the general premise (i.e., "belief is warranted because you can't prove a negative"), we would be unable to develop any useful picture of reality because every claim would be necessarily accepted as true until it was disproved. This is a burden that is impossible to meet when dealing with supernatural claims. The theist is compartmentalizing his or her supernatural beliefs and applying standards different from those applied to other beliefs. To put it more bluntly, a rational person does not seriously claim that leprechauns or unicorns must be assumed to exist because we have not disproved their existence.

Tellingly, apologists typically apply this premise only to questions pertaining to their particular religion — and not to questions pertaining to other religions. The Christian who argues, "You can't prove God doesn't exist," would almost certainly reject such an argument from a Hindu who says, "You can't prove Vishnu doesn't exist!" This compartmentalization, in which one's cherished beliefs are subjected to a special set of standards, is a form of special pleading.

Atheism can be defined as "the doctrine or belief that there is no God." Following this definition you would have to prove there is no God to be an atheist.

Never said this: Belief in proposition X is justified because you can't prove it's not true.

Religions have different ideas about God, though they agree sometimes. This doesn't mean there isn't a God behind the speculation.

So you are expecting people to prove a negative. Is that christian logic speaking?

 

[ogibillm]

Because there is no evidence the creation happened the way the bible says it did.

That has to do with the Bible, not God's existence.

The anti-Godists are simply so desperate to disprove the existence of God, but they can't.

Cannot disprove a negative, the onus is on the ones that claims a positive statement about a god. That's like me saying prove that invisible blue monkeys don't fly out of the exhaust of a car

That's why in religion its called faith and not fact

If you are an atheist you should be able to prove that there is no God.

Some people believe there is no God. It is an act of faith. You could call it faith-based pessimism.

Don't atheists make the positive statement: Belief in God is ill-considered. Don't they have to prove it?

Prove what? That there isn't something?


Argument from ignorance
Arguments similar to, "Belief in proposition X is justified because you can't prove it's not true," are based on the premise that belief in something is justified until sufficient evidence refutes its existence (i.e. argument from ignorance). In this case, the theist is asserting that belief in God is justified even without evidence. While this view may seem reasonable to those who already accept the existence of God, this approach to belief merely represents a form of compartmentalization. If we were to broadly accept the general premise (i.e., "belief is warranted because you can't prove a negative"), we would be unable to develop any useful picture of reality because every claim would be necessarily accepted as true until it was disproved. This is a burden that is impossible to meet when dealing with supernatural claims. The theist is compartmentalizing his or her supernatural beliefs and applying standards different from those applied to other beliefs. To put it more bluntly, a rational person does not seriously claim that leprechauns or unicorns must be assumed to exist because we have not disproved their existence.

Tellingly, apologists typically apply this premise only to questions pertaining to their particular religion — and not to questions pertaining to other religions. The Christian who argues, "You can't prove God doesn't exist," would almost certainly reject such an argument from a Hindu who says, "You can't prove Vishnu doesn't exist!" This compartmentalization, in which one's cherished beliefs are subjected to a special set of standards, is a form of special pleading.

Atheism can be defined as "the doctrine or belief that there is no God." Following this definition you would have to prove there is no God to be an atheist.

Never said this: Belief in proposition X is justified because you can't prove it's not true.

Religions have different ideas about God, though they agree sometimes as well. This doesn't mean there isn't a God behind the speculation.

But it does mean that God cannot be proven to exist

 

[Thunderbird]

So you are expecting people to prove a negative.

Only if someone asserts they are an atheist, given the definition atheism = the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Guno, and the rest of the anti-Godists, (1) fall flat on their face because they have not the logic to disprove the existence of God, and (2) reveal their faith belief system of no belief in God.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

That has to do with the Bible, not God's existence.

The anti-Godists are simply so desperate to disprove the existence of God, but they can't.

Cannot disprove a negative, the onus is on the ones that claims a positive statement about a god. That's like me saying prove that invisible blue monkeys don't fly out of the exhaust of a car

That's why in religion its called faith and not fact

If you are an atheist you should be able to prove that there is no God.

Some people believe there is no God. It is an act of faith. You could call it faith-based pessimism.

Don't atheists make the positive statement: Belief in God is ill-considered. Don't they have to prove it?

Prove what? That there isn't something?


Argument from ignorance
Arguments similar to, "Belief in proposition X is justified because you can't prove it's not true," are based on the premise that belief in something is justified until sufficient evidence refutes its existence (i.e. argument from ignorance). In this case, the theist is asserting that belief in God is justified even without evidence. While this view may seem reasonable to those who already accept the existence of God, this approach to belief merely represents a form of compartmentalization. If we were to broadly accept the general premise (i.e., "belief is warranted because you can't prove a negative"), we would be unable to develop any useful picture of reality because every claim would be necessarily accepted as true until it was disproved. This is a burden that is impossible to meet when dealing with supernatural claims. The theist is compartmentalizing his or her supernatural beliefs and applying standards different from those applied to other beliefs. To put it more bluntly, a rational person does not seriously claim that leprechauns or unicorns must be assumed to exist because we have not disproved their existence.

Tellingly, apologists typically apply this premise only to questions pertaining to their particular religion — and not to questions pertaining to other religions. The Christian who argues, "You can't prove God doesn't exist," would almost certainly reject such an argument from a Hindu who says, "You can't prove Vishnu doesn't exist!" This compartmentalization, in which one's cherished beliefs are subjected to a special set of standards, is a form of special pleading.

Atheism can be defined as "the doctrine or belief that there is no God." Following this definition you would have to prove there is no God to be an atheist.

Never said this: Belief in proposition X is justified because you can't prove it's not true.

Religions have different ideas about God, though they agree sometimes as well. This doesn't mean there isn't a God behind the speculation.

But it does mean that God cannot be proven to exist

If God were proven to exist, chances are he wouldn't give a damn what you did. He set the universe down a path, and sat back and watched, the whole point of the thing. A cosmic pinball machine, three balls, tilt or free game unknown.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Guno, and the rest of the anti-Godists, (1) fall flat on their face because they have not the logic to disprove the existence of God, and (2) reveal their faith belief system of no belief in God.

I can't prove that little blue teapots don't dance on the moon, and lucky for me I don't have to. If you say they do, proving so is now on you, otherwise it's just an irrational belief in something not known, by any human, to exist. That is what God is, unknown.

 

[Thunderbird]

That has to do with the Bible, not God's existence.

The anti-Godists are simply so desperate to disprove the existence of God, but they can't.

Cannot disprove a negative, the onus is on the ones that claims a positive statement about a god. That's like me saying prove that invisible blue monkeys don't fly out of the exhaust of a car

That's why in religion its called faith and not fact

If you are an atheist you should be able to prove that there is no God.

Some people believe there is no God. It is an act of faith. You could call it faith-based pessimism.

Don't atheists make the positive statement: Belief in God is ill-considered. Don't they have to prove it?

Prove what? That there isn't something?


Argument from ignorance
Arguments similar to, "Belief in proposition X is justified because you can't prove it's not true," are based on the premise that belief in something is justified until sufficient evidence refutes its existence (i.e. argument from ignorance). In this case, the theist is asserting that belief in God is justified even without evidence. While this view may seem reasonable to those who already accept the existence of God, this approach to belief merely represents a form of compartmentalization. If we were to broadly accept the general premise (i.e., "belief is warranted because you can't prove a negative"), we would be unable to develop any useful picture of reality because every claim would be necessarily accepted as true until it was disproved. This is a burden that is impossible to meet when dealing with supernatural claims. The theist is compartmentalizing his or her supernatural beliefs and applying standards different from those applied to other beliefs. To put it more bluntly, a rational person does not seriously claim that leprechauns or unicorns must be assumed to exist because we have not disproved their existence.

Tellingly, apologists typically apply this premise only to questions pertaining to their particular religion — and not to questions pertaining to other religions. The Christian who argues, "You can't prove God doesn't exist," would almost certainly reject such an argument from a Hindu who says, "You can't prove Vishnu doesn't exist!" This compartmentalization, in which one's cherished beliefs are subjected to a special set of standards, is a form of special pleading.

Atheism can be defined as "the doctrine or belief that there is no God." Following this definition you would have to prove there is no God to be an atheist.

Never said this: Belief in proposition X is justified because you can't prove it's not true.

Religions have different ideas about God, though they agree sometimes as well. This doesn't mean there isn't a God behind the speculation.

But it does mean that God cannot be proven to exist

Why? People have different ideas about dinosaurs, planets, etc. yet we can prove they exist.

 

[ogibillm]

So you are expecting people to prove a negative.

Only if someone asserts they are an atheist, given the definition atheism = the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

You know that's silly, right? You can't prove there aren't invisible monsters under your bed, but I'm sure you don't believe in them.

You can't prove something doesn't exist, especially the supernatural.

 

[guno]

Guno, and the rest of the anti-Godists, (1) fall flat on their face because they have not the logic to disprove the existence of God, and (2) reveal their faith belief system of no belief in God.

I can't prove that little blue teapots don't dance on the moon, and lucky for me I don't have to. If you say they do, proving so is now on you, otherwise it's just an irrational belief in something not known, by any human, to exist. That is what God is, unknown.

Apologists have the burden of proof for the existence of god since they are making a knowledge claim and their view is unfalsifiable. Philosopher Bertrand Russell compared the attempt to disprove god to attempting to disprove the existence of a celestial teapot. Since it is impractical to expect a disproof of either and are therefore unfalsifiable, the burden of proof cannot lay with the skeptic.

 

[ogibillm]

Cannot disprove a negative, the onus is on the ones that claims a positive statement about a god. That's like me saying prove that invisible blue monkeys don't fly out of the exhaust of a car

That's why in religion its called faith and not fact

If you are an atheist you should be able to prove that there is no God.

Some people believe there is no God. It is an act of faith. You could call it faith-based pessimism.

Don't atheists make the positive statement: Belief in God is ill-considered. Don't they have to prove it?

Prove what? That there isn't something?


Argument from ignorance
Arguments similar to, "Belief in proposition X is justified because you can't prove it's not true," are based on the premise that belief in something is justified until sufficient evidence refutes its existence (i.e. argument from ignorance). In this case, the theist is asserting that belief in God is justified even without evidence. While this view may seem reasonable to those who already accept the existence of God, this approach to belief merely represents a form of compartmentalization. If we were to broadly accept the general premise (i.e., "belief is warranted because you can't prove a negative"), we would be unable to develop any useful picture of reality because every claim would be necessarily accepted as true until it was disproved. This is a burden that is impossible to meet when dealing with supernatural claims. The theist is compartmentalizing his or her supernatural beliefs and applying standards different from those applied to other beliefs. To put it more bluntly, a rational person does not seriously claim that leprechauns or unicorns must be assumed to exist because we have not disproved their existence.

Tellingly, apologists typically apply this premise only to questions pertaining to their particular religion — and not to questions pertaining to other religions. The Christian who argues, "You can't prove God doesn't exist," would almost certainly reject such an argument from a Hindu who says, "You can't prove Vishnu doesn't exist!" This compartmentalization, in which one's cherished beliefs are subjected to a special set of standards, is a form of special pleading.

Atheism can be defined as "the doctrine or belief that there is no God." Following this definition you would have to prove there is no God to be an atheist.

Never said this: Belief in proposition X is justified because you can't prove it's not true.

Religions have different ideas about God, though they agree sometimes as well. This doesn't mean there isn't a God behind the speculation.

But it does mean that God cannot be proven to exist

Why? People have different ideas about dinosaurs, planets, etc. yet we can prove they exist.

Proving the existence of something is very different from proving something does not exist. One can be done, the other cannot