Anti-Atheist Bigotry: Atheists Are As Distrusted As Rapists

[anon_giraffe]

It is easily possible to prove something that does not exist.

I have no elephants in my house. Or I am not drinking alcohol.

Only true in the trivial cases where something is provable, but not true for all cases. Do you have invisible microscopic elephants that run from you when you attempt to investigate them? Have you drunk alcohol that tastes and smells like like water and does not get you drunk and that someone has been putting in your water pipes?

This is an illustration of why the burden of proof regarding the existence of god is with those who claim a god or gods to exist.

Since when are provable arguments trivial?

When the definition of elephant includes "invisible microscopic elephants" and the definition of alcohol includes "alcohol that tastes and smells like like water and does not get you drunk" then you may have a point.
But currently neither are true so your argument fails as a strawman.

The point being that it is possible to prove a negative.

This does not mean that it is possible that God does or does not exist, unless you define God as such that such a statement actually becomes provable.
Given that there is no universally consistent  set of properties attributable to God that does make it harder to prove anything.

[Moloch]

It is easily possible to prove something that does not exist.

I have no elephants in my house. Or I am not drinking alcohol.

Only true in the trivial cases where something is provable, but not true for all cases. Do you have invisible microscopic elephants that run from you when you attempt to investigate them? Have you drunk alcohol that tastes and smells like like water and does not get you drunk and that someone has been putting in your water pipes?

This is an illustration of why the burden of proof regarding the existence of god is with those who claim a god or gods to exist.

Since when are provable arguments trivial?

When the definition of elephant includes "invisible microscopic elephants" and the definition of alcohol includes "alcohol that tastes and smells like like water and does not get you drunk" then you may have a point.
But currently neither are true so your argument fails as a strawman.

The point being that it is possible to prove a negative.

This does not mean that it is possible that God does or does not exist, unless you define God as such that such a statement actually becomes provable.
Given that there is no universally consistent  set of properties attributable to God that does make it harder to prove anything.

Anecdotal evidence does not constitute proof... you cannot prove a negative claim...

You might remember what you ate for breakfast, but you could never prove it to anyone

[Moloch]

US Ally Saudi Arabia Sentences Atheist to 10 Years & 1000 Lashes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOvQSPDi4kY

[Moloch]

Russian Atheist Faces a Year in Jail for 'Insulting the Feelings" of Believers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W82vXtRrFnM

[Moloch]

Disabled Man Viciously Beaten for Being an Atheist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJsuJ1QpKZA

[BADecker]

It is easily possible to prove something that does not exist.

I have no elephants in my house. Or I am not drinking alcohol.

Only true in the trivial cases where something is provable, but not true for all cases. Do you have invisible microscopic elephants that run from you when you attempt to investigate them? Have you drunk alcohol that tastes and smells like like water and does not get you drunk and that someone has been putting in your water pipes?

This is an illustration of why the burden of proof regarding the existence of god is with those who claim a god or gods to exist.

Since when are provable arguments trivial?

When the definition of elephant includes "invisible microscopic elephants" and the definition of alcohol includes "alcohol that tastes and smells like like water and does not get you drunk" then you may have a point.
But currently neither are true so your argument fails as a strawman.

The point being that it is possible to prove a negative.

This does not mean that it is possible that God does or does not exist, unless you define God as such that such a statement actually becomes provable.
Given that there is no universally consistent  set of properties attributable to God that does make it harder to prove anything.

Anecdotal evidence does not constitute proof... you cannot prove a negative claim...

You might remember what you ate for breakfast, but you could never prove it to anyone

You may find it very difficult to prove a negative claim, but the thing that you can often prove is that there is a chance that the negative claim is correct.

If there is a chance that God exists, then stating that He doesn't is a possible lie.

Stick to the truth that you think is the truth, rather than the thing you know you don't know for sure. Atheism is setting itself up as a potential lie in the face of knowing that it is a potential lie. Thus, it is a religion, just like all the other religions that exist by faith.

[organofcorti]

It is easily possible to prove something that does not exist.

I have no elephants in my house. Or I am not drinking alcohol.

Only true in the trivial cases where something is provable, but not true for all cases. Do you have invisible microscopic elephants that run from you when you attempt to investigate them? Have you drunk alcohol that tastes and smells like like water and does not get you drunk and that someone has been putting in your water pipes?

This is an illustration of why the burden of proof regarding the existence of god is with those who claim a god or gods to exist.

Since when are provable arguments trivial?

Trivially provable compared to that which is in principle unprovable.

When the definition of elephant includes "invisible microscopic elephants" and the definition of alcohol includes "alcohol that tastes and smells like like water and does not get you drunk" then you may have a point.
But currently neither are true so your argument fails as a strawman.

Firstly, prove that you do or don't have completely undetectable elephants in your house. You can't. Why? They cannot be detected. Therefore you cannot prove they are there. Or not.

It's not a strawman argument. I'm not claiming this is your idea, I'm adding new concepts.

The point being that it is possible to prove a negative.

Perhaps in some well defined cases, but not in all or even most cases.

This does not mean that it is possible that God does or does not exist, unless you define God as such that such a statement actually becomes provable.
Given that there is no universally consistent  set of properties attributable to God that does make it harder to prove anything.

Quite true - definitions are everything in this case. Terms have to be explicit, including what is meant by "God". This varies so much it's practically idiosyncratic with every person defining "god" or "gods" in their own way, slightly different to the next person. If you define your terms to suit, you can prove god exists or doesn't exist.

In summary: God may or may not exist, for values of ominpotence between 0 and 1.

[BADecker]

This thread is utterly ridiculous. Of course rapists are trusted... by other rapists. Four of them hold him down, and the other one does her thing.

[pr0d1gy]

I prefer to stay agnostic...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos

[gentlemand]

I became an atheist after God lured me into his sex van and raped me. What kind of deity pulls that type of shit?

[af_newbie]

I became an atheist after God lured me into his sex van and raped me...

Was it Vishnu or Holy Trinity?

[gentlemand]

Not sure. All I can tell you is that a huge and warty ethereal johnson slipped inside and wreaked havoc. The van was a Ford Transit if that narrows it down.

[Moloch]

Blah blah blah

Once again, Atheism is not a religion, and does not believe anything beyond, "Your God does not exist"

[BADecker]

Blah blah blah

Once again, Atheism is not a religion, and does not believe anything beyond, "Your God does not exist"

Once again, there is even a post where I stood the dictionary definition of "religion" up against atheism, and showed that atheism is a religion.

Since anyone can do this except, obviously, you... mwahahahahaha.

[organofcorti]

Blah blah blah

Once again, Atheism is not a religion, and does not believe anything beyond, "Your God does not exist"

Once again, there is even a post where I stood the dictionary definition of "religion" up against atheism, and showed that atheism is a religion.

Since anyone can do this except, obviously, you... mwahahahahaha.

Only one of the dictionary definitions. None of the other definitions show that.

Here's one that shows that atheism quite clearly is *not* a religion:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/religion

"The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods"

Your definition might be in dictionaries, but it's not the common definition.

[BADecker]

Blah blah blah

Once again, Atheism is not a religion, and does not believe anything beyond, "Your God does not exist"

Once again, there is even a post where I stood the dictionary definition of "religion" up against atheism, and showed that atheism is a religion.

Since anyone can do this except, obviously, you... mwahahahahaha.

Only one of the dictionary definitions. None of the other definitions show that.

Here's one that shows that atheism quite clearly is *not* a religion:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/religion

"The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods"

Your definition might be in dictionaries, but it's not the common definition.

So now you are essentially saying that people are idiots, and don't read the dictionary. Like they listen to you rather than the dictionary.

That's okay, though. Since it seems to make you feel better - at least on the outside.

[Moloch]

Blah blah blah

Once again, Atheism is not a religion, and does not believe anything beyond, "Your God does not exist"

Once again, there is even a post where I stood the dictionary definition of "religion" up against atheism, and showed that atheism is a religion.

Since anyone can do this except, obviously, you... mwahahahahaha.

Only one of the dictionary definitions. None of the other definitions show that.

Here's one that shows that atheism quite clearly is *not* a religion:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/religion

"The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods"

Your definition might be in dictionaries, but it's not the common definition.

So now you are essentially saying that people are idiots, and don't read the dictionary. Like they listen to you rather than the dictionary.

That's okay, though. Since it seems to make you feel better - at least on the outside.

The only idiot here is you... who thinks he can pick and choose which of the dozen definitions he prefers... that's not how it works mate

[organofcorti]

Blah blah blah

Once again, Atheism is not a religion, and does not believe anything beyond, "Your God does not exist"

Once again, there is even a post where I stood the dictionary definition of "religion" up against atheism, and showed that atheism is a religion.

Since anyone can do this except, obviously, you... mwahahahahaha.

Only one of the dictionary definitions. None of the other definitions show that.

Here's one that shows that atheism quite clearly is *not* a religion:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/religion

"The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods"

Your definition might be in dictionaries, but it's not the common definition.

So now you are essentially saying that people are idiots, and don't read the dictionary. Like they listen to you rather than the dictionary.

That's okay, though. Since it seems to make you feel better - at least on the outside.

No, that's not what I'm saying, as you're well aware. Don't just believe me - I gave you a link to the dictionary, use it.

[BADecker]

Blah blah blah

Once again, Atheism is not a religion, and does not believe anything beyond, "Your God does not exist"

Once again, there is even a post where I stood the dictionary definition of "religion" up against atheism, and showed that atheism is a religion.

Since anyone can do this except, obviously, you... mwahahahahaha.

Only one of the dictionary definitions. None of the other definitions show that.

Here's one that shows that atheism quite clearly is *not* a religion:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/religion

"The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods"

Your definition might be in dictionaries, but it's not the common definition.

So now you are essentially saying that people are idiots, and don't read the dictionary. Like they listen to you rather than the dictionary.

That's okay, though. Since it seems to make you feel better - at least on the outside.

No, that's not what I'm saying, as you're well aware. Don't just believe me - I gave you a link to the dictionary, use it.

I'm embarrassed. I have played your game of deceit. I did it by telling you what you were saying, even though I knew better. I am ashamed. I should never want to be like you.

When you look through the definitions in the Oxford Dictionary, you will find, more concisely, the same definitions as in Dictionary.com.

Both dictionaries show that atheism is a religion.

[craked5]

Blah blah blah

Once again, Atheism is not a religion, and does not believe anything beyond, "Your God does not exist"

Once again, there is even a post where I stood the dictionary definition of "religion" up against atheism, and showed that atheism is a religion.

Since anyone can do this except, obviously, you... mwahahahahaha.

Implying at least 2 logical fallacies and a wrong definition, yes you managed to "prove" this.