Can a Theist substantiate belief based claims? Spin-off from off topic.

railer201 wrote: »

You seem very over sensitive

Not in the slightest no. Lets not shift this to being about me though. Stick to my points rather than comments about me. The point being that there was nothing "wrong" with me pointing out that it is a strange move to come into a topic where I was discussing something with another user.... only to essentially point out it might be pointless to have that discussion with the user.

As humans we either have reason to believe the things we believe.... or we don't. We are either able to share those reasons with someone else.... or we are not.

The original point that sparked the creation of this thread, was to ask the other user if he had any such reasons he could offer. He was going into threads about hospitals and more espousing points based on the existence of a god, and the existence of an "Objective Morality".

In the end however since there is absolutely nothing on offer to show either of those things actually exist..... I question whether any points / policy the user is making on the basis of their existence can therefore be taken seriously at all. The user might as well get a pen and paper.... entirely invent a list of statistics..... and start espousing policy based on those statistics. How is it any different?

railer201 wrote: »

There was a huge kerfuffle made by you over the word proof v substantiation and all I did was agree to go along with the parameters set by the mod. A huge waste of both your and my posting time this sort of caper is by you.

I do not see it as a waste of time to clarify my meaning and intent, and remove the words of other people from my mouth where they have inserted them. The only people "wasting time" in that scenario are the people putting words into the mouths of others.

I avoid the word "proof" in conversations of this nature because it tends to shut down the discourse too quickly. It is putting too much onus on the other party. "Proof" as used in common day to day vernacular tends to be read as meaning "Show me 100% it is true without any doubt whatsoever". And that is unfair for reasons even you yourself have pointed out.

So I dilute the request down to "substantiation". Or more often I ask for ANY "arguments, evidence, data or reasoning that even begins to lend credence to your claims". And I find that gives more leeway to the other party to START the conversation. They can START to lay out the reasoning behind their position(s) without expecting that unless they reach some lofty threshold that the entire endeavour is a waste of time.

It is my way of showing that I am not expecting conclusive proof, or that they must lay out some perfect irrefutable argument, just to have the conversation. Rather they can adumbrate their reasoning in a more relaxed and open fashion.

The fact that DESPITE this the theists consistently still have nothing to show is not my failing therefore, it is theirs. It seems that when it comes to showing any credibility for the existence of a god or an objective morality..... they do not have anything. Nadda. Nichts. Bugger all. Diddley Squat. Nuffin. Not a dicky bird. Sweet Fanny Adams. Zip. Zilch. Nowt. Bupkis.

Pick your synonym or feel free to add one of your own

railer201 wrote: »

So good luck with your efforts to prove there is no gods, I'm outta here.

Things that have been explained more than once to you now are A) I am not trying to show there is no gods The burden of proof and evidence lies with the theist and why C) Proving a negative and D) The meaning of atheism not being anything to do with the belief there is no gods.

Yet in this one sentence you basically move to entirely ignore that as if it all was never said or explained to you. You are basically explicitly pointing out here therefore that you have ignored / disregarded with no basis everything that has been said to you. You are replying to posts here therefore without seemingly reading or understanding the content of any of them.

AGAIN.... no one is interested in "proving there are no gods". The issue is that without any reason to think there in fact IS a god or gods..... we should be stringently rejecting proposals / policies / laws / procedures explicitly and often entirely based on the premise that there in fact is.