SatanLucy

Burden of proof is the millstone that hangs around the neck of all theists.

Not really. There is no rule which says I need to prove my claims.

Is it worse to commit suicide or jerk off?

Some people do both.

Uh, yeah, because you defined it that way

No, its because things can come into existence out of nothing. Do you disagree?

a non-existent being holding any kind of power is a logical contradiction

Sounds like another unproved claim.

What is it about Satan that clicked over other deities?

I was muslim for 14 years and Christian for a year or so, cant even remember. But it was only Satan and other Gods who worked for me, not Jesus or Alah.

Atheists say "I dont believe in God because there is no evidence for God".

But do you believe in evidence?

Evidence is information which makes some other information true. By that nature, it is circular or a belief.

Simply:

A proves B.

But what proves A?

C?

What proves C?

Evidence works in such way that you always end up believing in something you cant prove, or you cannot prove anything.

So atheists are wrong. Holding position that belief requires evidence is illogical, because evidence requires belief.

I like how you try to attack an argument, and somehow still fail to disprove a single premise in it.

And by tautology, that makes it meaningless

It is called a deductive argument.

"Divine being which comes into existence out of nothing" - must exist logically, to say that "a divine being which comes into existence out of nothing" doesnt exist is a logical contradiction.

Your only argument could be that something cannot come from nothing, but that is unproved rule. Also, a divine being capable of overcoming such rule even from position of non-existance would still be capable of overcoming it.

There is no such thing as the "Law of equation", you made it up

Really?

It is logically incoherent to assign a time and place to "nothing", if it is located in time and place it isn't "nothing".

Sounds like unprovable claim. I am sure you are aware that we had "non-smartphones" before.

Hmm alright, so you cant prove your claims, but you want me to just "believe them without proof". How very religious of you.

Fine, dont prove your claims.

The law of identity is A=A, it is not A=B or B=C

Law of equation.

The law of identity also says "A" does not equal "not A", but you are saying nothing = something, which violates the law of identity.

Nothing can become something, just as "Not A" can become "A". this isnt same as saying "nothing is something". Law of identity and law of non-contradiction talk specifically of same time and same place. I can both "walk" and "not walk". Just not at same time.

There are only two possibilities; we accept what people tell us unless given a reason not to, or we accept what people tell us only when it is proven

Also, these are not even two separate possibilities. A reason not to accept a claim can be that claim wasnt proved. But since you accept just about any claim, you can accept a claim that I observed God, and thus God exists. Well, this was easy.

His satanism lead to severe psychological issues

Satan rejected him.

there is only power, and those too weak to obtain it.

A priori deductive reasoning is reasoning true before any observations are made. Such reasoning starts from basic definition and deduces from it by law of identity and law of equation (A = B, B = C, A = C).

P1. Divine being which comes into existence out of nothing will come into existence out of nothing even if such divine being didnt exist before.

P2. If such divine being will come into existence out of nothing, such being exists

C. Divine being exists.

Now, there is not much to disagree with any of these premises. P1 is just basic law of identity. Coming into existence out of nothing means "nothing --> something". P2 is likewise just basic law of identity. And C logically follows.

Divine being which comes into existence out of nothing is possible, as there is no any logical obstacle to it. But another problem for atheists is that any obstacle put in place to prevent "nothing --> something" can likewise have some possible being capable of overcoming that obstacle.

Christians are not able to prove that they are believers or people of faith.

I simply lack belief that I lack belief in God.

Seems reasonable to infer that some of them aren't going to believe in God

If by reasonable, you mean "this feels good", sure.

The first puts us in line with reality far more often than not

Sounds like unproved claim.

, the latter leads to a state of complete absurdity where you would hold basically no understanding of the world because if you can’t accept basic assertions people make, even about their own mental state, then essentially nothing could be proven unless you witness it yourself

Another unproved claim. A priori reasoning requires no witnessing anything.

Your entire model of the world falls apart because the overwhelming majority of what we understand about the world apart from our direct experiences comes from what other people tell us

Great, another unproved claim. Really, you guys dont even bother proving your claims. Your entire logic is using one unprovable claim to defend another unprovable claim. I guess they dont teach deductive reasoning in schools, but I say they should, given how bad people are at it.

and the default position being that we believe what people tell us regarding their own mental state unless we have reason not to

Good luck proving that.

To disregard them is to disregard logic itself

No.

If by “prove” you mean “provide a valid and sound justification”, that I did, perhaps you should read it.

I am sure you think so, but all you did was point out other unprovable claims, which isnt absurd because it isnt contradiction.

If anyone wants to present proof that atheism exists, dont be shy!

Whether something is wanted and whether something is profitable are two different things.

People dont pay for only profitable things, but I guess not much point in debating someone who thinks firing 1 federal worker will reduce government expenses enough.

So much for proving that atheism exists.

I would appreciate a counter-argument.

Why would people lie about being an atheist and condemn themselves to eternity.

Maybe they think God will reward them if they lie about being atheists.

Fun guy.

Who do you think is going to look out for the poor and elderly? They can't afford private services, that's the whole point.

If they worked properly and made savings, they could afford everything. If they chose to be wasteful and lazy, I dont see why you would want to reward or encourage that.

Who do you think is going to build roads and bridges? Where's the profit in that? The isn't any, that's why government does it.

Government doesnt build roads. Private workers build roads. Government just takes money from people and gives it to private workers so they build roads.

So if you say people wouldn't want to pay for roads otherwise, you are conceding that such service by government is unwanted.

Which is still 2%. Which still means gutting the federal workforce does nothing to address 98% of government spending, which means the benefit to all of this upheaval is minimal at best.

I think you dont understand. the goal isnt to reduce government spending to zero. Just to reduce it.

That's not the way it works. The money that goes out is codified into law. That obligation doesn't disappear because there are no workers, it only gets delayed

If there is no one to pay for services or deliver them, then services arent payed for. Delayed services save money too.

The whole point of government services is that these are things which are needed that the private sector does not have incentive to offer.

Every profitable thing, private sector has incentive to offer. Now, if you say we should do non profitable things, then that just reduces profit and slows down economy and buisnesses and reduces wealth and production because resources are wasted on non-profitable things. this is true a priori, you dont need any observation to know this. It is basic logic.

Reason why private sector doesnt offer what you want it to offer is because: 1. People have no obligation to give you free stuff. 2. Government prevented private sector from acting.

So if you argue people have obligation to give you free stuff, I am afraid that is not true. Property rights just like body rights are true a priori. No one can steal property whenever he feels like being charitable with other people's money.

You have already convinced yourself that hell is better.

Yes. Anything is better than hoping to spend eternity with homophobic celibate Jesus. Did you know there is no sex in heaven?

How can you call hell blessed? Hell is cursed.

I will know when I go there, but so far I only heard good things about Hell. All my friends will go there.

Do you believe God is good?

No, but Satan can be nice if you get to know him better. I think you didnt give Satan a chance.

I like furries better than people.

I want to end in the blessed fire of Hell for eternity, as Satan promised. Also, Satan promised me 500 sex demons, which is great.