I'm lost.



Seems like there have been alot of changes lately.

Oh, and to make this post relevant; there is no God.

The burden of proof is on the bringers of the claim.

WolfinSheepsClothing: I'm lost.

Seems like there have been alot of changes lately.

You mean like the moderators? Yeah, I noticed too. Maybe they're trying to get us out of our comfort zone... you know, familiar territory.

Oh, and to make this post relevant; there is no God.

The burden of proof is on the bringers of the claim.

Which means you need to give us some proof. After all, "there is no God" is as much of a claim as "there is a God." http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

You cannot prove non-existence so it would be unreasonable to put a burden of proof on someone that is impossible to fulfill.

When I really think about it, it would make the most sense that both parties in an argument have a burden of proof, until the evidence on one side outweighs the other. Wouldn't you say?

One CAN provide evidence that God does not exist, by showing a lack of evidence for the opposing theory, as the only alternative for "God exists" is "God does not exist". Doing so will not be able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, but it will shift the evidence in one's favor. One such piece of evidence is that the entire universe follows natural laws, and does not *require* a God.

God as the origin of the universe does not work either, as question of "what is the first cause?" just passes onto God. Therefore, it does not qualify as a valid explanation.

Now, although a lot of people won't agree with me here, I could also argue that many of the signs that are normally taken as evidence of the supernatural are actually natural occurences (and in many cases, hoaxes). I begin with something in fringe science that can almost be completely explained, like street lamp interference (http://www.geocities.com/eel_411/), and continue onto telepathy (release, absorption, and interpretation of brain waves), mass hallucinations (a phenomenon with mechanics similar to telepathy), and so on.

Okay, that's all I have to say for now...

quote:Originally posted by Clarphimous:

When I really think about it, it would make the most sense that both parties in an argument have a burden of proof, until the evidence on one side outweighs the other. Wouldn't you say?

One can be part of an argument and not have to make a claim, so it wouldn't make any sense to give a burden of proof to someone who hasn't claimed anything.

It would also be ridiculous for one to have a burden that cannot be satisfied.

quote:

One CAN provide evidence that God does not exist, by showing a lack of evidence for the opposing theory, as the only alternative for "God exists" is "God does not exist". Doing so will not be able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, but it will shift the evidence in one's favor.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That's a logical fallacy you're committing.

While you may claim it may be more reasonable to support the claim that a god doesn't exist if there is no evidence that he does, that still doesn't make it evidence that he doesn't exist.

quote: One such piece of evidence is that the entire universe follows natural laws, and does not *require* a God.



Being "evidence against god" automatically means an argument against god. How is that an argument against the existence of a god? He could certainly exist in that condition.

That's an argument for not believing in a god, not an argument for why he doesn't exist.

quote:

God as the origin of the universe does not work either, as question of "what is the first cause?" just passes onto God. Therefore, it does not qualify as a valid explanation.



See above.

quote:

Now, although a lot of people won't agree with me here, I could also argue that many of the signs that are normally taken as evidence of the supernatural are actually natural occurences (and in many cases, hoaxes). I begin with something in fringe science that can almost be completely explained, like street lamp interference, and continue onto telepathy (release, absorption, and interpretation of brain waves), mass hallucinations (a phenomenon with mechanics similar to telepathy), and so on.



That's an argument against those supernatural occurrences, not an argument against god.

---

That fact is, non-existence cannot be proven, unless you can specifically point to something that contradicts the characteristics of that being's existence, and that cannot be explained away. The problem being, everything can be explained away when dealing with an omniscient and omnipotent god.

Claiming that God does not exist implies that someone else claimed that he did.

I was not born with the idea of God(s) in my head.

Hey Zok,

Are you the permenent mod or just filling in until you pick some new ones?

Rust: One can be part of an argument and not have to make a claim, so it wouldn't make any sense to give a burden of proof to someone who hasn't claimed anything.

Except in this case, he did claim something. He claimed that God does not exist, as opposed to simply saying it cannot be determined whether God exists or not.

So HA!

It would also be ridiculous for one to have a burden that cannot be satisfied.

Yet if I claimed that there was an invisible pink unicorn galloping in the Orion nebula, the burden of proof would be on me, wouldn't it? And wouldn't that be ridiculous? It's the person's own fault for making the claim when they can't back it up.

I'll accept the rest of the argument you've made as a case of logic vs. reason. But is it really that bad to use reason instead of logic in an argument? I mean, at least it can be convincing.

quote:Originally posted by WolfinSheepsClothing:

I'm lost.



Seems like there have been alot of changes lately.

Oh, and to make this post relevant; there is no God.

The burden of proof is on the bringers of the claim.



We've been rearranging moderators in a few forums. Expect to see a few more changes within the next few days. No worries.

quote:Originally posted by Zok:

We've been rearranging moderators in a few forums. Expect to see a few more changes within the next few days. No worries.

I understand the demoderating of digital_savior, she was truly irritating, but why valmont?

Heh my first post in this section.

Dunno what made me even look.

Doesnt seem to be anything too exciting :P

Ill have a read of a few topics.

_______________________________

www.systemblink.com (http://www.systemblink.com)

Work in progress site....

http://skiprat.systemblink.com

quote:Originally posted by HomerJay603:

I understand the demoderating of digital_savior, she was truly irritating, but why valmont?

i thought DS was a good mod. and i assume that Val realised his modship was divisive.. and so he resigned for the good of the forum.

which was an honourable thing to do.

i hope now that this forum will get back to what it was under LC.



[This message has been edited by jackketch (edited 07-22-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by HomerJay603:

I understand the demoderating of digital_savior, she was truly irritating, but why valmont?

Digital_Savior, was an excellent Mod. I realize that you must dislike her because of your religious disagreements with her... but you don't have to be petty about it.

Homer, it is irritating that I have to remind you of the fact that this wasn't a popularity contest. It doesn't matter if I was well liked (I wasn't even before I was modded, if that tells you anything), but how well I did my job.

I don't see how I was bothersome to you, since I only spoke to you in one thread...YOURS. I was respectful, and you have no reason to be saying these things other than your apparent loyalty to Val.

Maccabee - That was a surprise. I thank you.

Jack - You know what I think about you, you crusty old bastard. *gives him a noogie*

*********************************************

Now, to address my portion of this whole fiasco.

I was learning, and was given no direction. I made some decisions, based on my own perception of how things should be handled, and they were wrong. I will admit to that, because making mistakes should not be an offense punishable by death.

What I did was close threads that didn't seem to have any relevance, any importance, or interest. That was wrong of me, and not my decision to make.

Other than that, I think I did just fine. I didn't abuse my position, regarding other members (such as editting posts, or deleting threads simply because I disagreed with the person, or for whatever reason).

I never did those things.

Being a mod isn't all that hard, and I learned valuable lessons from this experience.

I hold no ill will for any parties involved, and for what it's worth, it's been a great ride.

I think it was great that the Admins could look past their own personal beliefs and institute someone simply because they could balance out a forum. That gained them a respect from me that I admittedly did not have before.

I truly do not care if I am made mod again, but I hope they will consider another theist, just to preserve balance and fairness.

As for Val, I cannot speak for him, and I shouldn't. So, I won't.

He and I respect the decisions of upper staff, and will continue to do so.

Thanks for your concern guys...it is nice to know you care about what happens here.

Despite our differing beliefs, I still like Digital_Savior. Valmont... just pisses me off.

Anyhow, don't you want to argue against my reply, DS?

EDIT: grammar

[This message has been edited by Inti (edited 07-22-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Clarphimous:



Except in this case, he did claim something. He claimed that God does not exist, as opposed to simply saying it cannot be determined whether God exists or not.

So HA!



Which leads us to the second statement I made. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

-see below-

quote:I

Yet if I claimed that there was an invisible pink unicorn galloping in the Orion nebula, the burden of proof would be on me, wouldn't it? And wouldn't that be ridiculous? It's the person's own fault for making the claim when they can't back it up.

I'll accept the rest of the argument you've made as a case of logic vs. reason. But is it really that bad to use reason instead of logic in an argument? I mean, at least it can be convincing.

There's a difference between impossible, and really, really difficult. I'd imagine that proving there is an invisible pink unicorn galloping in the Orion nebula is really, really difficult to prove, but not impossible.

Moreover, the second part of what you stated now comes into play. Since there is no evidence for the pink unicorn, then it becomes an argument for not believing in it, but it does not become an argument for claiming that it doesn't exist.

I am supporting the reinstallment of Digital_Savior in this forum. I have passed on suggestions from users to the administration for a second mod.

quote:Originally posted by Sephiroth:

I am supporting the reinstallment of Digital_Savior in this forum. I have passed on suggestions from users to the administration for a second mod.

for what it's worth ,i have asked wintermute to consider reinstalling DS after this format.

Inti: Thanks for your support, but again...this shouldn't be a popularity contest. It's about being the right man (or WOman *winks*) for the job.

In regards to your question, is THIS the statement you wanted a reply to ?

"I was not born with the idea of God(s) in my head."

Waiting for your response... http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

************************************************

Seph and Jack: Thanks guys. *flattered*

Must have been Gods will DS.

-----------

Asking someone to disprove something that has no proof of existing is retarded.

I want you to disprove to me that there isn't an 'omni' entity that created the universe, even when there is no proof of it existing in the first place.

...

If it weren't a popularity contest, I'd be mod http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif) just kidding.

I meant that statement and the rest of that reply.

Cute, Daz...but I doubt God gives any more of a crap about my modding MG than I do.

************************************************

Inti, I can't.

I am sorry...

But, if you'd like, you can IM me at desired hush on AIM.

God bless.

DS, I honestly have no problem with you PERSONALLY, but I saw far too many threads closed for no particular reason. Sure, they may have been stupid, but stupid threads don't always need to be closed in this type of a forum. You are a good poster and I have respect for your faith. I would be sad to see you leave the forum, but that does not mean I believe that you should be a moderator.

As for valmont, he did a decent job keeping the forum free of spam whiltst allowing the freedom of speech and discourse that totse has been built on. That's what I thought.

I'm interested to see how this all pans out in the end.

I was offline for a good stretch and was surprised when I came back (though not altogether unpleasantly) to find that Digital had been crowned moderator. Coupla summers ago, I found the heated debates between her and Rust to actually constitute good reading.

I always thought Rust would make a good MyGod Mod. Eloquently scathing and informative.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

[...]Maccabee - That was a surprise. I thank you [...]

No thanx required, D_S, I simply speak the truth and let the chips fall where they may... I for one hope you get your position back.

Regards,

Mac

quote:Originally posted by HomerJay603:

DS, I honestly have no problem with you PERSONALLY, but I saw far too many threads closed for no particular reason.

Well, I am glad it is not personal. If it were, I would be pretty surprised, since I don't really know you.

quote:Sure, they may have been stupid, but stupid threads don't always need to be closed in this type of a forum.

I think it is imperative to point out that I was not the only one making these kind of judgment calls, however wrongly.

quote:You are a good poster and I have respect for your faith. I would be sad to see you leave the forum, but that does not mean I believe that you should be a moderator.

Fair 'nuf...

I still do not see how closing a few threads constitutes demodification (as if I am incapable of learning), but hey...as I said, I DO truly respect the Admins' decisions. It's THEIR site. Not mine.

quote:As for valmont, he did a decent job keeping the forum free of spam whiltst allowing the freedom of speech and discourse that totse has been built on. That's what I thought.

My God has never had too much spam, so I am not really sure how much of it was "controlled".

The editting of user's posts and complete deletion of threads is not something to be taken lightly...just some food for thought.

quote:I'm interested to see how this all pans out in the end.

As am I...I would just like to see TWO (that is all that is needed, in my opinion) mods that balance each other.

Everyone has their own idea of who that would be, but suffice it to say that the Admins are carefully considering, and I am confident that they will make great choices.

Thanks again for voicing your concerns. My God is important to some people here, I see, and I am glad I am not alone.