To: Atheists/Agnostics etc.

[Atomic Playboy]

Selectively responding - but if I showed you a plastic shovel with no markings, you wouldn't argue me someone made it (unless you're dilusional) even if I couldn't prove to you who did.

So while I agree the burden of proof is on the claimer, you're being somewhat narrow minded. You can try and minimalize his belief by claiming it is imaginary, but where's your proof that it is, in fact, imaginary?

Just to be clear I'm not taking any sides, but your response is very ironic.

As you say, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Attacking the claim doesn't require proof in response; that shifts the burden of proof for no reason. If, for example, I said I was God, the burden of proof is on me to prove it. If someone else responded "no you aren't," the burden of proof doesn't shift off me just because someone disagreed with me; it all still hinges on my original claim. So anyone who argues their line of logic with "prove God doesn't exist" is immediately coming from a logical fallacy, shifting the burden of proof unnecessarily to someone who wasn't making the claim to begin with.

All of that is academic, of course, as there is absolutely nothing that can prove nor disprove God. That's why we use the word "belief" when discussing the metaphysical.

 

[OverVolt]

How do they have any thoughts, opinion, or conjecture, whatsoever on the metaphysical without having any stake in beliefs, sajgbarbarbgarg, lol.

Fun fact google chrome thought "sajgbarbarbgarg" = Barbarossa

 

[soulcougher73]

Selectively responding - but if I showed you a plastic shovel with no markings, you wouldn't argue me someone made it (unless you're dilusional) even if I couldn't prove to you who did.

So while I agree the burden of proof is on the claimer, you're being somewhat narrow minded. You can try and minimalize his belief by claiming it is imaginary, but where's your proof that it is, in fact, imaginary?

Just to be clear I'm not taking any sides, but your response is very ironic.

Well he claims there is a God. I wanted some kind of proof. A book written by the hands of man is not proof of a God regardless of what is written inside.

 

[CVSiN]

As you say, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Attacking the claim doesn't require proof in response; that shifts the burden of proof for no reason. If, for example, I said I was God, the burden of proof is on me to prove it. If someone else responded "no you aren't," the burden of proof doesn't shift off me just because someone disagreed with me; it all still hinges on my original claim. So anyone who argues their line of logic with "prove God doesn't exist" is immediately coming from a logical fallacy, shifting the burden of proof unnecessarily to someone who wasn't making the claim to begin with.

All of that is academic, of course, as there is absolutely nothing that can prove nor disprove God. That's why we use the word "belief" when discussing the metaphysical.

There is nothing you can do to prove ghosts or bigfoot is real either yet we are taught they do not exist..

sorry I love how the church loves to bring that up since they know for a fact what hypocrites it makes them look like to say oh well don't believe in ghosts or aliens as they aren't real but for sure believe in a mystical being that created everything ( millions of years before their god and religion even existed Thanks Science!)

the funny part is.. what if what you think is a GOD.. is actually a more powerful alien race..

 

[SMOGZINN]

There is archeological evidence affirming events talked about in the Bible.

The problem is that since the bible requires that it be 100% true all I need to do is find one thing it is wrong about to disprove it's primary claim that it is the infallible word of god. If I can show that it is not infallible, then I am left with no reason to believe the second part of the claim that it is the word of god. If I can't believe that, then I have no reason to believe in a god at all.
Unfortunately for your stance, it is rather easy to find something that the bible was wrong about. For example: Gen 32:30 and John 1:18; or John 19:14-16 and Mark 15:25.
And there are a lot more like that.

There are historians both past and present that do with the Bible, even some of history's most respected minds (Issac Newton, but I am waiting for people to discredit that by saying he didn't have the internet to "check facts"), however, historians actually visited those places mentioned in the Bible and saw the evidence first-hand, untampered with, not scewed by internet "facts". People will ignore that, largely because they don't want to consider things that will humble their pride.

And there are many others that have went and seen the same things and came back with very different ideas. As for your appeal to authority Issac Newton might have believed in Christ, but Aristotle believed in Zeus. Is that now evidence for that pathos?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Selectively responding - but if I showed you a plastic shovel with no markings, you wouldn't argue me someone made it (unless you're dilusional) even if I couldn't prove to you who did.

That's a horrible analogy.

If i say that a golden unicorn made that shovel would you agree with me or would you say "that is an extraordinary claim and i CANNOT believe it without undeniable evidence"?

So while I agree the burden of proof is on the claimer, you're being somewhat narrow minded. You can try and minimalize his belief by claiming it is imaginary, but where's your proof that it is, in fact, imaginary?

Just to be clear I'm not taking any sides, but your response is very ironic.

My evidence is the same as the evidence for the non-existence of golden unicorns that manufacture shovels.

 

[Retro Rob]

Evidence points to a historical Jesus this is true. But was he G-d made man? Highly debatable. Scholars have debated for years and will continue to do so on on both the range of different histories in the Bible, most of them not archaeological.

But none of this evidence points to a G-d; it simply points to peoples interpretations of second, third or fourth-hand stories as concerns the New Testament. Scholars date the books, writings and letters that comprise the NT as being anywhere from 2 to 8 decades after the life of Jesus.

Also, believers as well as non-believers will shut out facts and not consider things that will humble their pride.

As was stated by other poster(s); it is the believers that first foisted this idea of G-d onto the rest of the world, it really is up to them to "put up or shut up". Accept the fact that when the only way you can assert something is by faith, you're admitting that it can't stand on it's own merit.

The reason why some believers do "believe" is because of evidence. Using your example about Jesus, did you know that the book of Genesis directly prophesied about him? Also, Isaiah 53?

Well, it did.. and when the Gospel was written (a few thousand years after Genesis), it was recorded that he actually did walk the earth. The Bible is largely a prophetic book -- no man can prophecy something thousands of years before it happens, and then it actually happens as described.

If that was the only thing that Bible was concerned with and that came to be, then why would you doubt the existence of God?

This is why believers don't need a physical manifestation of God to believe he exist - if they find evidence that what they read has and will come true (because it has before), then it leaves very little room for doubt.

If I had parents that NEVER lead me wrong, for instance, why would I doubt their leadership? I have no reason to. Even if they asked me to do something I didn't understand, I still wouldn't have a valid reason to doubt them.

 

[Tweak155]

As you say, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Attacking the claim doesn't require proof in response; that shifts the burden of proof for no reason. If, for example, I said I was God, the burden of proof is on me to prove it. If someone else responded "no you aren't," the burden of proof doesn't shift off me just because someone disagreed with me; it all still hinges on my original claim. So anyone who argues their line of logic with "prove God doesn't exist" is immediately coming from a logical fallacy, shifting the burden of proof unnecessarily to someone who wasn't making the claim to begin with.

All of that is academic, of course, as there is absolutely nothing that can prove nor disprove God. That's why we use the word "belief" when discussing the metaphysical.

My personal position is (also?) that it cannot be proven or disproven. So the burden of proof is irrelevant. I find "proof" on either side to be ironic.

But if you're claiming something is imaginary, it is logical you have some sort of basis to do so, even if lack of evidence is your point of entry. It is investing an interest in something you should otherwise quit wasting your time over.

So ultimately I agree with both your statements, but I believe you missed my statement of irony, or I failed at making it apparent. Perhaps I have cleared it up.

 

[coloumb]

Couple of things keep me going

[1] Fear of dying.
[2] To interact with my children everyday - watch them grow older, watch them learn new things, hear them laugh, cry, complain, etc.
[3] Hoping today is the day where the wife and I have no arguments and/or she's in the mood.
[4] To contribute to those around me in a constructive manner - whether it be positive or negative.
[5] I crave learning new things, ideas, concepts - no matter how much information I digest on a daily basis, I always seem to find something new to learn which keeps my brain stimulated.

I don't believe there is a "god" - but I have to wonder what happens to our "essence/soul" when we die...

 

[Tweak155]

That's a horrible analogy.

If i say that a golden unicorn made that shovel would you agree with me or would you say "that is an extraordinary claim and i CANNOT believe it without undeniable evidence"?



My evidence is the same as the evidence for the non-existence of golden unicorns that manufacture shovels.

What evidence do you have someone made the shovel?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

There is archeological evidence affirming events talked about in the Bible.

There's archaeological evidence that affirms events talked about in the movie Forrest Gump, too.

If people want to make silly false equivalencies (flying unicorns, FSM) find me someone that can cooberate that. There are historians both past and present that do with the Bible, even some of history's most respected minds (Issac Newton, but I am waiting for people to discredit that by saying he didn't have the internet to "check facts"), however, historians actually visited those places mentioned in the Bible and saw the evidence first-hand, untampered with, not scewed by internet "facts". People will ignore that, largely because they don't want to consider things that will humble their pride.

If someone told you that aliens abducted him while he walked down the old road past the barn, you're an idiot if you believe him simply because you visited the old road and the barn. You're an even bigger idiot if you believe in alien abduction just because the the first idiot says he believes after visiting the old road and the barn.

in short, if people want to be "shown God", hitch a ride on the next rocket into space and go up until you can't go anymore, then tell us whether you saw God or not. I sure can't show him to you.

Isn't it interesting that the same would be true if there weren't any gods?

 

[Tweak155]

Well he claims there is a God. I wanted some kind of proof. A book written by the hands of man is not proof of a God regardless of what is written inside.

I agree. But also keep in mind a level of proof that proves something true can differ between people.

You might take my word as proof if we're close enough friends that I saw something. If I was a stranger you'd likely require more.

So his / her belief clearly takes less evidence than your need of proof. Which is fine. So you can go on believing what you want, and he / she can do the same. It's a dead end.

 

[randomrogue]

Doesn't it bother Christians that the New Testament wasn't written for dozens of years after Jesus died? Parts of it weren't even written by people who knew Jesus. They were simply worshipers.

 

[amish]

what makes me go on? the basic human desire to adapt, survive, and overcome. when my day comes, and I die, I will not be sad as I had my chance to make myself and those around me better. If I didn't accomplish that goal it is my own fault as I had plenty of opportunities.

I will not look for a deity to save me, protect me, or take me. My actions, or lack thereof, brought on by free will put me in whatever predicament that I will be in; not god.

 

[Tweak155]

Doesn't it bother Christians that the New Testament wasn't written for dozens of years after Jesus died? Parts of it weren't even written by people who knew Jesus. They were simply worshipers.

If the Bible is proven false, does that disprove there is a God?

 

[sandorski]

My personal position is (also?) that it cannot be proven or disproven. So the burden of proof is irrelevant. I find "proof" on either side to be ironic.

But if you're claiming something is imaginary, it is logical you have some sort of basis to do so, even if lack of evidence is your point of entry. It is investing an interest in something you should otherwise quit wasting your time over.

So ultimately I agree with both your statements, but I believe you missed my statement of irony, or I failed at making it apparent. Perhaps I have cleared it up.

Convenient argument, I must say. Incorrect, but convenient.

 

[KeithTalent]

If there is no God, if there is nothing after death, if there is no right/wrong determined by a higher power etc. Then, to be blunt, what keeps you from ending it all right now ?

This makes zero sense to me. If there is no exclusive night club in the clouds for me when I die, wouldn't I want to stay here on Earth as long as possible? It should be the religious folks offing themselves to get up there and party like it's -0006.

KT

 

[randomrogue]

If the Bible is proven false, does that disprove there is a God?

I'm agnostic so no.

I just never could become a Christian since I've studied their history and the book is clearly full of shit. None of it was written during the life of Jesus. A fair amount of it was written over 50 years after he died. It's almost absurd really.

 

[SMOGZINN]

But if you're claiming something is imaginary, it is logical you have some sort of basis to do so, even if lack of evidence is your point of entry. It is investing an interest in something you should otherwise quit wasting your time over.

The lack of evidence is not the point of entry, it is the entire argument. If you have no evidence to support what you say, then I have no reason to believe in it. Nothing more is needed.
And the only reason most of us are interested in it is because belief leads inexorably to action. And those actions are much too often not friendly towards the rest of us.

 

[Retro Rob]

There's archaeological evidence that affirms events talked about in the movie Forrest Gump, too.


If someone told you that aliens abducted him while he walked down the old road past the barn, you're an idiot if you believe him simply because you visited the old road and the barn. You're an even bigger idiot if you believe in alien abduction just because the the first idiot says he believes after visiting the old road and the barn.


Isn't it interesting that the same would be true if there weren't any gods?

Don't know if you've been paying attention, but I've been laughing at your endless stupidy and absurb equivalencies since the Evolution thread.

But... keep 'em coming, taxt, keep 'em coming. Laughing is good for my health!

 

[Tweak155]

Convenient argument, I must say. Incorrect, but convenient.

Has zero to do with convenience. If I felt it could be proven one way or another, I'd argue that side. Convenience would be to not even respond.

 

[Tweak155]

The lack of evidence is not the point of entry, it is the entire argument. If you have no evidence to support what you say, then I have no reason to believe in it. Nothing more is needed.
And the only reason most of us are interested in it is because belief leads inexorably to action. And those actions are much too often not friendly towards the rest of us.

Focusing too hard on syntax vs semantics? How is point of entry any different than being the basis of an argument?

 

[sandorski]

Has zero to do with convenience. If I felt it could be proven one way or another, I'd argue that side. Convenience would be to not even respond.

The biggest problem isn't that it can't be "Proven", but that there is simply no Evidence to say that it may exist in the first place. So yes, it is rather convenient to just ignore the Burden of Proof, whether you think so or not.

 

[Tweak155]

The biggest problem isn't that it can't be "Proven", but that there is simply no Evidence to say that it may exist in the first place. So yes, it is rather convenient to just ignore the Burden of Proof, whether you think so or not.

How am I ignoring it? I'm acknowledging it and deciding it can't be proven nor disproven.

So, if your arrogance leads you to believe that me not being able to prove something therefor means it does not exist, then it doesn't exist according to you. But that's your stance, you can't force it onto me.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Focusing too hard on syntax vs semantics? How is point of entry any different than being the basis of an argument?

Because it strongly implies that you need more. A point of entry requires something to enter.