How Can Anyone Believe in God?

[Deleted member]

I love how quick you are to come to that conclusion.

This isn't science class; this is a metaphysical subject. The atheist claim is still just that - a claim.

Atheism is a theory, folks. When you learn to accept that, come talk to me.

 

[DeadtoSin]

That "willfully ignorant" thing seems to be a common theme among some of you guys lately. You cite no scientific sources for your claims, much less MULTIPLE sources. If you want to prove something to people, find verifiable evidence of all your claims and put them together in a format that is easy for us "willfully ignorant" people to understand.

I did not give evidence for mine, because I'm not claiming that evolutionists should be the only ones to bear a burden. I believe that if you are trying to convince me, you should bear the burden. If I am trying to convince you, I should bear the burden.

I wasn't trying to convince you with my statement, just to show you that I had thought out reasons at least at a basic level for my disbelief of evolution.

So yeah, just keep on insinuating that I am blind, ignorant, and dishonest just because I do not believe the same things that you do.

 

[snex]

you are wrong delorted.. atheism is not a claim at all. atheism is simply a lack of theism.

i notice deadtosin still hasnt addressed the evidence i gave, yet he wants to avoid being called willfully ignorant. welcome to reality deadtosin. deal with the evidence or you ARE willfully ignorant.

 

[Deleted member]

I see no problem with being skeptical on any widely-held theory.

How am I wrong? We both don't have proof. Stating that something isn't real because you haven't seen any evidence is appealing to ignorance. That being said, theism generally appeals to ignorance as well.

So when both sides are providing fallacious arguments, it is clearly pointless to put the burden of proof on anyone.

Atheism claims there is no God. Theism is a lack of atheism.

Your spin works both ways. Both are equally lacking of proof; both are theories.

 

[DeadtoSin]

My whole point is that you didn't give any verifiable evidence. You mentioned some things, but you don't give any links to legitimate scientific sources for any of your claims. I don't want YOUR evidence, I want information from scientists who have actually studied it. If you can't be bothered to back up your claims with proof, then why should I consider even addressing it? I'm not trying to prove my beliefs right now, I'm just trying to understand why I have to assume that everything you said there is absolutely true.

 

[snex]

Atheism claims there is no God.

wrong! atheism is the lack of theism. im pretty sure i already explained this.

deadtosin if you didnt learn this stuff in high school, then there is no hope for you or the rest of america.

giraffe has 7 vertebrae in the neck
recurrent
laryngeal nerve
mammal and lizard ear/jaw bone development
appendix
plantaris muscle and tendon
human and chimp chromosomes
vitamin c pseudogene

really this is pretty basic stuff. you have no excuse to not know it if youre going to post in a *debate* about it. debates are a battle of wits, and you are unarmed.

 

[DeadtoSin]

It is not that I could not find it, or that I did not know any of your stuff. My whole point is that I simply want you to post proof of your claims. If my post makes claims about creationism, you would ask me for verifiable scientific proof. So don't give me any problems about me asking you for the same thing. The situation is not that I am unarmed, it is a bit different. In my eyes you are the one coming unarmed. Its like you come up to me with no gun in your hands and say "BANG! You're dead!". I want to know where your gun is, and you pull your gun out later and tell me "Yeah, you should have known I shot you, I mean I said BANG!" If you make a post trying to convince me of something, I want your evidence then. I don't want to hear how worthless and witless I am.

You are not being very civil, when I all I asked for was simple proof. I think you have some problems you need to work out with yourself. You seem to be very angry about this issue. I mean, calling me willfully ignorant, blind, and telling me I have no hope? I know I am new to this debating section, but a debate is usually used to help win people over and give evidence rationally and calmly. So if I were you, I'd try to put that thought into practice when you type up your posts. If you calmly and rationally post those links rather than taking shots at me the whole time, it would really give a lot more credibility to your arguments. Just a suggestion.


Anyway, back on topic (and I'm off to cook pizzas!)

 

[snex]

the time to be civil to creationists passed 150 years ago when charles darwin gave the evidence youve been asking for ever since. those creationists that were actually interested in truth and honesty read his book and were convinced by it - because it HAD the evidence they were asking for. you modern creationists simply ignore, deny, and misrepresent everything. you are not interested in honest pursuit of truth. you are interested in pushing your narrow religious views regardless of the evidence.

 

[AltF4]

Delorted:

I would agree that Atheism is a theory. (Or a belief is you prefer) But I disagree with the negative connotation you seem to put on the word theory. It just means "an explanation for a certain set of observations". Of course Atheism is a theory then.

I live in the world, and make observations. Based on those observations, I believe there to be no god. I accept that I could be wrong, but it is my current belief. The theory I find to be most consistent with observation.


Dead To Sin:

The burden of proof certainly DOES lie with Evolutionists. They make a claim and have to substantiate that claim with evidence. But don't associate Evolutionism immediately with Atheism. Theists clearly have the burden of proof in this debate.

You cannot come here with a religion and say "It's your responsibility to prove me wrong". If you have a religion you believe to be true (as opposed to any other) then give evidence. Tell me why your religion is right and every other is wrong. The default belief, when no Theist belief is consistent, is Atheism.

 

[Deleted member]

wrong! atheism is the lack of theism. im pretty sure i already explained this.

And people ask me why I think atheists are close-minded. When you're ready to admit that both theism and atheism are currently resisting falsification to no end, maybe we can have a more intellectual discussion on the question.

 

[snex]

delorted, only one of us is an atheist. and it aint you. *i* get to define my own position, not you. and im TELLING YOU that my position is nothing more than a lack of theism. what part of this do you fail to understand?

you are the one that is preventing any kind of fruitful discussion here, by trying to tell me what my position is and then ordering me to defend it.

 

[Deleted member]

Certainly, define your own position. I'm not preventing that. I'm also not ordering you to defend yourself at all. Perhaps you misread my posts. I'm saying that it is pointless for atheists to cop-out and demand proof in a subject that is far too big for us to comprehend.

If you refuse to drop the demands of proof for reasons pertaining to fallacious reasoning on both accounts, then why don't you drop the demands for the sake of the argument?

Either believe, disbelieve, or sit on the fence. Only one of these doesn't make a claim.

 

[snex]

I'm saying that it is pointless for atheists to cop-out and demand proof in a subject that is far too big for us to comprehend.

what a joke.. if its too big to comprehend, then people claiming to comprehend it, like theists, are LYING. and it is absolutely NOT pointless to expose these liars for what they are.

Either believe, disbelieve, or sit on the fence. Only one of these doesn't make a claim.

the only claim in disbelief is "no believer has presented an adequate reason for me to believe." and this is easily demonstrable by watching the theists present their lies and then exposing them as lies.

 

[lonejedi]

you are the one that is preventing any kind of fruitful discussion here, by trying to tell me what my position is and then ordering me to defend it.

Lol. I'm sorry snex, but I can't help but laugh at this statement.

you modern creationists simply ignore, deny, and misrepresent everything. you are not interested in honest pursuit of truth. you are interested in pushing your narrow religious views regardless of the evidence.

That's just one example of many.

How many times have you stereotyped all christians by these claims. Not all of us are narrow minded, and not all of us push and shove and bother people with our beliefs. Just as much you are an athiest, you define your self, well then we christians define ourselves, not you.

Snex, I have this feeling that in your past, Christians have maybe pushed their views on you, and maybe mistreated you wrong. I think this has caused you to believe that all christians are just the same as the ones you have encountered. I might be assuming to much, but even if I were wrong, you act as if Christians are all out to get you when they are not.

Seriously if you have a problem with Delorted attacking your belief of what an Athiest is, then back off on judging all Christians the same.

 

[snex]

thanks for the analysis, dr freud. now would you care to present the evidence that your god or any god exists? how about a single creationist or theist "argument" that isnt based on lies, ignorance, or misrepresentation? anything else will be ignored as it is off-topic.

 

[lonejedi]

thanks for the analysis, dr freud. now would you care to present the evidence that your god or any god exists? how about a single creationist or theist "argument" that isnt based on lies, ignorance, or misrepresentation? anything else will be ignored as it is off-topic.

How can I debate with someone who is equally "ignorant" as I am. I could say I saw a miracle first hand, and you would say No Proof, Lie. I could claim that I've felt God's Presence, something I believe to by true, and you would claim a lie. No matter what I will say, you will claim it to be a lie, an ignorance, or a misrepresentation. No matter what I say.

You're just as ignorant as I am.

 

[snex]

You're just as ignorant as I am.

finally, a theist argument thats correct!

of course, it means you should immediately stop believing in any and all gods, since ignorance does NOT imply magic. ignorance of gods is just that - ignorance. you have never experienced any gods, and even if you had, youd have no way to know that you did. ignorance is never an indication that the explanation is magical or supernatural. thats a logical fallacy.

 

[AltF4]

Because that's not evidence, Jedi. How many people see ghosts, zombies, bigfoot, lechupicabra, and other nonsense? Lots of people do.

Quick science lesson: Evidence is repeatable. If you make a perpetual motion machine once, and can't reproduce it when others ask you to, guess what? You never made it in the first place.


Example: God hates amputees. God refuses to answer the prayers of amputees, this is repeatable. Christians maintain that god works miracles and cures cancer patients all the time, but why then has an amputee never ever (not once ever) been given their limb back by god?

Experiment: Take an amputee (or go ahead and get it done to yourself) and have them pray to be healed.

Result: They will not have their limb healed back. Works every time.

Explanation: Instead of insisting that god exists, but just hates amputees, it's more reasonable to conclude that he's not listening, or not there at all.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Since neither side has verifiable evidence that proves or disproves God respectively, I don't see the point in placing the burden of proof on any particular stance.

Hey, crazy lady, the burden of proof is on you. You say "a giant sky daddy exists." We say, "really? Prove it." We don't have to prove what you just said isn't true, you need to prove that what you said is true. If I said I'm eating pasta right now (which oddly enough I am), you don't have to prove that I'm not eating pasta (which you can't) but I would have to produce evidence that I am eating pasta. Like taking a picture of myself eating pasta with today's newspaper or something of the like.

In other words, I want a picture of god, now. Prove to me he exists.

Gamer4Fire, if you truly believe that of circumcision, you are grossly misinformed. Other than that, the other explanations you gave don't go into too much detail. Perhaps you'd like to elaborate on them. I realize you didn't draw the picture, but that doesn't matter - highlighting the possible downsides of believing in God or following religion is meaningless. Those who believe have reasons for doing so; it's not something that deserves to be mocked. It stinks of arrogance.

Please post your healthful reasons on why circumcisions are good. Otherwise I don't have to defend the ambigiuous attacks on religion in detail because they are generally true, and that is the entire point on the comics arguement against Pascal's Wager.

amazing how deadtosin makes that post *right after* my post giving perfect evidence of the evolution of humans.

He did the same thing to me, so don't feel too left out.

Atheism is a theory, folks. When you learn to accept that, come talk to me.

Yes, we all worship Athe! No, not really. I happen to have a religion that is atheist. Atheism is not a religion. Just like daisies are flowers (and princesses) but all flowers aren't daisies.

That "willfully ignorant" thing seems to be a common theme among some of you guys lately. You cite no scientific sources for your claims, much less MULTIPLE sources. If you want to prove something to people, find verifiable evidence of all your claims and put them together in a format that is easy for us "willfully ignorant" people to understand.

I did cite the one source that required citing: dictionary. The golden rule doesn't really require citation, but I could probably find one if you really really want one. Otherwise everything we talked about required you to give information that might have required citation if it weren't for the fact that you gave no such info.

So yeah, just keep on insinuating that I am blind, ignorant, and dishonest just because I do not believe the same things that you do.

You want me to insult you? If you actually want me to treat you like a masochist, can do easy.

Atheism claims there is no God. Theism is a lack of atheism.

You got that backwards, kimosabe.

My whole point is that you didn't give any verifiable evidence. You mentioned some things, but you don't give any links to legitimate scientific sources for any of your claims. I don't want YOUR evidence, I want information from scientists who have actually studied it. If you can't be bothered to back up your claims with proof, then why should I consider even addressing it? I'm not trying to prove my beliefs right now, I'm just trying to understand why I have to assume that everything you said there is absolutely true.

You don't have to assume anything is true. You have wikipedia and google and dictionary.com and reference.com and the rest of the world wide web at your fingertips. Otherwise you wouldn't be posting here.

really this is pretty basic stuff. you have no excuse to not know it if youre going to post in a *debate* about it. debates are a battle of wits, and you are unarmed.

I like to think of myself as simply holstered.

It is not that I could not find it, or that I did not know any of your stuff. My whole point is that I simply want you to post proof of your claims. If my post makes claims about creationism, you would ask me for verifiable scientific proof. So don't give me any problems about me asking you for the same thing. The situation is not that I am unarmed, it is a bit different. In my eyes you are the one coming unarmed. Its like you come up to me with no gun in your hands and say "BANG! You're dead!". I want to know where your gun is, and you pull your gun out later and tell me "Yeah, you should have known I shot you, I mean I said BANG!" If you make a post trying to convince me of something, I want your evidence then. I don't want to hear how worthless and witless I am.

He was putting out pretty basic stuff that doesn't really require much beyond the ability to think logically. Why would god give us stuff that doesn't work anymore? Well, can we find other aminals [sic] that do have this stuff and use it? Why yes we can, I wonder what that means.

Delorted:

I would agree that Atheism is a theory. (Or a belief is you prefer) But I disagree with the negative connotation you seem to put on the word theory. It just means "an explanation for a certain set of observations". Of course Atheism is a theory then.

I live in the world, and make observations. Based on those observations, I believe there to be no god. I accept that I could be wrong, but it is my current belief. The theory I find to be most consistent with observation.

Atheism isn't a theory (no evidence to back it up. Not falsifiable). And it is a lack of belief, a default position, not a belief. I don't believe in gods, not I believe there is no gods. I have been given no evidence for one side or the other so I simply lack belief.

Dead To Sin:

The burden of proof certainly DOES lie with Evolutionists. They make a claim and have to substantiate that claim with evidence. But don't associate Evolutionism immediately with Atheism. Theists clearly have the burden of proof in this debate.

You cannot come here with a religion and say "It's your responsibility to prove me wrong". If you have a religion you believe to be true (as opposed to any other) then give evidence. Tell me why your religion is right and every other is wrong. The default belief, when no Theist belief is consistent, is Atheism.

Too easy.

And people ask me why I think atheists are close-minded. When you're ready to admit that both theism and atheism are currently resisting falsification to no end, maybe we can have a more intellectual discussion on the question.

Certain theisms are falsifiable. Atheism doesn't resist falsification, it is simply not falsifiable because it doesn't contend anything. I do not believe that there is an Invisible Pink Unicorn that cannot be detected by any method known to man. You can't falsify that!

Certainly, define your own position. I'm not preventing that. I'm also not ordering you to defend yourself at all. Perhaps you misread my posts. I'm saying that it is pointless for atheists to cop-out and demand proof in a subject that is far too big for us to comprehend.

If you refuse to drop the demands of proof for reasons pertaining to fallacious reasoning on both accounts, then why don't you drop the demands for the sake of the argument?

Either believe, disbelieve, or sit on the fence. Only one of these doesn't make a claim.

An atheist CAN cop out of any burden of proof because they ain't [sic] putting forth any claims... at all. You, on the other hand, are making a claim that a very specific entity defined by a book that exists is real. This is falsifiable and you can produce evidence to to defend your position. You just choose not to.

Seriously if you have a problem with Delorted attacking your belief of what an Athiest is, then back off on judging all Christians the same.

He's attacking a null, and every math proffessor is spinning in their graves (even the live ones).

How can I debate with someone who is equally "ignorant" as I am. I could say I saw a miracle first hand, and you would say No Proof, Lie. I could claim that I've felt God's Presence, something I believe to by true, and you would claim a lie. No matter what I will say, you will claim it to be a lie, an ignorance, or a misrepresentation. No matter what I say.

You're just as ignorant as I am.

Or, just maybe, you could provide physical proof that you are correct? No? Too hard for you? Okay, I'll accept logical arguments also! What?!? You have none of those, either? Then I'll amend your statement You're just as ignorant as you are.

 

[AltF4]

G4F (at portion directed to me):

Non falsifiability only demotes a theory to a philosophical one instead of a scientific one. It doesn't revoke its theory status. As long as it explains observations, it's a theory. But this is all semantics, not a substantive argument. Perhaps I haven't been specific enough, though. I mean "strong Atheism" when I say the Atheism I belong to.

But I do object to the non-falsifiability of Atheism anyway. Quite to the contrary it is extremely falsifiable! If god himself came down to earth and started doing miracles, and proved to everyone that he exists, then Atheism would be falsified. Theism is the one that cannot be falsified. No matter what evidence comes about, the theist can just alter their depiction of god to make him ever more elusive. (See Carl Sagan's Garage Dragon)

Thus Atheism is a scientific theory by definition. It is falsifiable, puts an explanation to data, and makes predictions for future data. (Amputee argument)

EDIT: And what do you mean "too easy"

 

[Gamer4Fire]

What? What data does it use to posit what predictions? I don't really see, "if nothing happens, nothing will happen" as either data or a prediction.

 

[AltF4]

It makes predictions, such as "no miracles have ever or will ever be performed". I have officially made the prediction that there will never ever be a person born who contains mystical miracle power.

This prediction could be proven wrong tomorrow if the second coming of christ happens then.

You can make more specific predictions pertaining to specific religions too, such as the Mayans are wrong: the world will not end in 2012.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

How is that a prediction of an event? Thats the nonprediction of an event. Nothing will happen when nothing happens is not a valid prediction!

 

[AltF4]

Thats the nonprediction of an event.

No, it's the prediction of a non-event. I think I just can't come up with an example to your liking off the top of my head.

Either way, it doesn't matter. Providing meaningful predictions is not a necessary quality of a scientific theory, only a good one. Falsifiability is the thing that matters.

Why were we even talking about this?

Proof of god, come on. Pics or it didn't happen.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

No, it would prove that the Mayan god doesn't exist (the sun doesn't exist, heh), not that there are no gods!

I'm still freaking out because you started out saying that it isn't a scientific theory and end with saying its a scientific theory!!!!!1oneone

 

[DeadtoSin]

The whole fallacy of your argument, is that I am not coming here with a religion. I'm not even trying to prove creationism to you guys. You guys are just as hardheaded as I am, just in the opposite direction. The only thing is, you guys are a lot harsher and you feel like you have the moral ground to say that anyone who disagrees with you is anti-intellectual. I am just coming to you trying to say I do not believe in evolution. I don't understand how you expect me to post anything worthwhile when everything I post gets berated by 4 different people and parts get taken slightly out of context. Maybe if you guys asked questions and wanted to be honest intellectually, rather than just angrily force your ideas on me I could answer your questions to the best of my ability. All I'm asking for that golden rule that got brought up by Gamer4Fire to be used on me. I am not attacking you guys, please don't attack me.

If you are trying to prove atheism to me, I want proof. If you try to prove evolution to me, I want proof. If I try to prove the existence of Christ to you, you'll want proof. If I try to prove the validity of creationism I have to give you proof.

I may have mentioned creationism earlier, but that wasn't my main point. My main point was to talk about how I do not believe in evolution. That has nothing to do with Christianity, or any religion.

I am trying to simply state my views, and all you guys have done most of the time is attack me. I never have said "you guys are horrible sinners and you are going to rot and die in a sinners hell", I've never called you ignorant. I've never called you anything. All I've asked for is stuff to back up what proof you've given, no matter how simplistic it is. If you call something a proof, I don't want to see wild conjectures. I want to see the actual studies and all the information regarding it.

I'd like to talk to you guys rationally about this stuff, but you seem bound and determined to label all Christian people or anyone who does not believe in evolution. All I am asking is that you please be civil to me. I'm not asking for a whole lot, just for you to not label me as ignorant every time I post.

Even if you guys are wrong, you have no justification to be as rude as you are.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Why are you here trying to debate evolution in the "How Can Anyone Believe in God?" topic? Go to the "How Can Anyone Believe in Evolution?" thread, if you want to talk about that.

...and bring pictures!

 

[DeadtoSin]

You are correct there. Someone was using evolution here in an example, so I latched onto that.

My belief in God is a personal experience. I have logical reasons for believing what I do, but considering you are coming here solely on your idea that God does not exist, I do not see why I should try to "prove" God exists. It is my experience that on this issue, both sides discredit the "proof" that the other side gives. Gamer and Snex, I really want to be friends with you. I consider you VERY intelligent people, and so I'd honestly like us to have some level of respect for each other. You guys have very compelling arguments for your beliefs, but I disagree with points you guys have made in some areas.

I know you do not believe in any sort of deity, but God is the centerpiece for my reason for faith. If I try to give you a scientific reason as the sole basis for why I believe, then God would just be a secondary thing in my eyes.
With my next point, I am not saying that an atheist or agnostic cannot live according to the standards they set for themselves. I know they won't live perfectly within those realms no matter what they believe, but I know at least one atheist who I respect greatly. We have discussions at great length and he is one of the most decent, kind, and gentle people I know. I do not think atheists are evil. The Pharisees were evil people. They would not accept anyone who believed differently than they believed. Christ sat with the prostitutes and tax collectors. That is the man I strive to be.

I believe in God because I saw people who genuinely lived out what they believe. As a non-Christian person I was doing stupid things. I was making wrong choices, and my friends were making even worse ones. Over the time I have become a Christian, God has helped me to care for everyone I meet. I love everyone on these boards, and I love all people. I do make mistakes, and I am rude sometimes. I apologize there. Anyway, when I went to Zimbabwe on a mission trip we spent as much time or more having fun with the children and making them feel special than we did talking about Christ.

Christianity is not a religion! I hate religion. Christianity is a relationship. Religion is the thing you guys are really railing against. Religious people are the pew sitters who have alienated you and treated you badly. Religion is filled with the "perfect" Christians. I admit it, I am a sinner. I am not perfect. Christ's perfection is the only reason I consider myself a good person, not because of anything I do. . I know you have some well-thought out reasons why you believe your way. In fact, a few years ago I would be on your side of the debate hall attacking Christians.

I do not claim to have all the answers. I only believe what I have experienced. I speak what I have seen and heard. I am just doing my best to tell you guys the truth from my perspective. I ask that you be civil, because I am not trying to sway you guys to fulfill some "quota". I just want you guys to consider my beliefs as intellectually honest as you possibly can.

 

[AltF4]

No, it would prove that the Mayan god doesn't exist (the sun doesn't exist, heh), not that there are no gods!

I'm still freaking out because you started out saying that it isn't a scientific theory and end with saying its a scientific theory!!!!!1oneone

A prediction doesn't have to prove the truth its theory, in fact that's impossible. Just like saying that Halley's Comet will return every 75 years is a prediction made by Newton's theory of Universal Gravitation. (Yet, Newton's theory is wrong! That's why predictions aren't vital. But they ARE a good persuasive device.) The comet coming back every 75 years doesn't PROVE that Newton was right. It is just a piece of evidence in favor of it.

Did I say at some point Atheism isn't a theory? I don't recall doing so, but if I did, I certainly changed my mind.

EDIT: Yea, didn't you and Del get into this like months ago or whatever, and I thought I agreed with you back then too.

Christianity is not a religion!

?!

And, dude. This is the debate hall. We debate things here. Don't post your beliefs and then be all "Woa, woa! I didn't want someone to disagree with me!"

 

[DeadtoSin]

That is just another example of you taking my post out of context. I did not say I do not wish you to disagree with me. In fact, let me restate part of my post.

I do not claim to have all the answers. I only believe what I have experienced. I speak what I have seen and heard. I am just doing my best to tell you guys the truth from my perspective. I ask that you be civil, because I am not trying to sway you guys to fulfill some "quota". I just want you guys to consider my beliefs as intellectually honest as you possibly can.

That does not mean you cannot disagree with me. All I want is for some civility. I promise to be more intellectually honest with your arguments if you will stop attacking me and give me some intellectual honesty. So far all I've gotten is "you must be ignorant" or some variation of that.

I edited my post also. Christianity in my eyes is not a religion. I told you what I think religion is. My true definition of Christianity is a group of believers who have a relationship with Christ. I believe Christianity is a relationship, not a religion. Religion is a bad thing, relationship isn't.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

A prediction doesn't have to prove the truth its theory, in fact that's impossible. Just like saying that Halley's Comet will return every 75 years is a prediction made by Newton's theory of Universal Gravitation. (Yet, Newton's theory is wrong! That's why predictions aren't vital. But they ARE a good persuasive device.) The comet coming back every 75 years doesn't PROVE that Newton was right. It is just a piece of evidence in favor of it.

But you aren't proving anything! You can't prove a negative. It would be like saying god isn't going to shoot you to the moon in the next thirty seconds and saying there isn't a god after it doesn't happen. Where are you deriving your parameters and measurements for verification from?

Christianity is not a religion!

?!

And, dude. This is the debate hall. We debate things here. Don't post your beliefs and then be all "Woa, woa! I didn't want someone to disagree with me!"

Back to being serious, I have no idea what is up with him. Really, I have no idea what his point was or what he was trying to get at. I guess he believes in god because he gets warm fuzzies, but I get warm fuzzies when I- well, let's just say it doesn't have anything to do with god.

 

[AltF4]

Why are you so **** touchy. Holy ****. Go read the "Smoking in public places" thread. Snex and I go back and forth for like 20 pages of really heated debate. But it's not personal. I actually happen to agree with Snex on the majority of issues, and he's a great guy.

Don't confuse substantive debate with personal attack. And don't hide behind "this is just my opinion", if you believe something then say why! If it's not a good reason then maybe you shouldn't believe it!

This is the debate hall, expect everything you say to be challenged on every level possible.

PS: I took that quote out of context on purpose because it looks funny that way. Not that it makes much more sense in-context though...

EDIT: Yes, G4F. I agree. Predictions don't prove anything, they can't! That's what I was saying with the comet thing. Halley's Comet DID come back when Newton's equations said it would, but Newton was still wrong! They're just a persuasive device.

 

[DeadtoSin]

I'm not really touchy. I just really find it hard to debate when snex or someone constantly takes all my stuff out of context and them tells me how ignorant I am with a bunch of one line sentences. Thats not substantive debate, that is personal attack. If you can't see that, then you are clouding the issue. I've looked at all of you guys post, including snex. I like all of you guys, and I believe that you are better debaters than I am. I'm trying to put my beliefs down on paper better, but personal attacks about my ignorance does not really encourage me to step out on a limb.

I only am not using a "this is just my opinion" thing, unless I think it is a valid use. How can you guys see what I believe about God as anything other than my opinion? I believe in God because a series of events logically led me to this place as a person. You cannot empirically weigh what I've experienced with God, so how can that be anything but an opinion or belief?

Anyway, lets get back on topic. I apologize for bringing this off topic, but I just wanted to make the request that there not be any attacks on my intelligence.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

EDIT: Yes, G4F. I agree. Predictions don't prove anything, they can't! That's what I was saying with the comet thing. Halley's Comet DID come back when Newton's equations said it would, but Newton was still wrong! They're just a persuasive device.

But you aren't pruning anything! You can't prune a negative. It would be like saying prune isn't going to shoot you to the moon in the next thirty seconds and saying there isn't a prune after it doesn't happen. Where are you deriving your parameters and measurements for verification from?

 

[DeadtoSin]

Here you guys go, lambaste me to your heart's content. I plan on fighting back though.

Why I believe in God -

I believe in an absolute moral good. When people feel a sense of outage, that sense of right and wrong comes from somewhere. If you ask a person is stealing wrong, you would almost certainly get the answer yes. If you ask someone if murder is wrong, you would almost certainly get a yes. The quibbling about morality comes from things that are deemed to be less important. Lying will get you a different answer from murder.

I cannot separate right from wrong in my mind as being of a lesser or higher degree. Even as a non-Christian I was a very black and white person. Things were either right or wrong.

Since I have dedicated my life to living a Christ-like life, I have had a lot more peace in my heart. Whereas I might have been angry before (and I struggle to this day with that now), I have learned to be a bit more temperate. Christ's teachings affected my unlike any other belief system I have tried, so if his teachings have helped me, then I have to give credit in some way to Christ himself.

This is a basic groundwork, and it is by no means a complete list. These are just some of my thoughts. I welcome your critique, so that I can further hone my skills and my response to this question.

 

[Deleted member]

what a joke.. if its too big to comprehend, then people claiming to comprehend it, like theists, are LYING. and it is absolutely NOT pointless to expose these liars for what they are.

That's not what I'm saying. Calling religious people liars is an empty statement. You have no foothold to make such bold insults like this. Here's why:

the only claim in disbelief is "no believer has presented an adequate reason for me to believe." and this is easily demonstrable by watching the theists present their lies and then exposing them as lies.

Appeal to Ignorance
Alias:

* Argument from Ignorance
* Argumentum ad Ignorantiam

There is no evidence for P.
Therefore, not P.

Meaning, the atheist argument is fallacious. This means that your belief (yes, disbelief is still a belief) in a God-less universe is just as bold a statement as a theistic universe. The basis of your entire argument is built from a fallacious argument, meaning it crumbles just as fast as you believe the theistic argument does. It's so simple, really.

Don't you get it now? We are on a level playing field. In an ideal debate, there should be no burdens; only beliefs.

That's why when you go around calling religious people liars, you fall under the same category. You fell for a simple trap.

Because that's not evidence, Jedi. How many people see ghosts, zombies, bigfoot, lechupicabra, and other nonsense? Lots of people do.

In a science lab, it might not be classified as evidence. However, since science cannot and will not provide us with further insight into the creation of the universe, who are you to say that empirical evidence is meaningless? This is people's lives we are talking about. When you respond to this, remember to be sensitive to this fact.

Please post your healthful reasons on why circumcisions are good.

I don't want to dirty my post with penile references, but here.

Spoiler

The benefits of circumcision include:

• Decrease in physical problems involving a tight foreskin [408].

• Lower incidence of inflammation of the head of the ***** [162, 168, 172].

• Reduced urinary tract infections.

• Fewer problems with erections, especially at puberty.

• Decrease in certain sexually transmitted infections (STIs) such as HIV, HPV, chlamydia, syphilis in men and their partner(s).

• Almost complete elimination of invasive penile cancer.

• Decrease in urological problems generally.

That's it, I'm done. Please do not reply to this section of this post, it will derail it to no end.

You got that backwards, kimosabe.

Wake up. Really. Wake up.

I have been given no evidence for one side or the other so I simply lack belief.

If you have not been given or experienced evidence for either side, aren't you classifying yourself as agnostic?

An atheist CAN cop out of any burden of proof because they ain't [sic] putting forth any claims... at all. You, on the other hand, are making a claim that a very specific entity defined by a book that exists is real. This is falsifiable and you can produce evidence to to defend your position. You just choose not to.

I do not identify with the Bible whatsoever. I have not ever stated a specific entity at all, all I talk about is the general. I do not believe in a God, nor do I disbelieve in a God.

 

[snex]

When people feel a sense of outage, that sense of right and wrong comes from somewhere.

it comes from evolution. people who objected to being stolen from or murdered had better reproductive success than people who didnt.

Since I have dedicated my life to living a Christ-like life, I have had a lot more peace in my heart. Whereas I might have been angry before (and I struggle to this day with that now), I have learned to be a bit more temperate. Christ's teachings affected my unlike any other belief system I have tried, so if his teachings have helped me, then I have to give credit in some way to Christ himself.

that just proves he had some good advice, not that he was magic.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Here you guys go, lambaste me to your heart's content. I plan on fighting back though.

Uhm, okay.

Why I believe in God -

Your first mistake? Really, I need more to work with to really baste your lamb.

I believe in an absolute moral good. When people feel a sense of outage, that sense of right and wrong comes from somewhere. If you ask a person is stealing wrong, you would almost certainly get the answer yes. If you ask someone if murder is wrong, you would almost certainly get a yes. The quibbling about morality comes from things that are deemed to be less important. Lying will get you a different answer from murder.

I don't know what an absolute moral good is. Have fun with that.

I feel an outage after I work out if I haven't eaten in a long while.

I get this feeling that people are told that stealing is wrong and can regurgitate it at will. Same thing with murder. In fact if you ask people if lying is wrong, I'm sure they'd say it is wrong, too.

I cannot separate right from wrong in my mind as being of a lesser or higher degree. Even as a non-Christian I was a very black and white person. Things were either right or wrong.

Maybe this is because you are young. The world starts to develop a lot more shades of grey the older you get and the more you learn. Should a women be allowed to have an abortion if attempting to have the child would kill her? Black and white answer, no. Grey answer, the life of the woman is more important than the life of the fetus, abort it.

Then again, fundamentalists don't know how to make such distinctions. Which what makes them so ********.

Since I have dedicated my life to living a Christ-like life, I have had a lot more peace in my heart. Whereas I might have been angry before (and I struggle to this day with that now), I have learned to be a bit more temperate. Christ's teachings affected my unlike any other belief system I have tried, so if his teachings have helped me, then I have to give credit in some way to Christ himself.

Now here I could rip on you on the lack of evidence of christs existence, the fact that it was the work of an individual (probably a pastor) that set you on the path or your ingterpretation of whatever writings you were given. But instead I'll talk about how every religion has adherents that claim that, so what makes yours so special?

This is a basic groundwork, and it is by no means a complete list. These are just some of my thoughts. I welcome your critique, so that I can further hone my skills and my response to this question.

Because you aren't trying to find the truth at all. So sad. I feel pity for you. You only want to reinforce your own world view without actually experiencing and understanding the real world. May the Goddess bless you and keep you safe. May She always embrace you with Her everlasting love.

 

[snex]

Meaning, the atheist argument is fallacious.

um no. meaning YOU ARE NOT LISTENING TO WHAT ATHEISTS SAY! how many times do i have to tell you that atheism is simply a lack of belief, NOT the assertion "god does not exist?" DISBELIEF IS NOT A BELIEF.

when are you going to stop lying about this?

and your claims for circumcision would apply equally well to ears. cut off a child's ears and he cant get ear cancer. hallelujah! if an 18 year old adult wants to circumcise himself, thats his right. you have no right to do it to an innocent child who cannot make a decision for himself. post a new thread for this if you want to continue.

 

[Deleted member]

If atheism is simply a lack of belief, why are you partial to end it there? For if you truly thought the way you did, you would clearly see that you have no evidence to have a simple lack of belief - meaning you should have a simple lack of belief for a simple lack of belief, as convoluted as that sounds.

You're quite the spin doctor, snex. In the smash world, we call those johns.

I've presented what I need to, either respond or accept your blindness.



I'd appreciate it if you didn't skim-read my posts.

That's it, I'm done. Please do not reply to this section of this post, it will derail it to no end.