|
|
Post by heeeeey on Jun 4, 2019 19:42:22 GMT
What's that saying about no proof is necessary for believers, and no proof is possible for non-believers?
Btw, I'm sure 'proof' to you would require something stupid.
Believing in something based solely on faith...or really just because it was drummed into your head...is stupid. Some believers believe because they've seen enough proof to satisfy them, not based on 'faith'.
But people have different burdens of proof than others.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2019 19:42:43 GMT
Tide come in. Tide goes out. Bam, checkmate atheists.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Jun 4, 2019 19:45:13 GMT
Believing in something based solely on faith...or really just because it was drummed into your head...is stupid. Some believers believe because they've seen enough proof to satisfy them, not based on 'faith'.
But people have different burdens of proof than others.
Proof as in Trump getting elected? ‘Cause he’s just like King Cyrus in the Bible?
|
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Jun 4, 2019 19:46:03 GMT
Some believers believe because they've seen enough proof to satisfy them, not based on 'faith'.
But people have different burdens of proof than others.
Proof as in Trump getting elected? ‘Cause he’s just like King Cyrus in the Bible? Now you're just being silly.
|
|
|
|
Post by lordarvidthexiii on Jun 4, 2019 19:46:23 GMT
Douglas Adams already conclusively proved the non-existence of God decades ago:  “Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful[the Babel fish]could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist,'" says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." "But," says Man, "The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED." "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic." Peace. Except, it could be viewed of putting evidence in plain site knowing people would ignore it.
|
|
|
|
Post by GoodbyePorkPieHat on Jun 4, 2019 19:46:46 GMT
I just show people my banana. How well does it fit your hand? Oh, pretty much like your typical banana. I have two of them at the moment in fact - edzep will probably tell you they're just berries though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Jun 4, 2019 19:49:59 GMT
Proof as in Trump getting elected? ‘Cause he’s just like King Cyrus in the Bible? Now you're just being silly. Then what is your evidence? Be specific.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rissa on Jun 4, 2019 19:56:54 GMT
I haven’t seen any evidence that a god exists.
|
|
|
|
Post by GoodbyePorkPieHat on Jun 4, 2019 20:05:02 GMT
I haven’t seen any evidence that a god exists. Nor have I, but I've had several (14) experiences which defy rational explanation, several of which have been witnessed and documented. These experiences have led me to conclude without a doubt that there is "something" which exists beyond this physical plane and that (for lack of a better word) the "soul" continues to exist after the body dies. However, I see no need to invent a "Creator" to explain what I believe is simply physics that we humans are not yet advanced enough to understand. Would you like to see my banana?
|
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jun 4, 2019 20:08:14 GMT
What's that saying about no proof is necessary for believers, and no proof is possible for non-believers?
Btw, I'm sure 'proof' to you would require something stupid.
It would require proof. Most theists just settle for something stupid.
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Jun 4, 2019 20:08:16 GMT
I haven’t seen any evidence that a god exists. Nor have I, but I've had several (14) experiences which defy rational explanation, several of which have been witnessed and documented. These experiences have led me to conclude without a doubt that there is "something" which exists beyond this physical plane and that (for lack of a better word) the "soul" continues to exist after the body dies. However, I see no need to invent a "Creator" to explain what I believe is simply physics that we humans are not yet advanced enough to understand. Would you like to see my banana? Your avatar is making me dizzy. Just kidding. 
|
|
|
|
Post by poutinep on Jun 4, 2019 20:08:58 GMT
Anything that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jun 4, 2019 20:10:34 GMT
 You're right.  I really thought I posted this on the Religion board. (I was surprised to see so many responses so quickly.... That explains it.)
|
|
|
|
Post by lordarvidthexiii on Jun 4, 2019 20:12:25 GMT
Anything that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Except, faith isn't based on evidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by deviates on Jun 4, 2019 20:13:55 GMT
Believing in something based solely on faith...or really just because it was drummed into your head...is stupid. Some believers believe because they've seen enough proof to satisfy them, not based on 'faith'.
But people have different burdens of proof than others.
Hard to argue with that, but it's that subjective nature of their evidence which makes it so easy to dismiss for others. It reminds me of near death experiences, which for the individual can be evidence enough of a god or an afterlife, but when studies are conducted on these experiences they often show that such experiences are reflective of the culture the person has been raise in, with others being based on works of fiction like Lord of the Rings. |
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Jun 4, 2019 20:16:44 GMT
What's that saying about no proof is necessary for believers, and no proof is possible for non-believers?
Btw, I'm sure 'proof' to you would require something stupid.
It would require proof. Most theists just settle for something stupid. Why did you post this topic here and not on the RFS board where it should be?
|
|
|
|
Post by poutinep on Jun 4, 2019 20:17:35 GMT
Anything that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Except, faith isn't based on evidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Jun 4, 2019 20:18:25 GMT
Now you're just being silly. Then what is your evidence? Be specific. It would be dismissed outright, so why even say it?
Like I said, everybody has a different burden of proof and, as we've seen in courts, proof can be excused and dismissed easily by those who don't want to accept it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jun 4, 2019 20:19:36 GMT
It would require proof. Most theists just settle for something stupid. Already explained... 
|
|
|
|
Post by lordarvidthexiii on Jun 4, 2019 20:30:27 GMT
Except, faith isn't based on evidence. Dawkins can go eat my ass, an evangelical atheist depends on faith to sustain his pathetic need to spread the gospel of no faith while clinging to an unprovable fallacy, that an absence evidence is proof of the non existence of a prime mover. Many wiser atheist like JMS or Joss Whendon written about the need for faith in our modern world. The world is far too complicated to understand everything, we end up having to take things on faith. Many institutions are sustained by faith in both within the organization and without. To quote JMS and his show, Babylon 5, 'Faith manages.'
|
|
