Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
.
Dec 27, 2020 17:37:27 GMT
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2020 17:37:27 GMT
He sounds like a real loser... She Or It.But I corrected my mistake.
|
|
|
|
.
Dec 27, 2020 17:49:37 GMT
Post by Isapop on Dec 27, 2020 17:49:37 GMT
This thread has been ruined by a user, so i just removed the question and poll. It's lucky then that I was able to settle the matter before it was ruined.
|
|
|
|
.
Dec 27, 2020 18:15:40 GMT
via mobile
Post by SciFive on Dec 27, 2020 18:15:40 GMT
When you attack believers for their beliefs, the burden of proof is on you. FlimFlam tries to make arguments that “God” is inferior as a mind-fck attack on believers. His obsession with attacking believers puts the burden of proof on him for deciding that believers deserve to be the targets of his attacks for their thoughts. As I said on the other thread where we talked, religion is not "attacked" because of thought but because of actions. Religious beliefs are a danger to ones self and to others. No. You are attacking BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE FOR THEIR THOUGHTS!! If they were all doing bad things, the whole human race would be long dead. |
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,708
Likes: 1,348
|
.
Dec 27, 2020 19:44:13 GMT
via mobile
Post by The Lost One on Dec 27, 2020 19:44:13 GMT
The problem with this question is it assumes a neutral stance that doesn't tend to exist in reality. We tend to already have our own stances on the God question and each of us will require different levels of evidence (and/or emotional appeals and pragmatic arguments) to change our minds.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,708
Likes: 1,348
|
.
Dec 27, 2020 19:51:08 GMT
via mobile
Post by The Lost One on Dec 27, 2020 19:51:08 GMT
If an atheist says, "There is no God", then they are making a claim. With the claim comes a burden of proof. That's not what most atheists claim. They don't believe there is a God. Lack of belief is not the same as a claim. Would you say there is a similar difference between "There is a God" and "I believe in God"? Is only the former a claim or are they both claims? |
|
|
|
.
Dec 27, 2020 20:46:44 GMT
Post by Rodney Farber on Dec 27, 2020 20:46:44 GMT
If an atheist says, "There is no God", then they are making a claim. With the claim comes a burden of proof. That's not what most atheists claim. They don't believe there is a God. Lack of belief is not the same as a claim. Would you say there is a similar difference between "There is a God" and "I believe in God"? Is only the former a claim or are they both claims? The first is an assertion, which comes with the burden proof if challenged. The second is merely a statement of opinion. Opinions can't be proven. If there were provable, they would be facts.
Here's a quote from film, Dracula has Risen from the Grave:
Paul: I'm an atheist, sir.
Monsignor Ernest Mueller: You mean you deny the existence of God?
Paul: I don't deny it. I just don't believe it. It's my own opinion, sir.
|
|
|
|
.
Dec 27, 2020 23:41:43 GMT
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 27, 2020 23:41:43 GMT
As I said on the other thread where we talked, religion is not "attacked" because of thought but because of actions. Religious beliefs are a danger to ones self and to others. No. You are attacking BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE FOR THEIR THOUGHTS!! If they were all doing bad things, the whole human race would be long dead. It is very kind of SciFive to speak for billions and billions when, after being repeatedly asked direct questions, she feels unable to speak for herself.
|
|
|
|
.
Dec 27, 2020 23:43:46 GMT
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 27, 2020 23:43:46 GMT
If an atheist says, "There is no God", then they are making a claim. With the claim comes a burden of proof. That's not what most atheists claim. They don't believe there is a God. Lack of belief is not the same as a claim. Would you say there is a similar difference between "There is a God" and "I believe in God"? Is only the former a claim or are they both claims? They are both claims, surely. The first is a claim about God. The second is a claim too - but about oneself. And is a claim not a form of belief?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2020 23:49:24 GMT
No. You are attacking BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE FOR THEIR THOUGHTS!! If they were all doing bad things, the whole human race would be long dead. It is very kind of SciFive to speak for billions and billions when, after being repeatedly asked direct questions, she feels unable to speak for herself. Thant's the thing about some theists; they make outlandish statements yet either clam up or say something completely stupid when asked to back up their statements.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,708
Likes: 1,348
|
.
Dec 28, 2020 0:58:58 GMT
via mobile
FilmFlaneur likes this
Post by The Lost One on Dec 28, 2020 0:58:58 GMT
Would you say there is a similar difference between "There is a God" and "I believe in God"? Is only the former a claim or are they both claims? They are both claims, surely. The first is a claim about God. The second is a claim too - but about oneself. And is a claim not a form of belief? Possibly. I suppose what I'm trying to tease out here is if you have hard atheists ("there is no God") and soft atheists ("I do not believe in God"), can you also have hard theists ("there is a God") and soft theists ("I believe in God") |
|
|
|
.
Dec 28, 2020 1:32:20 GMT
Post by OpiateOfTheMasses on Dec 28, 2020 1:32:20 GMT
You missed the real answer. It’s THE PERSON MAKING THE CLAIM.When someone says God doesn’t exist as if it’s a fact, the burden of proof is on this person (if the other person isn’t asking the non-believer to believe). When someone ASKS YOU TO BELIEVE IN GOD, the burden of proof is on the believer. If they’re both making CLAIMS, they both have the burden of proof. The burden of proof is on the person making a claim. That makes sense. So... all those people claiming they should get special treatment on religious grounds... would they be the sort of people that would need to present some sort of proof that there religion is based on something real before they get a tax break on their club-house/don't have to abide by equality laws/whatever? And all those people wanting to force their religiously based beliefs about abortion and gay marriage and the likes on others via the statue books, would they also be the sort of people that would need to present evidence first?
|
|
|
|
.
Dec 28, 2020 6:16:03 GMT
via mobile
Post by SciFive on Dec 28, 2020 6:16:03 GMT
You missed the real answer. It’s THE PERSON MAKING THE CLAIM.When someone says God doesn’t exist as if it’s a fact, the burden of proof is on this person (if the other person isn’t asking the non-believer to believe). When someone ASKS YOU TO BELIEVE IN GOD, the burden of proof is on the believer. If they’re both making CLAIMS, they both have the burden of proof. The burden of proof is on the person making a claim. That makes sense. So... all those people claiming they should get special treatment on religious grounds... would they be the sort of people that would need to present some sort of proof that there religion is based on something real before they get a tax break on their club-house/don't have to abide by equality laws/whatever? And all those people wanting to force their religiously based beliefs about abortion and gay marriage and the likes on others via the statue books, would they also be the sort of people that would need to present evidence first? The burden of proof about God’s existence applies when people claim that God doesn’t exist or that God exists. |
|
|
|
.
Dec 28, 2020 10:46:17 GMT
via mobile
Post by SciFive on Dec 28, 2020 10:46:17 GMT
The burden of proof about God’s existence applies when people claim that God doesn’t exist or that God exists. So existence of God is not the argument then, but the belief behind the existence of a God. If one believes, why do they not have to come up with evidence of God and which God? The non-believer isn’t looking for evidence of God, so has no burden of proof to provide any. No one has to prove anything unless they are asking another person to believe something. When you insist that God doesn’t exist, the burden of proof is on you. |
|
|
|
Post by OpiateOfTheMasses on Dec 28, 2020 11:14:14 GMT
That makes sense. So... all those people claiming they should get special treatment on religious grounds... would they be the sort of people that would need to present some sort of proof that there religion is based on something real before they get a tax break on their club-house/don't have to abide by equality laws/whatever? And all those people wanting to force their religiously based beliefs about abortion and gay marriage and the likes on others via the statue books, would they also be the sort of people that would need to present evidence first? The burden of proof about God’s existence applies when people claim that God doesn’t exist or that God exists. But they are claiming that God exists. They aren't saying " we won't have gay marriage in our little community because it doesn't fit in with our beliefs" are they? They're saying that "God doesn't agree with gay marriage and therefore none of you should be allowed to do it!". So they use God's absolute authority to try to impose their beliefs on others. At this point it's reasonable for others to ask for a little back up to their claims isn't it?
|
|
|
|
.
Dec 28, 2020 11:30:49 GMT
via mobile
Post by SciFive on Dec 28, 2020 11:30:49 GMT
The burden of proof about God’s existence applies when people claim that God doesn’t exist or that God exists. But they are claiming that God exists. They aren't saying " we won't have gay marriage in our little community because it doesn't fit in with our beliefs" are they? They're saying that "God doesn't agree with gay marriage and therefore none of you should be allowed to do it!". So they use God's absolute authority to try to impose their beliefs on others. At this point it's reasonable for others to ask for a little back up to their claims isn't it? ”These are our beliefs” is not a demand for others to believe. Stating as fact that there is no God is a demand for belief. No one can prove that God doesn’t exist. |
|
|
|
.
Dec 28, 2020 12:02:48 GMT
via mobile
Post by SciFive on Dec 28, 2020 12:02:48 GMT
The problem with this question is it assumes a neutral stance that doesn't tend to exist in reality. We tend to already have our own stances on the God question and each of us will require different levels of evidence (and/or emotional appeals and pragmatic arguments) to change our minds. Yet beyond mind, there is no mind to change. God of human existence only exists within mind, which will never have evidence provided for it. There is absolutely no way to prove that God doesn’t exist. |
|
|
|
.
Dec 28, 2020 12:34:33 GMT
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 28, 2020 12:34:33 GMT
Yet beyond mind, there is no mind to change. God of human existence only exists within mind, which will never have evidence provided for it. There is absolutely no way to prove that God doesn’t exist. This however, as I am sure you will agree with me, does not mean that then God necessarily does exist. But if proving a negative of this sort is impossible, and if the burden of proof is so hard to discharge for sceptics, isn't it even more important that those who claim the existence of a positive, where proof ought to be more quickly to be found, make their case convincing and coherent?
|
|
|
|
.
Dec 28, 2020 12:59:20 GMT
via mobile
Post by SciFive on Dec 28, 2020 12:59:20 GMT
There is absolutely no way to prove that God doesn’t exist. This however, as I am sure you will agree with me, does not mean that then God necessarily does exist. But in that proving a negative of this sort is impossible, if the burden of proof is so hard to discharge for sceptics, isn't it even more important that those who claim the existence of a positive, where proof ought to be more quickly to be found, make their case convincing? No. Those in proselytizing religions don’t waste their time on people who reject their ideas with hostility. Why should they? They think you will go to hell so they wish you a pleasant journey (wherever you end up). Judaism doesn’t proselytize to non-Jews and doesn’t believe in hell. |
|
|
|
.
Dec 28, 2020 13:09:32 GMT
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 28, 2020 13:09:32 GMT
FF: This however, as I am sure you will agree with me, does not mean that then God necessarily does exist. But in that proving a negative of this sort is impossible, if the burden of proof is so hard to discharge for sceptics, isn't it even more important that those who claim the existence of a positive, where proof ought to be more quickly to be found, make their case convincing? No. If you don't feel the need to make your case convincing then why criticise atheists for the same reason? This is not the case. Christians down the millennia have forcibly converted 'savages' who were hostile to their invasions and efforts, as well as persecuting those within in the faith who unfortunately did not have the same, exact ideas - while clearly those in proselytizing religions still try it on with everyone, often on their doorstep. Agreed. But we are talking faith in a supernatural Cause generally here, are we not? Unless it is just Jews which make up those "billions and billions" apparently slandered by threads like this. Thank you for more information (or repeated information) about this interesting religion - but it is a non-sequitur. (One also notes that Judaism can't prove that hell doesn't exist, so it is in the same boat as positive atheists)
|
|
|
|
.
Dec 28, 2020 13:22:18 GMT
via mobile
Post by SciFive on Dec 28, 2020 13:22:18 GMT
FilmFlaneurThe proselytizing Christians are trying to save souls from hell when they proselytize. They aren’t in all this to win a debate with the world’s pagans or atheists. They aren’t obligated to be subjugated to the likes of you, however. They say what they think and move on. I’m sure you would love to trap them all in an Earthly Hell where you invite them to prove God’s existence to you for the rest of their lives and you refuse.  I wouldn’t be involved in all this except for my concerns about what I view as a war on thoughts.
|
|
