Religion, idiots and lack of sensibilities!! WTF?

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

Did I at any point even mention the Christian Bible?

This thread is about religion. I'm allowed to use examples to back up my arguments. And the same would apply to Islam or any other religion derrived from abrahamic scriptures. I.e. replace "bible" with "quran" and "Jesus" with "Muhammed" - Both doctrines are full of abhorrent preaching.

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker

 

many are just as disobedient of scripture as any atheist - Those with "vague" faith.

I'll agree with that. But I really wish people would stop using other people's actions as an excuse that God does not exist. Like you said, you chose to be good on your own, just like those who do evil do evil on their own. God has not made anyone do anything. People kill, rape and steal because they want to, not because God told them to. It is not God's fault that people take his Word out of context or use it for evil gain, people do these things by their own choice. God is against these things, but man does them anyway, so who should we really be blaming for all of the chaos?

I can respect one not wanting to follow a certain religion, but to say that God doesn't exist is just down right foolishness and show's a sign of ignorance instead of smartness.

reply to post by ExistentialNightmare


Which does not directly mean what we would call a "god" does not exist. Or even Allah, Yewah, or whatever does not exist in some form. It simply means the people who wrote the book got it wrong intentionally or unitentionally.

reply to post by RealTruthSeeker

I can respect one not wanting to follow a certain religion, but to say that God doesn't exist is just down right foolishness and show's a sign of ignorance instead of smartness.

I never said God didn't exist; all i state is that there isn't sufficient evidence to warrant belief in a theory that states God DOES exist.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


I understand that religious people are capable of immoral acts; in the same way that atheists are. Immoral acts by individual believers isn't an argument against faith, but it can be an argument against religion if people commit their acts in accordance with doctrine; or because of doctrine (Martyrdom and Jihad)

Many people Islamic militias quote the Quran, and believe they will be rewarded by Allah, even for destestable acts such as suicide bombing.

If you read what the Quran states about Kafirs (non-believers) and the Holy war in the name of Allah; it's easy to see why such passages could lead to despicable atrocities.

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare

there isn't sufficient evidence to warrant belief in a theory that states God DOES exist.

This idea seems to be running rapid, all I want to know is what kind of evidence is required in order for there to be proof that God does exist? People keep saying there is no evidence yet they never point to any evidence themselves to prove this. It still amazes me how man thinks he so much smarter then what created him.

reply to post by RealTruthSeeker


MY ORIGINAL STATEMENT:-

there isn't sufficient evidence to warrant belief in a theory that states God DOES exist.

This idea seems to be running rapid, all I want to know is what kind of evidence is required in order for there to be proof that God does exist? People keep saying there is no evidence yet they never point to any evidence themselves to prove this.

This is an appeal to ignorance; burden of proof rests on the person making the positive claim; no-one should have to prove a negative.

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance", is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa).

This is also highlighted in Rusell Bertrand's teapot anology:-

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time

en.wikipedia.org...

Agnostic Atheists don't claim there is no God; because that falls under the above "argument from ignorance" - Most rationale atheists state that there isn't sufficent evidence to warrant belief in a deity, or secondaly any of the deities proposed by ant of the religious doctrines.

Agnostic Atheism:-

Atheistic agnosticism is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know with certainty whether any deity exists. The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who does believe that one or more deities exist but does not claim to have absolute knowledge of such

It still amazes me how man thinks he so much smarter then what created him.

Atheists don't believe in a deity; so they wouldn't claim to be smarter than a deity; however it's easy enough to be more kind and logical than any of the religious Gods.

Evolution on other planets in the universe could give rise to animals much smarter than ourselves; or that have been around for longer; again the atheist doesn't claim to be the smartest.

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare

This is an appeal to ignorance; burden of proof rests on the person making the positive claim; no-one should have to prove a negative.

That argument is a fallacy, there is not a court on earth that would agree with this method. It's not up to a murder to prove he is innocent, it is up to the prosecution to prove that he is guilty. If the prosecution can't prove this then the murder goes free whether we like or not.

If you can't prove or provide any evidence that God doesn't exist how can you honestly expect anyone to believe if you say that he doesn't?

reply to post by RealTruthSeeker

there is not a court on earth that would agree with this method. It's not up to a murder to prove he is innocent, it is up to the prosecution to prove that he is guilty. If the prosecution can't prove this then the murder goes free whether we like or not.

The court doesn't intend to prove or disprove the existence of anything. The court procedures revolve around law and order, not the existence of a deity or the validity of a metaphysical claim formed without evidence, or logic.

The burden of proof rests on the person making the claim; whether it's scientific or metaphysical.

If you can't prove or provide any evidence that God doesn't exist how can you honestly expect anyone to believe if you say that he doesn't?

I never made a positive claim

Please feel free to quote me if you believe i'm wrong.

So much for "RealTruthSeeker" - you have already made up your mind; a real truth seeker would await evidence, remain open-minded until a definite conviction could be made. Agnostic Atheism.

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
a real truth seeker would await evidence, remain open-minded until a definite conviction could be made. Agnostic Atheism.

edit on 6-7-2011 by ExistentialNightmare because: (no reason given)

I don't need to await the evidence because the evidence is all around me. The mere fact that neither you nor I created our self proves this. Or do you honestly believe that you created yourself by your own power, if you believe that then I guess God doesn't exist.

I wouldn't brag about being Agnostic Atheism, unless you like the idea of admitting you that you don't have the answer to anything. Only a fool would preach such as logical.

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker
Or do you honestly believe that you created yourself by your own power, if you believe that then I guess God doesn't exist.

Well actually - - yeah I do believe that.

God doesn't exist.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker
Or do you honestly believe that you created yourself by your own power, if you believe that then I guess God doesn't exist.

Well actually - - yeah I do believe that.

God doesn't exist.

Ok, now can you prove it.

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker
Or do you honestly believe that you created yourself by your own power, if you believe that then I guess God doesn't exist.

Well actually - - yeah I do believe that.

God doesn't exist.

Ok, now can you prove it.

You said if I honestly believe in self creation then you "guess" there is no god.

It is what I believe.

NO ONE - - - - knows if we began or just always were. NO ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

However - - I support science and its ability to prove on the basis of known knowledge.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker
Or do you honestly believe that you created yourself by your own power, if you believe that then I guess God doesn't exist.

Well actually - - yeah I do believe that.

God doesn't exist.

Ok, now can you prove it.

You said if I honestly believe in self creation then you "guess" there is no god.

It is what I believe.

NO ONE - - - - knows if we began or just always were. NO ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

However - - I support science and its ability to prove on the basis of known knowledge.

This is interesting. Can you please explain what you mean when you say "we"? Is this in reference to humans, or all creatures that exist?

Also, if you support the known knowledge of science then shouldn't you agree with the idea that we all had a beginning? After all science does say that we were created by some form of bang.

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker
This is interesting. Can you please explain what you mean when you say "we"? Is this in reference to humans, or all creatures that exist?

Also, if you support the known knowledge of science then shouldn't you agree with the idea that we all had a beginning? After all science does say that we were created by some form of bang.

We meaning - - what we know on earth. But includes all of our universe existence - - including other life forms we have not discovered yet Basically Everything. (leaving multiple universes alone).

Science knows there was an expansion of energy and matter. They do not know why or what came before.

(my simplest of science explanation).

reply to post by RealTruthSeeker

I wouldn't brag about being Agnostic Atheism, unless you like the idea of admitting you that you don't have the answer to anything.

I acknowledge that i don't know the answers to all the questions. And i didn't "brag" about anything.

I'm humble and honest.

Only a fool would preach such as logical.

Ok.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker
This is interesting. Can you please explain what you mean when you say "we"? Is this in reference to humans, or all creatures that exist?

Also, if you support the known knowledge of science then shouldn't you agree with the idea that we all had a beginning? After all science does say that we were created by some form of bang.

We meaning - - what we know on earth. But includes all of our universe existence - - including other life forms we have not discovered yet Basically Everything. (leaving multiple universes alone).

Science knows there was an expansion of energy and matter. They do not know why or what came before.

(my simplest of science explanation).

I have to admit that is a good answer. But I don't think it is proof to the non-existence because we still have a problem with where the energy and matter came from. If energy and matter always existed then wouldn't that make it a supreme being?

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker

 

I wouldn't brag about being Agnostic Atheism, unless you like the idea of admitting you that you don't have the answer to anything.

I acknowledge that i don't know the answers to all the questions. And i didn't "brag" about anything.

I'm humble and honest.

Only a fool would preach such as logical.

Ok.

edit on 6-7-2011 by ExistentialNightmare because: (no reason given)

Fair enough.

Wait, What? You're Humble and Honest? How humble can you be if you have to point out how much better than someone else you are because you are "So much more humble" This is a charged post but that kind of pretentious act really gets to me. Lets call a spade a spade hmm...

Just because someone is Agnostic and an Atheist, it doesn't necessarily mean that they don't know anything. Agnostic simply means that they either don't know what to believe or that they believe in a combination of several defined belief systems.. .As far as I know, an Atheist simply doesn't believe in God or any other deities. This doesn't mean that they know nothing or even that they can't believe in portions of various religions that aren't related to the belief of any specific God or Deities.

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker
If energy and matter always existed then wouldn't that make it a supreme being?

Why would that make it a supreme being?

Isn't the argument for god "design" - - not Stuff Happens?