Thread closed?

[fair dinkum]

Probably because those who don't believe in a God belittle those who do by basically stating they're idiots.
Those who believe are marked as rational, logical and full of good old common sense.
What does that infer they consider the ones who do?
**The one thing these people can't do, however, is totally disprove the idea.**
Each to their own.
As long as people are respectful of each each others views without denigrating them there shouldn't be a problem.

**The one thing these people can't do, however, is totally disprove the idea.**

Truth matters.

**The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim**, not the person saying i dont believe you because you have failed to provide a single piece of non anecdotal evidence. **Logic 101.**

I think you've got it the wrong way around.
If you want to debunk someone's belief then you should be able to prove why they're wrong.
Now that's Logic 101.
I'm no bible basher, nor do I attend church ... but I can't think of a way to categorically disprove their may be a God.
Can you?

Unfortunately logic does not work that way mate. You have it twisted.

The person making a positive claim has to provide proof, not the person rejecting that said claim.

I dont need to debunk any belief if a belief provides zero evidence and claiming something extraordinary requires evidence. If you tell me you have a dog in your backyard, ill probably believe you based on my reality, past experiences, evidence dogs actually exists, ive seen them before, others have seen them before, i can walk outside and find a dog in 30 seconds, theres a high probability that you could have a dog in your backyard as thats quiet normal. If you claim you have a purple dragon in your backyard, well you better bring some good evidence to make me believe you have a dragon. Same can be said for a God claim, if you are claiming something supernatural exits you better bring some damn good evidence to support that claim, and no, a warm feeling in the cockles of your heart isnt evidence.

You do realise atheists arent making a positive claim, dont you? The position of Atheism isnt a positive claim, its a rejection of your claim that a god exists. Atheists are not saying there is no god, you can have subgroups of hard atheists or anit-theists that do make claims that there is no god, and yes, they would then have to provide evidence to prove their claim of no god exists, however, Atheists in general are saying "you are asserting something exists prove it otherwise i dont believe your claim". A religious person generally can not provide any evidence and reverts to calling their belief "faith" which is a fancy way of saying you believe with no evidence, and thats fine for religious people, id just prefer to live my life caring about what is actually true.

The question to ask is what do you believe and why?

My following remark would be - isnt it amazing how many people just happen to follow the same religion they were born into. My follow up question would be - why are you atheist towards the 10's of thousands of religions that have existed throughout the history of mankind but you assert you have the one true god. How did you come to that conclusion, you clearly believe in the super natural, you clearly believe you dont need to provide evidence to believe in your god, so how did disprove all the followers of those other gods who have/had just as good a claim that their god exists as you do?

 

[BZN]

Absolute magic @Mac and absolutely no reason why we can't have a laugh about Religion in all it's various forms, AS LONG AS IT'S DONE IN A RESPECTFUL WAY,
and I feel 99.9% of us know full well if we are being respectful or not.
Even the future King of England laughed [and I feel he is a top bloke by the way].

A big majority of us that have Religious beliefs don't go around bashing the Bible and saying you must do this and that or you will all go down to meet Rowan Atkinson.

Dave Allen was another great example of being able to take the mickey out of religion in a fairly respectful way, and giving us a laugh at the same time.

Thanks for your post @Mac and have a great day :sweat_smile: :sweat_smile: :sweat_smile:

 

[TIGER]

My dearly departed old man said you never talk politics or religion because it ends in tears.

Personally I am a non believer but I have a brother in law who is a minister and fantastic person doing great work in his community. So I think you don’t knock anyone who has a different view on the subject

This is exactly the mentality I question, this idea that you don't talk Religion and Politics, if adults can't talk about these subjects without it ending in tears then we need to talk about them MORE not less or not at all.

Shutting down conversation about these subjects is what leads to them ending in tears when they are eventually brought up.

 

[BZN]

You're getting back to your best @happy_tiger :fa-smile-o:

 

[BZN]

VERY well said @willow: have a great day :hand: :fa-smile-o:

 

[Tigerboy]

I think Rowan Atkinson hit the nail on the head.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9NCyGaxoDY

)

Pure gold, my idol!

 

[BZN]

G'day @TIGER: Conversation about anything is a privilege we have in a free society, as ours is, but it needs to be RESPECTFUL conversation, as I just said in my previous post.
Have a great day :fa-smile-o:

 

[jirskyr]

You do realise atheists arent making a positive claim, dont you? The position of Atheism isnt a positive claim, its a rejection of your claim that a god exists. Atheists are not saying there is no god, you can have subgroups of hard atheists or anit-theists that do make claims that there is no god, and yes, they would then have to provide evidence to prove their claim of no god exists, however, Atheists in general are saying “you are asserting something exists prove it otherwise i dont believe your claim”. A religious person generally can not provide any evidence and reverts to calling their belief “faith” which is a fancy way of saying you believe with no evidence, and thats fine for religious people, id just prefer to live my life caring about what is actually true.

That's not exactly true. Atheism includes both people who "don't believe in gods" and people who specifically believe "that there are no gods". Its like saying "I don't believe in Communism" vs "I believe there is no Communism".

So there are some atheists that make the positive claim that "there are no gods". I would say that is a theory, and a theory that is yet to be disproven by evidence, but still a theory. And yet, natural selection and general relativity are also still theories that have yet to be disproven, so in that sense, it's a reasonably strong theory.

In the strictest sense I am atheist, in that I don't believe in any gods, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that I believe there cannot or must not be any gods. Therefore I would consider myself more agnostic - I don't see any evidence of gods, and certainly I refute the weak claims of evidence made by Earthly religions, but ultimately there is no current test to conclusively prove there are no gods, and I doubt there ever will be.

That's the deal with fantasy and magic - it's easy to say that it doesn't exist in your realm of experience, but I don't think humans can ever speak on behalf of all possible realms of experience.

Maybe, once we know everything that there is to be known, we will be able to say for sure that there is a God, because that God will be us. There's a great short story called "Answer", by Frederic Brown (1954), that addresses this.

But I 100% agree with you that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not the person refuting it. I make this comment very often in regards to rugby league, where a poster says "X is true", I say "prove it", and they say "it's not my job to prove it, it's your job to prove me wrong". Which is just the lazy person's way of saying they haven't done their research.

 

[fair dinkum]

You do realise atheists arent making a positive claim, dont you? The position of Atheism isnt a positive claim, its a rejection of your claim that a god exists. Atheists are not saying there is no god, you can have subgroups of hard atheists or anit-theists that do make claims that there is no god, and yes, they would then have to provide evidence to prove their claim of no god exists, however, Atheists in general are saying “you are asserting something exists prove it otherwise i dont believe your claim”. A religious person generally can not provide any evidence and reverts to calling their belief “faith” which is a fancy way of saying you believe with no evidence, and thats fine for religious people, id just prefer to live my life caring about what is actually true.

That's not exactly true. Atheism includes both people who "don't believe in gods" and people who specifically believe "that there are no gods". Its like saying "I don't believe in Communism" vs "I believe there is no Communism".

So there are some atheists that make the positive claim that "there are no gods". I would say that is a theory, and a theory that is yet to be disproven by evidence, but still a theory. And yet, natural selection and general relativity are also still theories that have yet to be disproven, so in that sense, it's a reasonably strong theory.

In the strictest sense I am atheist, in that I don't believe in any gods, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that I believe there cannot or must not be any gods. Therefore I would consider myself more agnostic - I don't see any evidence of gods, and certainly I refute the weak claims of evidence made by Earthly religions, but ultimately there is no current test to conclusively prove there are no gods, and I doubt there ever will be.

That's the deal with fantasy and magic - it's easy to say that it doesn't exist in your realm of experience, but I don't think humans can ever speak on behalf of all possible realms of experience.

Maybe, once we know everything that there is to be known, we will be able to say for sure that there is a God, because that God will be us. There's a great short story called "Answer", by Frederic Brown (1954), that addresses this.

But I 100% agree with you that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not the person refuting it. I make this comment very often in regards to rugby league, where a poster says "X is true", I say "prove it", and they say "it's not my job to prove it, it's your job to prove me wrong". Which is just the lazy person's way of saying they haven't done their research.

What not exactly true?

 

[Abraham]

@TCL Thanks for providing your life story.

The post you referred to i found to be offensive. You might not have intended it to be so, but there you go.

By the same token you called my post offensive. I didnt intend it to be so, i simply pointed out your ignorance of Christian beliefs, which was obvious. So there you go.

I don't see the point of your post. You want to have a dig at me, but then asked me not to respond?

 

[TIGER]

Maybe the issue lies with opinion as opposed to faith. If you don't believe in a god, then that's your opinion, and having a different opinion is fine, opinions change anyway. But if you believe in a god, you have faith, and faith is absolute, and unquestionable, and demands that it is the one true faith and that those that don't have it should.

To those who don't believe, faith is just another opinion, and shouldn't stand above others. I can't comment from the perspective of one with faith.

A lack of belief isn't an opinion, if you're not convinced that unicorns exist then you're not convinced, nothing about that is an opinion.
Non believers don't think that faith is an opinion.

I also find that people seem to make the mistake of confusing belief and knowledge.

Another problem I keep noticing is people also don't understand the difference between Gnostic and Agnostic.

Most people who don't believe a God exists aren't claiming to KNOW that one doesn't, they're just not convinced that one does.
So they're Agnostic Atheists, the vast majority of non believers fall into that category.

Gnostic = Claim to know
Agnostic = Don't claim to know

So we're either a -
Gnostic Theist = Claim to know a God exists. (therefore has a burden of proof, which for the record has not yet been met by anybody in the history of mankind)
Or a
Agnostic Theist = Believes a God exists, but doesn't claim to know.
(Has no burden of proof, because not making a knowledge claim)
Or a
Gnostic Atheist = Claims to know a God doesn't exist.
(Has a burden of proof, which also hasn't been met)
Or a
Agnostic Atheist - Doesn't believe a God exists, but doesn't claim to KNOW one doesn't.
(Doesn't have a burden of proof, because isn't making a knowledge claim)

I feel these things aren't understood properly and cause people to get frustrated with each other when discussing their beliefs.

Basically believe what you want, but unless you can show it you can't claim that you know it.

Non believers are fine with anybody having a belief, but once people start making knowledge claims that's when they're going to ask you to show how you know.
At this point usually the person making the claim gets upset and frustrated because they realise that nobody in the history of mankind has been able to show how they know a God exists/doesn't and they certainly can't either.
But for some reason they still want to desperately tell me themselves and others they know.

Then we have the problem of faith, where people have different definitions of what they mean by faith and each time someone uses the word it has to be clarified otherwise you just end up talking past each other.
Faith doesn't solve the burden of proof problem, you can have as much faith as you like, it demonstrates nothing about the claim you are making actually being true, it only says something about the person themselves.

The bottom line with faith is, it's not a reliable method of determining if something is true.
If it was, everybody who relied on faith would reach the same conclusion, we know they don't.
So faith is a totally unreliable way to determine truth.

Hopefully this explained some of the misunderstandings that the discussion of religion and belief etc bring up.

 

[TIGER]

Why do I believe this to be so? because I was told by people that I 'trust' that it is the truth.

I stated in a previous post that I am currently a non-practicing Christian.

I don't feel a need to go to church as I feel I can be, or at least try to be a decent person, and I don't feel God will punish me for not going to church.

I don't consider myself to be a Bible basher, although at times my wife doesn't appreciate me talking about religion when a particular topic may come up on the TV or whatever.

I guess the point I am trying to make is that what you choose to believe is due to you trusting the source that you 1st heard it from...eg...how many of our forumers have wanted to 'for the want of a better word' crucify Ryan Matterson, because they have believed what someone has said about him wanting out of Wests Tigers as he is not being paid enough $$$, OR he wants out because he is a wimp and can't handle Madges tough love training. BUT neither of these theories have been proven because no one from H.O. has said anything official. All you have heard is rumors, someone has told you something that you feel you trust, and you believe it because you choose too.

It's the same for my belief in God 😛oint_up: :fa-smile-o: .

I don't believe anyone "chooses" to believe anything, you're either convinced or you're not, and you have no say in what convinces you.

If it was merely a "choice" then you should be able to right now simply "choose" not to believe, go on, try it, tell me how that goes.
I'll wait...............

 

[jirskyr]

What not exactly true?

"You do realise atheists arent making a positive claim, dont you?"

Some atheists are making a positive claim - of the non-existence of any god. First two paragraphs of what originally I wrote.

 

[happy_tiger]

So many claim not to believe in a God , yet every week pray we win ......... go figure

 

[TIGER]

Probably because those who don't believe in a God belittle those who do by basically stating they're idiots.
Those who believe are marked as rational, logical and full of good old common sense.
What does that infer they consider the ones who do?
**The one thing these people can't do, however, is totally disprove the idea.**
Each to their own.
As long as people are respectful of each each others views without denigrating them there shouldn't be a problem.

**The one thing these people can't do, however, is totally disprove the idea.**

Truth matters.

**The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim**, not the person saying i dont believe you because you have failed to provide a single piece of non anecdotal evidence. **Logic 101.**

I think you've got it the wrong way around.
If you want to debunk someone's belief then you should be able to prove why they're wrong.
Now that's Logic 101.
I'm no bible basher, nor do I attend church ... but I can't think of a way to categorically disprove their may be a God.
Can you?

So using your logic
If I claim that unicorns, fairies, goblins, elves exist and you can't prove they don't, then you must believe that they do?

You must believe in a hell of a lot of crap if that's how you work, lots of things can't be proven to not exist.

Do you agree with this statement?
The right time to believe something exists is when sufficient evidence is presented to warrant belief in it, not a second before.

 

[Madge]

just a quick question, want your thoughts on this... have you seen the video of Kyle Sandilands from Kiis radio mocking and disrespecting a core significant individual in both the Islamic and Christian religion?

If yes, do you think he should be sacked just like Folau was ?

 

[TIGER]

So many claim not to believe in a God , yet every week pray we win ......... go figure

Prayer is like masterbation, it does nothing for the person being thought of. It only makes the person doing it feel better

 

[happy_tiger]

So many claim not to believe in a God , yet every week pray we win ......... go figure

Prayer is like masterbation, it does nothing for the person being thought of. It only makes the person doing it feel better

People have superstitions whatever it may be ...no different

Do you sit in the same lounge chair at home when you watch the Tigers play .....drink from the same coffee cup , use the same stubby cooler .....etc etc etc

 

[Sart0ri]

just a quick question, want your thoughts on this... have you seen the video of Kyle Sandilands from Kiis radio mocking and disrespecting a core significant individual in both the Islamic and Christian religion?

If yes, do you think he should be sacked just like Folau was ?

I don't think this is a moral argument. Folau was damaging his employer financially. Kyle Sandilands is a shock jock or professional troll, if he causes a stir he is doing his job correctly but if he offended the stations target audience he might get sacked.

 

[fair dinkum]

What not exactly true?

"You do realise atheists arent making a positive claim, dont you?"

Some atheists are making a positive claim - of the non-existence of any god. First two paragraphs of what originally I wrote.

You do realise atheists arent making a positive claim, dont you? The position of Atheism isnt a positive claim, its a rejection of your claim that a god exists. Atheists are not saying there is no god, **you can have subgroups of hard atheists or anti-theists that do make claims that there is no god, and yes, they would then have to provide evidence to prove their claim of no god exists**, however, Atheists in general are saying “you are asserting something exists prove it otherwise i dont believe your claim”




Like how i mentioned it, so whats not exactly true?