Total Posts:123|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why do skeptics demand proof ??

medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 1:12:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I couldn't get the entire question into the title, but here it is.

Why do skeptics demand "proof" from a faith-based belief system?? That just sounds silly. Also, why do they not demand that same standard of "proof" for their own worldview??

I can't speak for other religions, but with Christianity the entire belief system is based on faith. We have to have faith in God. He has proven Himself to us, but that proof can't be scientifically measured. We have to be willing to attribute the evidence that is provided, to God.

To ask for scientific proof of a belief system based on faith is to set up a situation where you think you are winning, simply because the other side can't meet your self-imposed rules for proof. If we could "prove" that God exists to skeptics, would that not remove the need for faith, thus invalidating the very beliefs that we profess?? Skeptics continually asking for "proof" seems absurd to me.

It seems to me that the question they should be asking is, "Do I have any proof that God doesn't exist??"

The funny thing is that most skeptics avoid that question, and put the burden of proof onto believers, but my question is "Why the diversionary tactics??" We already have answers to explain our belief system. Your argument does nothing to defend your own belief system, it depends entirely on finding holes in ours, and demanding proof that you know we can't provide. Why don't you apply that same skepticism to your own worldview??

Most say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Why is the belief that God is the Creator more extraordinary than the belief that the universe, and millions of different life forms, that depend on each other for survival, happened just by chance?? It seems to me that claiming that all the minute details necessary for our existence happened randomly, rather than being designed to work that way, is a far more extraordinary claim.

The only reason that I can think of for such one-sided skepticism is that these people simply don't want to believe in a being that is more powerful, and has more control than they do. That being, God, might have expectations and rules that go against what they want for themselves, so they have to argue against His existence so they can justify their own selfish actions. Many skeptics that have read this far are probably seething by now, and can't wait to rip into this diatribe, but I have several questions for you:
If you're so sure that you're right, and I'm wrong, why is it necessary for you to try and show that I'm wrong and that believing in God is unreasonable??
Why do many of you try to portray people who believe in God as ignorant, when you have even less proof for your worldview than we do??
Why not simply let us be with our ignorant and misguided beliefs?? Do you really believe that you should have the right to change what someone else chooses to believe??
If you are going to argue against anything I've said here, why do you portray yourself as an atheist (one who is without a belief in God)?? If you argue against God's existence, or against a religion, that means that you have taken a position and are no longer simply "without belief", so why not be intellectually honest, and call yourself what you are, an anti-theist?? If you have the cajones to admit this, rather than providing some lame excuse for why you should be able to continue to claim the protection that the atheist title gives you, what proof do you have that God doesn't exist??

I look forward to replies to these questions.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 1:24:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If a Muslim and a Christian both presented this argument to me, should I accept both religions?

If I have no standard of asking for evidence, how do I choose which religion? Coin flip?
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 1:30:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 1:12:19 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Why do skeptics demand "proof" from a faith-based belief system?? That just sounds silly. Also, why do they not demand that same standard of "proof" for their own worldview??
Even as a skeptic myself, I would not demand proof (since it is inconceivable for a faith-based system to provide tangible/scientific/empirical evidence for the existence of a deity or its incarnates....The very definition of that deity is that it is spiritual, and beyond time or conventional understanding. A better approach to question religion is to strike at is philosophical, or epistmological foundations.

I can't speak for other religions, but with Christianity the entire belief system is based on faith. We have to have faith in God. He has proven Himself to us, but that proof can't be scientifically measured. We have to be willing to attribute the evidence that is provided, to God.

That is also why creation science is not a science, nor can the laws of physical being be utilized to justify the existence/occurrence of creation.

To ask for scientific proof of a belief system based on faith is to set up a situation where you think you are winning, simply because the other side can't meet your self-imposed rules for proof.

That is true...It is unfair to ask a believer in the scripture to offer scientific evidence (much of which he cannot find or present in an argument) to the 'self imposed rules for proof' (namely the empirical nature of data and results presented by science).

......
It seems to me that the question they should be asking is, "Do I have any proof that God doesn't exist??"
Honestly, the very definition of God precludes any chance of writing/responding 'No' to that question...I find it biased to ask such a question since the prefixed notions of God already explain the lack of involvement from Him or any direct/indirect influence over worldly events.


The funny thing is that most skeptics avoid that question, and put the burden of proof onto believers, but my question is "Why the diversionary tactics??"...

Although that is unfair, it is also hard, given the prefixed notions of the Deity, to prove that he does not exist, in the realm of practical or impractical knowledge and musings.


Most say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
That saying is partial to certain situations. Proving that a god who is omnipresent, personal but unseen, and beyond the conceptions of time, the cycle of birth, death, and life, and so on, does not apply to this saying.

Why is the belief that God is the Creator more extraordinary than the belief that the universe, and millions of different life forms, that depend on each other for survival, happened just by chance?? It seems to me that claiming that all the minute details necessary for our existence happened randomly, rather than being designed to work that way, is a far more extraordinary claim.

Again, from my atheist side, the 'extraordinary claim' is backed up by scientific evidence: the fossil record, the anatomical similarities between species, the presence of vestigial structures, and so on. True, evolution is somewhat dependent on chance, but that, and the sporadic nature of evolution, is irrelevant to its relevance or even quality....One can easily state, 'Well, how is it more extraordinary than the claim that some being, far beyond our conception or understanding, managed to create us and supply us with all the necessities of life in a successive order?' as well.

The only reason that I can think of for such one-sided skepticism is that these people simply don't want to believe in a being that is more powerful, and has more control than they do. That being, God, might have expectations and rules that go against what they want for themselves, so they have to argue against His existence so they can justify their own selfish actions.
I would agree--to a degree.

Many skeptics that have read this far are probably seething by now, and can't wait to rip into this diatribe, but I have several questions for you:
If you're so sure that you're right, and I'm wrong, why is it necessary for you to try and show that I'm wrong and that believing in God is unreasonable??
Some would respond that it is a way to end bigotry or falsity, though both words are being subjectively used from their side of the issue.
Why do many of you try to portray people who believe in God as ignorant, when you have even less proof for your worldview than we do??
That is not necessarily true...
Why not simply let us be with our ignorant and misguided beliefs?? Do you really believe that you should have the right to change what someone else chooses to believe??
I think it has something to do with the perceived concept that belief in the irrational precludes any choice to the rational (such as scientific discoveries or of the sort)...
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 1:31:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 1:12:19 PM, medic0506 wrote:
I wish you calm yourself down; your conduct here is rather lacking, considering your diatribe against atheism. It is wrong to express strong disapprobation to the 'anti-theist' side, just as it is wrong for me to dismiss your religious views as false and censure it as well.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 1:44:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The number of possible false beliefs vastly outnumber the number of possible true beliefs. Without a reliable method of distinguishing what is true from what is not, you are overwhelmingly more likely to hold a false belief. That's why, if you just take Christianity on faith, you not only have no rational warrant for regarding it as true, but Christianity is overwhelmingly more likely to be false. That's why you need evidence: to get out of that dilemma.
InquireTruth
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 1:48:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 1:44:23 PM, Kinesis wrote:
The number of possible false beliefs vastly outnumber the number of possible true beliefs. Without a reliable method of distinguishing what is true from what is not, you are overwhelmingly more likely to hold a false belief. That's why, if you just take Christianity on faith, you not only have no rational warrant for regarding it as true, but Christianity is overwhelmingly more likely to be false. That's why you need evidence: to get out of that dilemma.

To say nothing to the point that this reasoning suffers from its own dilemma. In fact, it is overwhelmingly more likely, per the "dilemma," that this idea that evidence is needed is false.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 1:59:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 1:48:06 PM, InquireTruth wrote:
To say nothing to the point that this reasoning suffers from its own dilemma. In fact, it is overwhelmingly more likely, per the "dilemma," that this idea that evidence is needed is false.

I'm having trouble seeing your point. This 'dilemma' would only be self-referentially incoherent if it failed its own test - i.e. I took it on faith, or as a random belief. But I think there are good arguments in its favour.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 3:58:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 1:24:03 PM, Wnope wrote:
If a Muslim and a Christian both presented this argument to me, should I accept both religions?

This question, although maybe not intentionally, both ignores my points and gives them credence. I ask for proof for God's non-existence, and the question is turned onto me to provide proof for mine. It attempts to take credibility away from my beliefs by pointing out that other people have different beliefs. There is still no answer to my question.
Although I am a Christian, the gist of my argument doesn't go for, or against, either religion, and is essentially irrelevant to the basic points I'm trying to make. My post basically applies to a faith-based belief in ANY God. The point is to turn the table, and ask non-believers to account for their own worldview, rather than simply attacking ours, as a means of defending their own beliefs. I don't believe that to be a legitimate, or reasonable defense, though I respect their right to believe as they wish. Believers are constantly asked for proof of their beliefs, so I'm simply doing what is done to us, I'm asking non-believers to provide evidence for their side. I don't see that as an unreasonable request to make of people who claim that evidence is so important.

If I have no standard of asking for evidence, how do I choose which religion? Coin flip?

What is an appropriate standard of "evidence" for a "faith-based" religion?? Doesn't that question strike you as a bit contradictory?? That's the whole point of the first part of my post.

Choosing the right religion is a long process of investigation and examination that must be done by you. It has to begin with the realization that a higher power exists.
We don't wake up one morning as believers. For me it took over four years to come to a point of faith. All I can tell you is that I believe that understanding will come to those that have eyes to see, and ears to hear.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 4:20:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 3:58:25 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 7/31/2011 1:24:03 PM, Wnope wrote:
If a Muslim and a Christian both presented this argument to me, should I accept both religions?

This question, although maybe not intentionally, both ignores my points and gives them credence. I ask for proof for God's non-existence, and the question is turned onto me to provide proof for mine. It attempts to take credibility away from my beliefs by pointing out that other people have different beliefs. There is still no answer to my question.
Although I am a Christian, the gist of my argument doesn't go for, or against, either religion, and is essentially irrelevant to the basic points I'm trying to make. My post basically applies to a faith-based belief in ANY God. The point is to turn the table, and ask non-believers to account for their own worldview, rather than simply attacking ours, as a means of defending their own beliefs. I don't believe that to be a legitimate, or reasonable defense, though I respect their right to believe as they wish. Believers are constantly asked for proof of their beliefs, so I'm simply doing what is done to us, I'm asking non-believers to provide evidence for their side. I don't see that as an unreasonable request to make of people who claim that evidence is so important.

If I have no standard of asking for evidence, how do I choose which religion? Coin flip?

What is an appropriate standard of "evidence" for a "faith-based" religion?? Doesn't that question strike you as a bit contradictory?? That's the whole point of the first part of my post.

Choosing the right religion is a long process of investigation and examination that must be done by you. It has to begin with the realization that a higher power exists.
We don't wake up one morning as believers. For me it took over four years to come to a point of faith. All I can tell you is that I believe that understanding will come to those that have eyes to see, and ears to hear.

The problem with your theory is that I began as more religious than the rest of my family and over years of investigation became an atheist.

At one point, I felt God. You have no more right to claim that than I do. I can only assume "true irishmen" are coming into your mind.

My belief is that the universe may have started under several conditions, all of which leads to the same empirical universe that we find today. Atheism, Pantheism ("god is an apple"), Humanist, Deism, etc.

So, while I can't say the deistic god doesn't exist, I can say the YEC Christian god doesn't exist.

You seem to forgot that there are an infinite amount of types of Gods. I always find it amusing when theists argue that choice is between "my god and nothing."

Skeptics see the choices and want to make an informed decision. Allah over Yahweh. Old-earth over creationism. Wahhabist over Shiite. Catholicism over Protestanism.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 4:52:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 1:30:15 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 7/31/2011 1:12:19 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Why do skeptics demand "proof" from a faith-based belief system?? That just sounds silly. Also, why do they not demand that same standard of "proof" for their own worldview??
Even as a skeptic myself, I would not demand proof (since it is inconceivable for a faith-based system to provide tangible/scientific/empirical evidence for the existence of a deity or its incarnates....The very definition of that deity is that it is spiritual, and beyond time or conventional understanding.

That is the point of my asking why skeptics ask for proof. To you and I it seems illogical, but look through these forums and you will find many people doing just that. It seems as though they think that they can convince people not to believe in God by asking for proof, I don't know but it makes no sense to me why they do it.

A better approach to question religion is to strike at is philosophical, or epistmological foundations.

Is that an effective tactic?? I would say no, unless you can disprove those foundations, or provide convincing proof for your own. I would also say that once you start attacking, you no longer have the umbrella of atheism to protect you, you become an anti-theist and, by any sense of fairness, you then become responsible for proving your own position, not just poking holes in mine.

I can't speak for other religions, but with Christianity the entire belief system is based on faith. We have to have faith in God. He has proven Himself to us, but that proof can't be scientifically measured. We have to be willing to attribute the evidence that is provided, to God.

That is also why creation science is not a science, nor can the laws of physical being be utilized to justify the existence/occurrence of creation.

Is creation a science?? Probably not by definition, as it is not testable, but that doesn't make it untrue or unreasonable. I don't see science and God as mutually exclusive, but many people do. I think science answers many "how" questions and God answers the "why" questions.

To ask for scientific proof of a belief system based on faith is to set up a situation where you think you are winning, simply because the other side can't meet your self-imposed rules for proof.

That is true...It is unfair to ask a believer in the scripture to offer scientific evidence (much of which he cannot find or present in an argument) to the 'self imposed rules for proof' (namely the empirical nature of data and results presented by science).

......
It seems to me that the question they should be asking is, "Do I have any proof that God doesn't exist??"
Honestly, the very definition of God precludes any chance of writing/responding 'No' to that question...I find it biased to ask such a question since the prefixed notions of God already explain the lack of involvement from Him or any direct/indirect influence over worldly events.

Perhaps it is biased, but no more so than asking me to provide proof for a faith based belief system. Why is that an ok question, but mine is biased??

lack of involvement from Him or any direct/indirect influence over worldly events

This is a preassumption that you have no evidence for. Can you prove that God is not involved, or has no influence??

The funny thing is that most skeptics avoid that question, and put the burden of proof onto believers, but my question is "Why the diversionary tactics??"...

Although that is unfair, it is also hard, given the prefixed notions of the Deity, to prove that he does not exist, in the realm of practical or impractical knowledge and musings.

I would argue that it isn't unfair. Most people that have taken the position that God does not exist, do not provide evidence for their position. They simply divert the question back to us, expecting us to prove that He does exist. Why is it unfair for me to put that same question back to those people??
I agree that it is "hard" to prove either of our positions. We're at a stalemate when it comes to proof. My point is that my not being able to prove it speaks volumes to them, but their own inability to prove their side means nothing. Honestly, doesn't that seem like one side has unrealistic and arguably hypocritical standards??

Most say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
That saying is partial to certain situations. Proving that a god who is omnipresent, personal but unseen, and beyond the conceptions of time, the cycle of birth, death, and life, and so on, does not apply to this saying.

Yet I've had to argue this statement many times, dealing with God's existence.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 5:43:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 1:30:15 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 7/31/2011 1:12:19 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Why is the belief that God is the Creator more extraordinary than the belief that the universe, and millions of different life forms, that depend on each other for survival, happened just by chance?? It seems to me that claiming that all the minute details necessary for our existence happened randomly, rather than being designed to work that way, is a far more extraordinary claim.

Again, from my atheist side, the 'extraordinary claim' is backed up by scientific evidence: the fossil record, the anatomical similarities between species, the presence of vestigial structures, and so on.

Even if I stipulate to the factual accuracy of evolution, that fact in no way, helps to disprove God as the Creator. As I said earlier, it answers "how", but who's to say that God didn't use evolution to populate the earth?? Darwin's theory does not discount that possibility. I can make an argument for evolution based on something I found in Genesis. I won't go into it now but if you want to hear it just ask. Here's a good website for examining the link between God and science.

http://www.godandscience.org...

True, evolution is somewhat dependent on chance, but that, and the sporadic nature of evolution, is irrelevant to its relevance or even quality....

"Somewhat dependent on chance"?? I'd say that it's entirely dependant on chance.

One can easily state, 'Well, how is it more extraordinary than the claim that some being, far beyond our conception or understanding, managed to create us and supply us with all the necessities of life in a successive order?' as well.

Yes, one can make that statement, but once again it goes back to not providing it's own evidence, merely attacking our beliefs and putting onus back on us. In other words, my question remains unanswered.

The only reason that I can think of for such one-sided skepticism is that these people simply don't want to believe in a being that is more powerful, and has more control than they do. That being, God, might have expectations and rules that go against what they want for themselves, so they have to argue against His existence so they can justify their own selfish actions.
I would agree--to a degree.

Many skeptics that have read this far are probably seething by now, and can't wait to rip into this diatribe, but I have several questions for you:
If you're so sure that you're right, and I'm wrong, why is it necessary for you to try and show that I'm wrong and that believing in God is unreasonable??
Some would respond that it is a way to end bigotry or falsity, though both words are being subjectively used from their side of the issue.

Why is it bigotry and falsity?? Shouldn't they be able to provide evidence for that statement before making that preassumption??

Why do many of you try to portray people who believe in God as ignorant, when you have even less proof for your worldview than we do??
That is not necessarily true...

Not true in all cases, but true in many.

Why not simply let us be with our ignorant and misguided beliefs?? Do you really believe that you should have the right to change what someone else chooses to believe??
I think it has something to do with the perceived concept that belief in the irrational precludes any choice to the rational (such as scientific discoveries or of the sort)...

Again, a preassumption that God is irrational, without providing any proof against His existence. And honestly, how many religious people have you heard argue against continuing scientific research?? I think that's just a cop out.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 5:52:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 4:52:17 PM, medic0506 wrote:
That is the point of my asking why skeptics ask for proof. To you and I it seems illogical, but look through these forums and you will find many people doing just that. It seems as though they think that they can convince people not to believe in God by asking for proof, I don't know but it makes no sense to me why they do it.

Humans are prone to irrationality, and fallibility.

A better approach to question religion is to strike at is philosophical, or epistmological foundations.

Is that an effective tactic?? I would say no, unless you can disprove those foundations, or provide convincing proof for your own.
I think that is the ultimate goal of attacking, and at least trying to debunk, the 'foundations'.
I would also say that once you start attacking, you no longer have the umbrella of atheism to protect you, you become an anti-theist and, by any sense of fairness, you then become responsible for proving your own position, not just poking holes in mine.
Well, in a debate [a hypothetical one] between you and me, I would be forced to rebut your contentions, and the foundational arguments of your side, while I must present one contention of my own. Therefore, I think that 'attacking' the epistomological beliefs plays a far greater role in the debate and is of great value.

Is creation a science?? Probably not by definition, as it is not testable, but that doesn't make it untrue or unreasonable. I don't see science and God as mutually exclusive, but many people do. I think science answers many "how" questions and God answers the "why" questions.

That has not prevented the rise and propagation of 'creation science' and other fields such as flood geology which attempt to use the laws of science to prove biblical events...

To ask for scientific proof of a belief system based on faith is to set up a situation where you think you are winning, simply because the other side can't meet your self-imposed rules for proof.

That is true...It is unfair to ask a believer in the scripture to offer scientific evidence (much of which he cannot find or present in an argument) to the 'self imposed rules for proof' (namely the empirical nature of data and results presented by science).

......
Perhaps it is biased, but no more so than asking me to provide proof for a faith based belief system. Why is that an ok question, but mine is biased??
Well, the definition of god, and the fixed notions, can prevent me from adequately arguing my case that he does not exist...If I contend that he shows no direct involvement in the 'worldly events', then you can counter by arguing the indirect involvement of god, such as predestination. If I contend that god has no tangible evidence to prove so, you may refute that claim by arguing that 'tangible evidence cannot justify an intangible being'...Even logic and semantics can be used to prove a certain possibility that god exists.

Why is it unfair for me to put that same question back to those people??
So using an unfair method from others is considered fair, just as using wrong methods to counter wrong methods are an effective way of refutation?

Yet I've had to argue this statement many times, dealing with God's existence.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 5:56:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 1:31:54 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 7/31/2011 1:12:19 PM, medic0506 wrote:
I wish you calm yourself down; your conduct here is rather lacking, considering your diatribe against atheism. It is wrong to express strong disapprobation to the 'anti-theist' side, just as it is wrong for me to dismiss your religious views as false and censure it as well.

I'm perfectly calm. Yes I'm more passionate in argument, than you're use to seeing me, but why is my conduct lacking?? I believe that I've presented my arguments in a respectable manner. I'm simply turning the questions that we're expected to answer, back onto those that ask those questions of us. I'm trying to provoke a discussion about why the entire burden of proof falls on believers, but those who argue against us don't apply those same principles to their own belief system. Is it unfair for a Christian to attempt to poke holes in the belief system of others, when that is what is done to us on a regular basis?? I would say no, it isn't unfair, if done in a respectable manner.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 6:02:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 5:43:21 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Even if I stipulate to the factual accuracy of evolution, that fact in no way, helps to disprove God as the Creator.
I did not explicitly state that the theory of evolution conclusively disprove the existence of a Creator.
As I said earlier, it answers "how", but who's to say that God didn't use evolution to populate the earth??
That would most probably apply to the general notions of creation, but not the specific.
Darwin's theory does not discount that possibility.
It does discount the specific nature of events in the Book of Genesis.
"Somewhat dependent on chance"?? I'd say that it's entirely dependant on chance.
I still say somewhat: the influence of the environment, and other specific factors, determine evolution.
Yes, one can make that statement, but once again it goes back to not providing it's own evidence, merely attacking our beliefs and putting onus back on us. In other words, my question remains unanswered.
I did provide a list of 'evidence' for the theory of evolution...that, in the general consensus of the scientific community, validates it.

Why is it bigotry and falsity?? Shouldn't they be able to provide evidence for that statement before making that preassumption??
Skeptics like Izbo won't provide evidence (heh, heh, heh)...Remember, I specifically chose 'some' to partially represent the views of atheists. Their presupposition is that religion accounts for inflexibility, and lack of adaptability, in terms of other views outside the scope of their beliefs. Of course, this perception is false, in many ways--one of which is that it fails to consider the man behind the believer.

Not true in all cases, but true in many.
This is more concerned with the presentation of that evidence, at least in my view. No presentation does not equate to lack of evidence or 'proof'.

Again, a preassumption that God is irrational, without providing any proof against His existence. And honestly, how many religious people have you heard argue against continuing scientific research?? I think that's just a cop out.

Yes, it is, Medic, a presupposition that god and his creed is irrational, and therefore wrong.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 6:04:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 1:12:19 PM, medic0506 wrote:

I'm perfectly calm. Yes I'm more passionate in argument, than you're use to seeing me, but why is my conduct lacking??
You did describe your posts as a 'tirade'....and did evince some sort of outrage or resentment. But yes, you were respectful. I've made many vague statements in this forum, and beyond. My apologies.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 6:23:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 4:20:17 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/31/2011 3:58:25 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 7/31/2011 1:24:03 PM, Wnope wrote:
If a Muslim and a Christian both presented this argument to me, should I accept both religions?

This question, although maybe not intentionally, both ignores my points and gives them credence. I ask for proof for God's non-existence, and the question is turned onto me to provide proof for mine. It attempts to take credibility away from my beliefs by pointing out that other people have different beliefs. There is still no answer to my question.
Although I am a Christian, the gist of my argument doesn't go for, or against, either religion, and is essentially irrelevant to the basic points I'm trying to make. My post basically applies to a faith-based belief in ANY God. The point is to turn the table, and ask non-believers to account for their own worldview, rather than simply attacking ours, as a means of defending their own beliefs. I don't believe that to be a legitimate, or reasonable defense, though I respect their right to believe as they wish. Believers are constantly asked for proof of their beliefs, so I'm simply doing what is done to us, I'm asking non-believers to provide evidence for their side. I don't see that as an unreasonable request to make of people who claim that evidence is so important.

If I have no standard of asking for evidence, how do I choose which religion? Coin flip?

What is an appropriate standard of "evidence" for a "faith-based" religion?? Doesn't that question strike you as a bit contradictory?? That's the whole point of the first part of my post.

Choosing the right religion is a long process of investigation and examination that must be done by you. It has to begin with the realization that a higher power exists.
We don't wake up one morning as believers. For me it took over four years to come to a point of faith. All I can tell you is that I believe that understanding will come to those that have eyes to see, and ears to hear.

The problem with your theory is that I began as more religious than the rest of my family and over years of investigation became an atheist.

At one point, I felt God. You have no more right to claim that than I do. I can only assume "true irishmen" are coming into your mind.

I have no idea what you mean by "true Irishmen", but I agree that I have no more right to that claim than you do. I can't help but ask, if you truly "felt God", how do you put away that fact, and come to a point where you deny that He exists?? I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but that is a legitimate question, based on your statement.

My belief is that the universe may have started under several conditions, all of which leads to the same empirical universe that we find today. Atheism, Pantheism ("god is an apple"), Humanist, Deism, etc.

So, while I can't say the deistic god doesn't exist, I can say the YEC Christian god doesn't exist.

Sure you can SAY that, and I respect your right to believe as you wish. But you would have to be omniscient to KNOW that He doesn't exist, and again I ask, what evidence do you have??

You seem to forgot that there are an infinite amount of types of Gods. I always find it amusing when theists argue that choice is between "my god and nothing."

Skeptics see the choices and want to make an informed decision. Allah over Yahweh. Old-earth over creationism. Wahhabist over Shiite. Catholicism over Protestanism.

That's all well and good, but my initial questions remain unanswered.
Why do skeptics ask for proof for a "faith-based" religion??
What is the evidence to support anti-theistic claims that God doesn't exist??
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 6:35:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 3:58:25 PM, medic0506 wrote:
I ask for proof for God's non-existence, and the question is turned onto me to provide proof for mine.

Okay... prove that invisible flying rabbits don't exist.

See how silly that is? It's absurd to suggest that someone has to prove something doesn't exist. You're making the claim that God exists, therefore you have the burden of proving that God actually exists. Saying "You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does" is fallacious (http://www.nizkor.org...).
President of DDO
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 7:49:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 1:12:19 PM, medic0506 wrote:
I couldn't get the entire question into the title, but here it is.

Why do skeptics demand "proof" from a faith-based belief system?? That just sounds silly. Also, why do they not demand that same standard of "proof" for their own worldview??

Cause if you believe something without evidence to be consistent you have to believe ANYTHING and EVERYTHING, this is unworkable.


I can't speak for other religions, but with Christianity the entire belief system is based on faith. We have to have faith in God. He has proven Himself to us, but that proof can't be scientifically measured. We have to be willing to attribute the evidence that is provided, to God.

If you believe that any evidence will prove you true, then evidence is irrelevant. You can always craft a God or Religion that is evidence proof, that is to say, no evidence will ever prove it false. If X happens God exists, If X doesn't happen God exists.


It seems to me that the question they should be asking is, "Do I have any proof that God doesn't exist??"

It seems the question you should be asking is , do you have any proof that there is not an alien mothership that is indetectable (it has a cloaking device) hovering above earth right now !!!. If you can't prove this false then clearly it must be true.



Most say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Why is the belief that God is the Creator more extraordinary than the belief that the universe, and millions of different life forms, that depend on each other for survival, happened just by chance?? It seems to me that claiming that all the minute details necessary for our existence happened randomly, rather than being designed to work that way, is a far more extraordinary claim.

1) It requires the supernatural, we have more than enough evidence that the natural exists, the supernatural on the other hand.....

2) Its not a question of what is more or less "extraordinary" it a question of what the evidence is, the testable evidence.

3) Appealing to incredulity is not evidence.

The only reason that I can think of for such one-sided skepticism is that these people simply don't want to believe in a being that is more powerful, and has more control than they do. That being, God, might have expectations and rules that go against what they want for themselves, so they have to argue against His existence so they can justify their own selfish actions. Many skeptics that have read this far are probably seething by now, and can't wait to rip into this diatribe, but I have several questions for you:

Good point, this is why people reject the popes authority as handed down to him by GOD, cause people want to reject that authority cause of their selfishness.People want to make up their own rules and not obey his holiness. Your are a catholic right ? what no ? burn in hell heretic.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
fubar
Posts: 67
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 8:12:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 1:12:19 PM, medic0506 wrote:
It seems to me that the question they should be asking is, "Do I have any proof that God doesn't exist??"

It's a well known fact that it is almost impossible to prove non-existence of anything, let alone your magical deity.

The funny thing is that most skeptics avoid that question, and put the burden of proof onto believers, but my question is "Why the diversionary tactics??" We already have answers to explain our belief system. Your argument does nothing to defend your own belief system, it depends entirely on finding holes in ours, and demanding proof that you know we can't provide. Why don't you apply that same skepticism to your own worldview??

There are no diversionary tactics. I am first and foremost an Agnostic, because I can admit that I don't know. However, I also an Atheist, because despite not knowing, I am, to some degree, certain that God doesn't exist.

Most say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Why is the belief that God is the Creator more extraordinary than the belief that the universe, and millions of different life forms, that depend on each other for survival, happened just by chance?? It seems to me that claiming that all the minute details necessary for our existence happened randomly, rather than being designed to work that way, is a far more extraordinary claim.

What happened by chance? What happened randomly? That is a completely fallacious representation of cosmology, abiogenesis and evolution. These schools of science suggest to us that it is inevitable that somewhere in the vast Universe, a planet will have the right conditions for non-life organic carbon material to become life spontaneously; that this life will change over time and become more complex; that we are merely a product of these conditions and principles beginning a cycle of life billions of years ago.
While we're asking questions, if life was 'designed', why is my Trachea, the sole path for air to reach my lungs, so dangerously close to my Oesophagus, the sole path for food to reach my stomach?

The only reason that I can think of for such one-sided skepticism is that these people simply don't want to believe in a being that is more powerful, and has more control than they do. That being, God, might have expectations and rules that go against what they want for themselves, so they have to argue against His existence so they can justify their own selfish actions. Many skeptics that have read this far are probably seething by now, and can't wait to rip into this diatribe, but I have several questions for you:
If you're so sure that you're right, and I'm wrong, why is it necessary for you to try and show that I'm wrong and that believing in God is unreasonable??

It isn't. Most Atheists don't go out of their way to antagonise Theists, for fear of being socially outcast or becoming the victims of violent lunatics. However, this is the Religious section of a Debate websites forums... go figure.

Why do many of you try to portray people who believe in God as ignorant, when you have even less proof for your worldview than we do??

Because often Theists are ignorant... We define proof as something you can demonstrate to others. You can't demonstrate your proof, therefore we find it invalid. Furthermore, there is ample demonstrable proof of natural explanations for things previously attributed to God.

Why not simply let us be with our ignorant and misguided beliefs?? Do you really believe that you should have the right to change what someone else chooses to believe??

Again, this is a Debate forum. However, I assume you are speaking about such outspoken Atheists as Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris. I personally, don't care about your beliefs, though it is fun to discuss them with open-minded people. I believe the aforementioned individuals don't share my easy-going attitude. They find religion to be genuinely harmful to society and believe it to be to the detriment of the future progression of humanity...

I kind of see where they're coming from too...

If you are going to argue against anything I've said here, why do you portray yourself as an atheist (one who is without a belief in God)?? If you argue against God's existence, or against a religion, that means that you have taken a position and are no longer simply "without belief", so why not be intellectually honest, and call yourself what you are, an anti-theist?? If you have the cajones to admit this, rather than providing some lame excuse for why you should be able to continue to claim the protection that the atheist title gives you, what proof do you have that God doesn't exist??

I'm beginning to think you don't actually know what you're talking about.
I am not an Anti-theist. That would imply that I am against Theists, which is entirely not true. I believe the correct terminology for Dawkins and such is 'Anti-religious'.
If you want to remain in ignorance (which based on this post, you clearly do) then go right ahead. However, as I said, I don't know that there isn't a God... I mean, it's possible I suppose. Perhaps in his infinite wisdom there is some kind of plan amongst of this hate, angst, pain and sadness. When it comes down to it, what does anyone know? If we're talking about being intellectually honest, everyone should be Agnostic, because if you are really being truthful, you'll admit you don't really know anything.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 8:24:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 6:23:18 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 7/31/2011 4:20:17 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/31/2011 3:58:25 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 7/31/2011 1:24:03 PM, Wnope wrote:
If a Muslim and a Christian both presented this argument to me, should I accept both religions?

This question, although maybe not intentionally, both ignores my points and gives them credence. I ask for proof for God's non-existence, and the question is turned onto me to provide proof for mine. It attempts to take credibility away from my beliefs by pointing out that other people have different beliefs. There is still no answer to my question.
Although I am a Christian, the gist of my argument doesn't go for, or against, either religion, and is essentially irrelevant to the basic points I'm trying to make. My post basically applies to a faith-based belief in ANY God. The point is to turn the table, and ask non-believers to account for their own worldview, rather than simply attacking ours, as a means of defending their own beliefs. I don't believe that to be a legitimate, or reasonable defense, though I respect their right to believe as they wish. Believers are constantly asked for proof of their beliefs, so I'm simply doing what is done to us, I'm asking non-believers to provide evidence for their side. I don't see that as an unreasonable request to make of people who claim that evidence is so important.

If I have no standard of asking for evidence, how do I choose which religion? Coin flip?

What is an appropriate standard of "evidence" for a "faith-based" religion?? Doesn't that question strike you as a bit contradictory?? That's the whole point of the first part of my post.

Choosing the right religion is a long process of investigation and examination that must be done by you. It has to begin with the realization that a higher power exists.
We don't wake up one morning as believers. For me it took over four years to come to a point of faith. All I can tell you is that I believe that understanding will come to those that have eyes to see, and ears to hear.

The problem with your theory is that I began as more religious than the rest of my family and over years of investigation became an atheist.

At one point, I felt God. You have no more right to claim that than I do. I can only assume "true irishmen" are coming into your mind.

I have no idea what you mean by "true Irishmen", but I agree that I have no more right to that claim than you do. I can't help but ask, if you truly "felt God", how do you put away that fact, and come to a point where you deny that He exists?? I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but that is a legitimate question, based on your statement

I eventually realized that the feeling was exactly what it was: a feeling. The connection I made is similar to one made by billions of other people of different religions. The feeling exists, and it may or may not be linked to an actual supernatural presence.

However, I found it difficult say "Well, I felt the judeo-christian god, so when you feel Allah it must be a false positive." I have a respect for the experiences of other religions.

My belief is that the universe may have started under several conditions, all of which leads to the same empirical universe that we find today. Atheism, Pantheism ("god is an apple"), Humanist, Deism, etc.

So, while I can't say the deistic god doesn't exist, I can say the YEC Christian god doesn't exist.

Sure you can SAY that, and I respect your right to believe as you wish. But you would have to be omniscient to KNOW that He doesn't exist, and again I ask, what evidence do you have??

Under that standard, I am unable to say the unicorns and fire breathing dragons don't exist.

The closest thing to "not existing" that we can say is where "not existing" is equivalent to "the possibility of x existing is so low that it is null."

If I see a track in the snow that looks suspiciously like a dog's foot, it is POSSIBLE that a T-Rex made the footprint (enter sci-fi explanation here). However, we say it is "not possible" in that the probability is so small as to be discounted.

I say the YEC God is "not possible" in the same manner that a flat earth is "not possible." Yes, there could be a gigantic conspiracy and earth really IS flat. Doesn't mean we should put it up next to every other choice.

You seem to forgot that there are an infinite amount of types of Gods. I always find it amusing when theists argue that choice is between "my god and nothing."

Skeptics see the choices and want to make an informed decision. Allah over Yahweh. Old-earth over creationism. Wahhabist over Shiite. Catholicism over Protestanism.

That's all well and good, but my initial questions remain unanswered.
Why do skeptics ask for proof for a "faith-based" religion??
What is the evidence to support anti-theistic claims that God doesn't exist??

I'm not sure which skeptics you are talking about, but learned skeptics know that you can't "prove" God (proof is for math and alcohol). Evidence is not the same as "proving" something exists. You can only show a possibility or probability of something existing within a set of assumptions (usually taken from observed reality).

Skeptics are not the same as anti-theist. A skeptic is the equivalent of someone who uses the falsification and the scientific method when questioning claims that seem out of the ordinary. You can have a devout Christian who is a huge skeptic about any sighting of ghosts.

You can't say "that's all well and good" to my answer and then ask the question again. I just told you. Skeptics want arguments and evidence because otherwise you have to choose a religion based on a coin-flip. Skeptics are not satisfied with being given an answer, they want the reasoning behind that answer.

I have no way to disprove ESP. Does this mean I should accept peoples claims based on faith that they can do ESP?

Your strawman is very trite.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 8:57:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 6:35:02 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 7/31/2011 3:58:25 PM, medic0506 wrote:
I ask for proof for God's non-existence, and the question is turned onto me to provide proof for mine.

Okay... prove that invisible flying rabbits don't exist.

Why would I need to do that?? I've never posited that they don't exist.

See how silly that is? It's absurd to suggest that someone has to prove something doesn't exist. You're making the claim that God exists, therefore you have the burden of proving that God actually exists.

Why is it absurd to ask that question?? If someone simply claims "I don't believe in God", that's fine, they have no burden of proof since they are not taking the position that God does not exist. It's the people who ARE taking a position that I'm asking a question of. "What is your proof that God doesn't exist??" I see no reason to dodge that question, if they have taken that position, and I don't see it as unfair. If you claim that God does not exist, and I claim that I have faith that He does exist, why is it absurd to ask you what you have that convinces you?? I gave my reason for my position, faith. Do you have faith that He doesn't exist, or do you have some evidence?? It's a fair question to ask of those who claim to put so much value in evidence. If you say that you can't prove that He doesn't exist, and that it's absurd of me to ask, why would you claim that He doesn't. Unless you're omniscient, how can you claim that God doesn't exist, if you can't prove it?? That puts us on equal footing in the absurdity claim.

As for my burden of proof, I readily admit that I can't prove that God exists, thus the need for faith. Why one would ask for "proof" from a faith based religion, is one of the questions that I'm asking in the thread.

Saying "You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does" is fallacious.

I agree, that is a fallacious statement, but I don't believe that's what I said. I have faith that God exists, so to me He exists, is quite different.
"You can't prove He exists, so He doesn't", is equally fallacious, as is "God doesn't exist, even though I have no proof". Are you claiming either of those positions??
InquireTruth
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 9:09:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 1:59:02 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 7/31/2011 1:48:06 PM, InquireTruth wrote:
To say nothing to the point that this reasoning suffers from its own dilemma. In fact, it is overwhelmingly more likely, per the "dilemma," that this idea that evidence is needed is false.

I'm having trouble seeing your point. This 'dilemma' would only be self-referentially incoherent if it failed its own test - i.e. I took it on faith, or as a random belief. But I think there are good arguments in its favour.

No, it would be begging the question if it referred to itself to prove itself to begin with. So to say that there are good arguments in its favor is not relevantly different than saying that there is evidence in its favor. More clearly stated, like saying, "There is evidence for the principle that truth requires evidence." You must presuppose the truth of your principle in order to prove it. So it would be epistemic imperialism to assume that faith cannot have similar, self-referential warrant.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 9:18:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 1:44:23 PM, Kinesis wrote:
The number of possible false beliefs vastly outnumber the number of possible true beliefs. Without a reliable method of distinguishing what is true from what is not, you are overwhelmingly more likely to hold a false belief. That's why, if you just take Christianity on faith, you not only have no rational warrant for regarding it as true, but Christianity is overwhelmingly more likely to be false.

Probabilities do not help us determine what is truth, and what isn't, in this case. If Jesus Christ is who I believe He is, then there is a 100% chance that Christianity is true, in spite of an infinite number of other possible beliefs. The dillema exists, only to those who don't believe.

That's why you need evidence: to get out of that dilemma.

One of my questions is, why is evidence needed for belief but not for non-belief. If someone claims that God doesn't exist, shouldn't they have some reason, some evidence to back up that claim??
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 9:36:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 9:18:20 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 7/31/2011 1:44:23 PM, Kinesis wrote:


One of my questions is, why is evidence needed for belief but not for non-belief. If someone claims that God doesn't exist, shouldn't they have some reason, some evidence to back up that claim??

And one of my questions is, if some one claims that the alien mothership with its cloaking device is not currently hovering above earth, shouldn't they have some reason, some evidence to back up that claim ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
sal
Posts: 319
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 10:02:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 6:35:02 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 7/31/2011 3:58:25 PM, medic0506 wrote:
I ask for proof for God's non-existence, and the question is turned onto me to provide proof for mine.

Okay... prove that invisible flying rabbits don't exist.

See how silly that is? It's absurd to suggest that someone has to prove something doesn't exist. You're making the claim that God exists, therefore you have the burden of proving that God actually exists. Saying "You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does" is fallacious (http://www.nizkor.org...).

Exactly the point.
Why arent there websites, videos and debates trying to disprove your flying rabbit.
sal
Posts: 319
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 10:05:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 9:36:21 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 7/31/2011 9:18:20 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 7/31/2011 1:44:23 PM, Kinesis wrote:


One of my questions is, why is evidence needed for belief but not for non-belief. If someone claims that God doesn't exist, shouldn't they have some reason, some evidence to back up that claim??

And one of my questions is, if some one claims that the alien mothership with its cloaking device is not currently hovering above earth, shouldn't they have some reason, some evidence to back up that claim ?

If its the same how come there are no passionate debates on the issue like there is about god.
Obviously the atheist is giving some validity by even arguing.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 11:18:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The is no argument over faith in a God who has no interaction with man or the universe. The Deist God is close to being in that category. The Deist God is claimed to have created the universe and to someday return in judgement over humans, but in the interim does nothing. Morality is left to humans to figure out by observation and reason alone.

Skeptics demand proof only when affirmative claims are made. Those might include God having created the universe in a certain way, having performed miracles, revealed moral laws, answering prayers, requiring certain behavior, and so forth. If claims affecting facts or externally imposed moral authority are made, then proof of the claims is a reasonable demand.

The Buddha taught that it is not worthwhile to question of whether or not God exists. that implies that moral questions can be pondered and resolved without reference to a deity, and at least some Buddhists claim to do that. This means that religion can go quite far without a deity.

Note that some gods can be disproved and others cannot. A god who is omnipotent, omniscient, and good is disproved by the argument from evil and by the argument from non-belief. Slack off a little on omnipotence, a the god can exist.
sal
Posts: 319
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 11:36:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 11:18:12 PM, RoyLatham wrote:

Note that some gods can be disproved and others cannot. A god who is omnipotent, omniscient, and good is disproved by the argument from evil and by the argument from non-belief. Slack off a little on omnipotence, a the god can exist.

I don't see why. Do you have an objective definition of evil or is evil what ever you don't like?
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 12:38:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 7:49:43 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 7/31/2011 1:12:19 PM, medic0506 wrote:
I couldn't get the entire question into the title, but here it is.

Why do skeptics demand "proof" from a faith-based belief system?? That just sounds silly. Also, why do they not demand that same standard of "proof" for their own worldview??

Cause if you believe something without evidence to be consistent you have to believe ANYTHING and EVERYTHING, this is unworkable.

That's only true of things that are equal. I can have reasonable faith in Christianity, but not in Islam because they are different things. If they were exactly the same, with just different names, then you'd be right, I'd have no justification for having faith in A but not B.

I can't speak for other religions, but with Christianity the entire belief system is based on faith. We have to have faith in God. He has proven Himself to us, but that proof can't be scientifically measured. We have to be willing to attribute the evidence that is provided, to God.

If you believe that any evidence will prove you true, then evidence is irrelevant. You can always craft a God or Religion that is evidence proof, that is to say, no evidence will ever prove it false. If X happens God exists, If X doesn't happen God exists.

This is true, that claim can be made by those who want to believe. However if there is true "evidence" against God's existence, it would be hard to refute. At this point, I haven't seen any true empirical evidence against His existence, have you??

It seems to me that the question they should be asking is, "Do I have any proof that God doesn't exist??"

It seems the question you should be asking is , do you have any proof that there is not an alien mothership that is indetectable (it has a cloaking device) hovering above earth right now !!!. If you can't prove this false then clearly it must be true.

You can have faith in your mothership if you like, and if you meet someone who will deny it's existence without any evidence for doing so you might want to strike up the conversation.

Most say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Why is the belief that God is the Creator more extraordinary than the belief that the universe, and millions of different life forms, that depend on each other for survival, happened just by chance?? It seems to me that claiming that all the minute details necessary for our existence happened randomly, rather than being designed to work that way, is a far more extraordinary claim.

1) It requires the supernatural, we have more than enough evidence that the natural exists, the supernatural on the other hand.....

Does that disprove the possibility of the supernatural?? No. The most definitive statement one can make without begging the question is "I see no evidence of the supernatural".

2) Its not a question of what is more or less "extraordinary" it a question of what the evidence is, the testable evidence.

There is no testable evidence favoring either belief.

3) Appealing to incredulity is not evidence.

Agreed, so why do so many skeptics use it??

The only reason that I can think of for such one-sided skepticism is that these people simply don't want to believe in a being that is more powerful, and has more control than they do. That being, God, might have expectations and rules that go against what they want for themselves, so they have to argue against His existence so they can justify their own selfish actions. Many skeptics that have read this far are probably seething by now, and can't wait to rip into this diatribe, but I have several questions for you:

Good point, this is why people reject the popes authority as handed down to him by GOD, cause people want to reject that authority cause of their selfishness.People want to make up their own rules and not obey his holiness. Your are a catholic right ? what no ? burn in hell heretic.

I don't subscribe to any particular denomination. I simply class my beliefs as Christian.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 1:50:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/1/2011 12:38:57 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 7/31/2011 7:49:43 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 7/31/2011 1:12:19 PM, medic0506 wrote:
I couldn't get the entire question into the title, but here it is.

Why do skeptics demand "proof" from a faith-based belief system?? That just sounds silly. Also, why do they not demand that same standard of "proof" for their own worldview??

Cause if you believe something without evidence to be consistent you have to believe ANYTHING and EVERYTHING, this is unworkable.

That's only true of things that are equal. I can have reasonable faith in Christianity, but not in Islam because they are different things. If they were exactly the same, with just different names, then you'd be right, I'd have no justification for having faith in A but not B.

I have reasonable faith in the alien mothership but not in christianity or islam cause they are different things. If they were exactly the same, with just different names, then you'd be right, I'd have no justification for having faith in A but not B.

I can't speak for other religions, but with Christianity the entire belief system is based on faith. We have to have faith in God. He has proven Himself to us, but that proof can't be scientifically measured. We have to be willing to attribute the evidence that is provided, to God.

If you believe that any evidence will prove you true, then evidence is irrelevant. You can always craft a God or Religion that is evidence proof, that is to say, no evidence will ever prove it false. If X happens God exists, If X doesn't happen God exists.

This is true, that claim can be made by those who want to believe. However if there is true "evidence" against God's existence, it would be hard to refute. At this point, I haven't seen any true empirical evidence against His existence, have you??

At this point I haven't seen any true empirical evidence against the existence of an alien mothership with a cloaking device hovering above the earth, have you ?

It seems to me that the question they should be asking is, "Do I have any proof that God doesn't exist??"

It seems the question you should be asking is , do you have any proof that there is not an alien mothership that is indetectable (it has a cloaking device) hovering above earth right now !!!. If you can't prove this false then clearly it must be true.

You can have faith in your mothership if you like, and if you meet someone who will deny it's existence without any evidence for doing so you might want to strike up the conversation.

Do you deny the existence of the alien mothership ?

Most say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Why is the belief that God is the Creator more extraordinary than the belief that the universe, and millions of different life forms, that depend on each other for survival, happened just by chance?? It seems to me that claiming that all the minute details necessary for our existence happened randomly, rather than being designed to work that way, is a far more extraordinary claim.

1) It requires the supernatural, we have more than enough evidence that the natural exists, the supernatural on the other hand.....

Does that disprove the possibility of the supernatural?? No. The most definitive statement one can make without begging the question is "I see no evidence of the supernatural".

Does that disprove the possibility of the alien mothership ? No, the most definitive statement one can make is "I see no evidence for the mothership with a cloaking device hovering about the earth"

2) Its not a question of what is more or less "extraordinary" it a question of what the evidence is, the testable evidence.

There is no testable evidence favoring either belief.

3) Appealing to incredulity is not evidence.

Agreed, so why do so many skeptics use it??

The only reason that I can think of for such one-sided skepticism is that these people simply don't want to believe in a being that is more powerful, and has more control than they do. That being, God, might have expectations and rules that go against what they want for themselves, so they have to argue against His existence so they can justify their own selfish actions. Many skeptics that have read this far are probably seething by now, and can't wait to rip into this diatribe, but I have several questions for you:

Good point, this is why people reject the popes authority as handed down to him by GOD, cause people want to reject that authority cause of their selfishness.People want to make up their own rules and not obey his holiness. Your are a catholic right ? what no ? burn in hell heretic.

I don't subscribe to any particular denomination. I simply class my beliefs as Christian.

Nice dodge. You want to make the claim that people won't accept a belief on selfish grounds, but this can also be used on you, as in my catholic example.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12