Total Posts:171|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The burden of proof is on the theist

dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2013 11:39:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Among the various tactics used by religion designed at keeping the faith alive is the attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the disbeliever. In nearly all other aspects of human life, the burden of proof is rightfully acknowledged to rest with the person making a claim. However, this rule of logic somehow seems to escape people making the case for God. The most important questions -- where do we come from, where are we going, what should we do -- should not be reduced to axioms impossible to disprove. This sort of faulty thinking is not a path to truth. If a statement asserts a supernatural being exists, beyond the observable realm, it must provide evidence or the claim is no more valid than any other statement asserting the existence of something that is unfalsifiable. To claim that the atheist must prove the nonexistence of God starts out with the assumption God exists, which is absurd. You can believe God exists, but you do have reasons. "The existence of the universe is proof for God's existence,' you claim, well, that's fine, but that doesn't mean God is a given just because the universe is a given (the proof is in the pudding). Yes, the universe automatically exists, but that doesn't mean that automatically entails God. The connection must be proven.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 12:32:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't think anybody has any obligation to prove anything. The burden of proof is on whoever wants to persuade. If I want to persuade you of some point of view, it's up to me to offer arguments to persuade you. But if I have no desire to persuade you, then I have no burden of proof. The same goes for you if you want to persuade me of something.

I think all these arguments about who has the burden of proof in debates between theists and atheists are pointless and silly. It's only relevant in formal debates. In every day life, we only have a burden of proof if we want to persuade somebody.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 5:55:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/7/2013 11:39:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Among the various tactics used by religion designed at keeping the faith alive is the attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the disbeliever. In nearly all other aspects of human life, the burden of proof is rightfully acknowledged to rest with the person making a claim. However, this rule of logic somehow seems to escape people making the case for God. The most important questions -- where do we come from, where are we going, what should we do -- should not be reduced to axioms impossible to disprove. This sort of faulty thinking is not a path to truth. If a statement asserts a supernatural being exists, beyond the observable realm, it must provide evidence or the claim is no more valid than any other statement asserting the existence of something that is unfalsifiable. To claim that the atheist must prove the nonexistence of God starts out with the assumption God exists, which is absurd. You can believe God exists, but you do have reasons. "The existence of the universe is proof for God's existence,' you claim, well, that's fine, but that doesn't mean God is a given just because the universe is a given (the proof is in the pudding). Yes, the universe automatically exists, but that doesn't mean that automatically entails God. The connection must be proven.

Prove it.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 6:20:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/7/2013 11:39:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Among the various tactics used by religion designed at keeping the faith alive is the attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the disbeliever. In nearly all other aspects of human life, the burden of proof is rightfully acknowledged to rest with the person making a claim. However, this rule of logic somehow seems to escape people making the case for God. The most important questions -- where do we come from, where are we going, what should we do -- should not be reduced to axioms impossible to disprove. This sort of faulty thinking is not a path to truth. If a statement asserts a supernatural being exists, beyond the observable realm, it must provide evidence or the claim is no more valid than any other statement asserting the existence of something that is unfalsifiable. To claim that the atheist must prove the nonexistence of God starts out with the assumption God exists, which is absurd. You can believe God exists, but you do have reasons. "The existence of the universe is proof for God's existence,' you claim, well, that's fine, but that doesn't mean God is a given just because the universe is a given (the proof is in the pudding). Yes, the universe automatically exists, but that doesn't mean that automatically entails God. The connection must be proven.

You could find multiple lists of why people of any faith believe in God.
The question is, what would you do with them?
For your own satisfaction would you destroy what makes someone else happy if you could disprove their faith?
Would you find a reason to disbelieve every truth you found to satisfy your own need to be right?
Is there even a chance that you really want answers and not an argument?
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 7:09:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 6:20:16 AM, pozessed wrote:

You could find multiple lists of why people of any faith believe in God.
The question is, what would you do with them?
For your own satisfaction would you destroy what makes someone else happy if you could disprove their faith?
Would you find a reason to disbelieve every truth you found to satisfy your own need to be right?
Is there even a chance that you really want answers and not an argument?

If religion made people happy and only happy, then sure, but we both know it isn't the case. Beliefs have consequences.

One of the main trouble with religion is that its a thought terminator. Its God will, its what God wants. Consider the example of children denied medical treatment because the parents religious belief is that God heals, and to go to a Dr is just to question God.

And if the children dies, go through suffering as a result ? well......its Gods will, who are you o sinful man to question the almighty. Sure the world might condemm us, but they are blinded by Satan, this life is nothing compared to eternity, we are the few, the saved, the faithful.
"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
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 7:41:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 7:09:02 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/8/2013 6:20:16 AM, pozessed wrote:

You could find multiple lists of why people of any faith believe in God.
The question is, what would you do with them?
For your own satisfaction would you destroy what makes someone else happy if you could disprove their faith?
Would you find a reason to disbelieve every truth you found to satisfy your own need to be right?
Is there even a chance that you really want answers and not an argument?

If religion made people happy and only happy, then sure, but we both know it isn't the case. Beliefs have consequences.

One of the main trouble with religion is that its a thought terminator. Its God will, its what God wants. Consider the example of children denied medical treatment because the parents religious belief is that God heals, and to go to a Dr is just to question God.

And if the children dies, go through suffering as a result ? well......its Gods will, who are you o sinful man to question the almighty. Sure the world might condemm us, but they are blinded by Satan, this life is nothing compared to eternity, we are the few, the saved, the faithful.

Religions themselves seem made up of the devil. That's why I used the word faith and not religion.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 7:54:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 7:41:37 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 3/8/2013 7:09:02 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/8/2013 6:20:16 AM, pozessed wrote:

You could find multiple lists of why people of any faith believe in God.
The question is, what would you do with them?
For your own satisfaction would you destroy what makes someone else happy if you could disprove their faith?
Would you find a reason to disbelieve every truth you found to satisfy your own need to be right?
Is there even a chance that you really want answers and not an argument?

If religion made people happy and only happy, then sure, but we both know it isn't the case. Beliefs have consequences.

One of the main trouble with religion is that its a thought terminator. Its God will, its what God wants. Consider the example of children denied medical treatment because the parents religious belief is that God heals, and to go to a Dr is just to question God.

And if the children dies, go through suffering as a result ? well......its Gods will, who are you o sinful man to question the almighty. Sure the world might condemm us, but they are blinded by Satan, this life is nothing compared to eternity, we are the few, the saved, the faithful.

Religions themselves seem made up of the devil. That's why I used the word faith and not religion.

Right, so your religious beliefs are God ordained while the other guys religious beliefs are of Satan.

Is that how it is ?
"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
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 8:10:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 12:32:50 AM, philochristos wrote:
I don't think anybody has any obligation to prove anything. The burden of proof is on whoever wants to persuade. If I want to persuade you of some point of view, it's up to me to offer arguments to persuade you. But if I have no desire to persuade you, then I have no burden of proof. The same goes for you if you want to persuade me of something.

I think all these arguments about who has the burden of proof in debates between theists and atheists are pointless and silly. It's only relevant in formal debates. In every day life, we only have a burden of proof if we want to persuade somebody.

You don't know what the burden of proof means, then.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 8:36:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 7:54:34 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/8/2013 7:41:37 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 3/8/2013 7:09:02 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/8/2013 6:20:16 AM, pozessed wrote:

You could find multiple lists of why people of any faith believe in God.
The question is, what would you do with them?
For your own satisfaction would you destroy what makes someone else happy if you could disprove their faith?
Would you find a reason to disbelieve every truth you found to satisfy your own need to be right?
Is there even a chance that you really want answers and not an argument?

If religion made people happy and only happy, then sure, but we both know it isn't the case. Beliefs have consequences.

One of the main trouble with religion is that its a thought terminator. Its God will, its what God wants. Consider the example of children denied medical treatment because the parents religious belief is that God heals, and to go to a Dr is just to question God.

And if the children dies, go through suffering as a result ? well......its Gods will, who are you o sinful man to question the almighty. Sure the world might condemm us, but they are blinded by Satan, this life is nothing compared to eternity, we are the few, the saved, the faithful.

Religions themselves seem made up of the devil. That's why I used the word faith and not religion.

Right, so your religious beliefs are God ordained while the other guys religious beliefs are of Satan.

Is that how it is ?

No, I just assume that the devil would have more benefit from diversifying Gods will into multiple books more so than God would.
TheAntidoter
Posts: 4,323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 9:00:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Bop Is on theists and Atheists.

Agnostics have no BOP.
Affinity: Fire
Class: Human
Abilities: ????

Nac.

WOAH, COLORED FONT!
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 9:06:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 9:00:33 AM, TheAntidoter wrote:
Bop Is on theists and Atheists.

Agnostics have no BOP.

No, atheists don't have to provide any evidence of their own. If there is no evidence for the existence of God, then we can conclude he doesn't exist. Same goes for santa, fairies and the great juju at the bottom of the sea.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 9:20:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 9:06:16 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/8/2013 9:00:33 AM, TheAntidoter wrote:
Bop Is on theists and Atheists.

Agnostics have no BOP.

No, atheists don't have to provide any evidence of their own. If there is no evidence for the existence of God, then we can conclude he doesn't exist. Same goes for santa, fairies and the great juju at the bottom of the sea.

Well, I think there are some atheistic stances that have a BoP, such as "God is impossible", etc., but of course those are "hard atheism". Basic "lack belief in" atheism has no BoP, so I agree with you overall, I'm just being nitpicky.

@philocristos:
The question of who has the BoP is important, because it's the nature of how we know or believe things. It is important to remember, even for yourself (not trying to convince another) where the BoP lies, so that when you're looking at other peoples' attempts to convince you of their position, you know what they have to do; the theist must make a case, the atheist must only show that the theist has not made a sufficient one.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 9:34:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 9:06:16 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/8/2013 9:00:33 AM, TheAntidoter wrote:
Bop Is on theists and Atheists.

Agnostics have no BOP.

No, atheists don't have to provide any evidence of their own. If there is no evidence for the existence of God, then we can conclude he doesn't exist. Same goes for santa, fairies and the great juju at the bottom of the sea.

Lack of evidence for god's existence is only evidence of her non-existence if we would expect there to be evidence if she existed. For example, lack of complete fossil records for evolutionary change is only evidence against evolution if we would expect complete fossil records if evolution were true. Lack of, for example, evidence for instant creation is evidence against god's existence if we expect that that's how god would create life if he existed.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 10:13:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 9:34:08 AM, Kinesis wrote:

Lack of evidence for god's existence is only evidence of her non-existence if we would expect there to be evidence if she existed. For example, lack of complete fossil records for evolutionary change is only evidence against evolution if we would expect complete fossil records if evolution were true. Lack of, for example, evidence for instant creation is evidence against god's existence if we expect that that's how god would create life if he existed.

But aren't we talking here about the complete lack of evidence? It's one thing to say "this specific evidence is missing", and an entirely different thing to say "You have no evidence of your position whatsoever".

The first may or may not be a problem depending on circumstances, as you noted.

The second seems to be a fairly significant problem, otherwise we're forced to be agnostic about an infinite number of things, because rather than simply concluding they don't exist because there's no reason to conclude they do exist, and we fall into the "trying to prove a negative" trap. It's also a problem for the one making the original assertion: if they have no evidence or reason to believe their claim other than that they believe their claim, then they've abandoned rationality entirely.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 11:12:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/7/2013 11:39:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Among the various tactics used by religion designed at keeping the faith alive is the attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the disbeliever. In nearly all other aspects of human life, the burden of proof is rightfully acknowledged to rest with the person making a claim. However, this rule of logic somehow seems to escape people making the case for God. The most important questions -- where do we come from, where are we going, what should we do -- should not be reduced to axioms impossible to disprove. This sort of faulty thinking is not a path to truth. If a statement asserts a supernatural being exists, beyond the observable realm, it must provide evidence or the claim is no more valid than any other statement asserting the existence of something that is unfalsifiable. To claim that the atheist must prove the nonexistence of God starts out with the assumption God exists, which is absurd. You can believe God exists, but you do have reasons. "The existence of the universe is proof for God's existence,' you claim, well, that's fine, but that doesn't mean God is a given just because the universe is a given (the proof is in the pudding). Yes, the universe automatically exists, but that doesn't mean that automatically entails God. The connection must be proven.

To claim that starting out with the assumption God exists is absurd commits the logical fallacy of begging the question. One can say it's just as absurd to start from the assumption that God doesn't exist.

The burden of proof rests on the person making the claim. If an Atheist comes up to me and tells me that God doesn't exist, he is the one who has to prove it to me. Otherwise he commits another fallacy, shifting the burden of proof.

In order for your worldview to be true, there must be positive evidence to support it. Christian Theism may be false, but that doesn't automatically prove that Atheism is correct (there are many other worldviews to consider). In order to show that Atheism is true, you have to make positive arguments for it. Otherwise if Christian Theism were shown to be false, there's still no reason to accept Atheism as the correct alternative.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 11:22:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
"If an Atheist comes up to me and tells me that God doesn't exist, he is the one who has to prove it to me."

He does not have to prove God doesn't exist. All an atheist has to do is argue there is no evidence for God's existence.
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 11:34:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 11:22:54 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
"If an Atheist comes up to me and tells me that God doesn't exist, he is the one who has to prove it to me."

He does not have to prove God doesn't exist. All an atheist has to do is argue there is no evidence for God's existence.

No, he has to prove that God doesn't exist. Otherwise I have no reason to take him seriously.

Plus, to say that there's no evidence for God is a ridiculous statement. If God created the universe, then the universe is evidence for God's existence. Not to mention the many philosophical arguments offered for God's existence. The problem is Atheists try to define evidence in such a way that it would be impossible to provide any evidence, and ironically they don't have those strict definitions for evidence when trying to prove anything else.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 11:42:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 9:20:35 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
@philocristos:
The question of who has the BoP is important, because it's the nature of how we know or believe things. It is important to remember, even for yourself (not trying to convince another) where the BoP lies, so that when you're looking at other peoples' attempts to convince you of their position, you know what they have to do; the theist must make a case, the atheist must only show that the theist has not made a sufficient one.

What causes people to change their minds varies from person to person. Nobody has the burden of showing anybody that something is true before they're justified in believing it. I may know something to be true for reasons I can't offer somebody. For example, I may know exactly what I was doing at 10 pm last night even though I can't prove it to anybody.

I only have a burden of proof if I actually want to change somebody's mind, and that burden is met only when I've succeeded.

The "burden of proof" is a mere stipulation under some circumstances. For example, in criminal cases (in America at least), the burden of proof is entirely on the prosecution since there is a presumption of innocence. But this presumption isn't because we're rational in believing people are innocent until proven guilty, but because it is fair to treat people as innocent until proven guilty. So this is an artificial stipulation of a burden of proof that could've been different.

In formal debates, the burden of proof can either be a matter of mutual agreement between the two debaters, or the default burden of proof is on whoever makes a positive claim.

Since in ever day life, we are concerned, not with winning debates, but with changing minds, the burden is only on the person who wants to change another person's mind. And they only have a burden in so far as that's what they want to do. Nobody is obligated to convince anybody of anything.

Burden of proof is not the same thing as criteria for justification since a person can be justified in believing in something even if they have no way of demonstrating it to anybody else.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
likespeace
Posts: 57
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 1:13:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 11:34:51 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
> The problem is Atheists try to define evidence in such a way that it would be
> impossible to provide any evidence, and ironically they don't have those strict
> definitions for evidence when trying to prove anything else.

A recent debate defined "legitimate evidence" as evidence that would be accepted by a judge and jury in an American criminal court. While I suggested this bar was far too high for personal belief, the historical record shows this standard has been met many times and in many courtrooms. Thus, "not used for anything else" is totally false, and "impossible" is inaccurate if god(s) exist, unless you're arguing for a conception that lacks a desire to make their existence obvious to us (in which case, that god shares responsibility for their choice to remain divinely hidden!)

Anselm of Canterbury wrote:

"I have never seen thee, O Lord my God; I do not know thy form. What, O most high Lord, shall this man do, an exile far from thee? What shall thy servant do, anxious in his love of thee, and cast out afar from thy face? He pants to see thee, and thy face is too far from him. He longs to come to thee, and thy dwelling place is inaccessible. He is eager to find thee, and knows not thy place. He desires to seek thee, and does not know thy face. Lord, thou art my God, and thou art my Lord, yet never have I seen thee. It is thou that hast made me, and hast made me anew, and hast bestowed upon me all the blessings I enjoy; and not yet do I know thee. Finally, I was created to see thee and not yet have I done that for which I was made."
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 1:16:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 9:00:33 AM, TheAntidoter wrote:
Bop Is on theists and Atheists.

Agnostics have no BOP.

Agnostics have a BoP too, but it's of a very different sort.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 2:29:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 1:16:13 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 3/8/2013 9:00:33 AM, TheAntidoter wrote:
Bop Is on theists and Atheists.

Agnostics have no BOP.

Agnostics have a BoP too, but it's of a very different sort.

Just as there is a distinction between strong and weak atheism, there is also a distinction between strong and weak agnosticism. Weak agnosticism is just a state of being neutral on the question of whether there's a God or not. Strong agnosticism is the claim that nobody can know one way or the other. Strong agnosticism requires justification, but I don't think weak agnosticism does unless a person claims to be weakly agnostic in spite of good evidence one way or the other.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 3:06:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 2:29:47 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/8/2013 1:16:13 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 3/8/2013 9:00:33 AM, TheAntidoter wrote:
Bop Is on theists and Atheists.

Agnostics have no BOP.

Agnostics have a BoP too, but it's of a very different sort.

Just as there is a distinction between strong and weak atheism, there is also a distinction between strong and weak agnosticism. Weak agnosticism is just a state of being neutral on the question of whether there's a God or not. Strong agnosticism is the claim that nobody can know one way or the other. Strong agnosticism requires justification, but I don't think weak agnosticism does unless a person claims to be weakly agnostic in spite of good evidence one way or the other.

That's interesting. I didn't know that.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 3:54:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 1:13:30 PM, likespeace wrote:
At 3/8/2013 11:34:51 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
> The problem is Atheists try to define evidence in such a way that it would be
> impossible to provide any evidence, and ironically they don't have those strict
> definitions for evidence when trying to prove anything else.

A recent debate defined "legitimate evidence" as evidence that would be accepted by a judge and jury in an American criminal court. While I suggested this bar was far too high for personal belief, the historical record shows this standard has been met many times and in many courtrooms. Thus, "not used for anything else" is totally false, and "impossible" is inaccurate if god(s) exist, unless you're arguing for a conception that lacks a desire to make their existence obvious to us (in which case, that god shares responsibility for their choice to remain divinely hidden!)

Anselm of Canterbury wrote:

"I have never seen thee, O Lord my God; I do not know thy form. What, O most high Lord, shall this man do, an exile far from thee? What shall thy servant do, anxious in his love of thee, and cast out afar from thy face? He pants to see thee, and thy face is too far from him. He longs to come to thee, and thy dwelling place is inaccessible. He is eager to find thee, and knows not thy place. He desires to seek thee, and does not know thy face. Lord, thou art my God, and thou art my Lord, yet never have I seen thee. It is thou that hast made me, and hast made me anew, and hast bestowed upon me all the blessings I enjoy; and not yet do I know thee. Finally, I was created to see thee and not yet have I done that for which I was made."

Actually, your example proves my point. Most Atheists I've talked to consider the books of the New Testament as unreliable because they're "religious texts," when the vast majority of historians consider them to be historically valuable.
qopel
Posts: 150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 4:00:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Actually, your example proves my point. Most Atheists I've talked to consider the books of the New Testament as unreliable because they're "religious texts," when the vast majority of historians consider them to be historically valuable.

Show me a legitimate historian that considers that! Show me something in the Bible that is historically accurate!
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 4:05:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 8:36:30 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 3/8/2013 7:54:34 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/8/2013 7:41:37 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 3/8/2013 7:09:02 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/8/2013 6:20:16 AM, pozessed wrote:

You could find multiple lists of why people of any faith believe in God.
The question is, what would you do with them?
For your own satisfaction would you destroy what makes someone else happy if you could disprove their faith?
Would you find a reason to disbelieve every truth you found to satisfy your own need to be right?
Is there even a chance that you really want answers and not an argument?

If religion made people happy and only happy, then sure, but we both know it isn't the case. Beliefs have consequences.

One of the main trouble with religion is that its a thought terminator. Its God will, its what God wants. Consider the example of children denied medical treatment because the parents religious belief is that God heals, and to go to a Dr is just to question God.

And if the children dies, go through suffering as a result ? well......its Gods will, who are you o sinful man to question the almighty. Sure the world might condemm us, but they are blinded by Satan, this life is nothing compared to eternity, we are the few, the saved, the faithful.

Religions themselves seem made up of the devil. That's why I used the word faith and not religion.

Right, so your religious beliefs are God ordained while the other guys religious beliefs are of Satan.

Is that how it is ?

No, I just assume that the devil would have more benefit from diversifying Gods will into multiple books more so than God would.

In the denying of medical treatment for children I mentioned, I bet their view would be that its the devils influence trying to convince them to take them to the dr. NICE TRY DEVIL !!! We will be loyal to God, you can't trick us devil.

yeah.........devil
"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
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 4:07:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 4:00:14 PM, qopel wrote:
Actually, your example proves my point. Most Atheists I've talked to consider the books of the New Testament as unreliable because they're "religious texts," when the vast majority of historians consider them to be historically valuable.

Show me a legitimate historian that considers that! Show me something in the Bible that is historically accurate!

Qopel, the Gospels are considered historically reliable. Obviously the liberal historians won't believe miracles happened, but they're considered valuable historical resources of the ancient world. I don't have my books on me (I'm at my sister's house), but I'll give you specific names when I get back home.
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 4:20:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 4:00:14 PM, qopel wrote:
Actually, your example proves my point. Most Atheists I've talked to consider the books of the New Testament as unreliable because they're "religious texts," when the vast majority of historians consider them to be historically valuable.

Show me a legitimate historian that considers that! Show me something in the Bible that is historically accurate!:

Actually only a handful of historians dont consider the Bible as historically valuable. Let's switch this, so something that is not historically accurate from the Bible.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 5:53:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 1:16:13 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 3/8/2013 9:00:33 AM, TheAntidoter wrote:
Bop Is on theists and Atheists.

Agnostics have no BOP.

Agnostics have a BoP too, but it's of a very different sort.

No they don't! Do you even know what BOP is?