Total Posts:252|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evidence FOR Religion

Picard
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2014 4:29:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Do you believe in a divine entity? Whether it be a god, or gods from Christianity, Islam, paganism or so on. If you do, why? I am not asking for faith or opinion, just facts. Pure and simple, not circumstantial evidence, not anecdotes, just facts, the evidence in its purest form. I am interested to see how much fact for religion there is out there.

P.S. If you are religious and are reading this, yet cannot produce any facts to post on this topic, I suggest re-evaluating your beliefs.

P.S.S If you believe the burden of proof is not on you, please watch this video
dadman
Posts: 272
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2014 5:42:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If you believe the burden of proof is not on you .

no . . . if you are commanding others to believe what you believe then the burden of proof is not on you
And he (God) gave some apostles .. and some prophets .. and some evangelists .. and some teaching pastors .. for the perfecting of the saints .. for the work of the ministry .. for the edifying of the body of Christ .. till we all come in the unity of the faith .. and of the knowledge of the Son of God .. to a perfect (complete) man .. to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ . . . . Ephesians 4:12 .. http://dadmansabode.com... .. come and learn
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2014 6:06:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I don't believe in a specific religion (none convince me), but I tend to think there is an omniscient divine presence that "created" the universe we live in.

The evidence for such a "being" is rather poor, but then, the evidence against it is also rather poor.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2014 8:39:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/20/2014 4:29:42 AM, Picard wrote:
Do you believe in a divine entity? Whether it be a god, or gods from Christianity, Islam, paganism or so on. If you do, why? I am not asking for faith or opinion, just facts.

Pure and simple, not circumstantial evidence, not anecdotes, just facts, the evidence in its purest form. I am interested to see how much fact for religion there is out there.

P.S. If you are religious and are reading this, yet cannot produce any facts to post on this topic, I suggest re-evaluating your beliefs.

You do realize nothing is backed up by facts right? Science is not backed up by facts. Facts are truths that are proven true, but nothing can be proven 100% true by science. This is known as the problem of induction. By your logic you should give up believing in scientific theories because they're not based on facts, rather they are based upon theories that are approximate to a body of observations of nature. But theories can never be 100% proven in the way you demand of theists.
biomystic
Posts: 606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2014 8:50:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
My work will be considered evidence for religion and for evidence of Divine Intervention in our times.
Lordgrae
Posts: 666
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2014 10:44:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/20/2014 8:39:49 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 1/20/2014 4:29:42 AM, Picard wrote:
Do you believe in a divine entity? Whether it be a god, or gods from Christianity, Islam, paganism or so on. If you do, why? I am not asking for faith or opinion, just facts.

Pure and simple, not circumstantial evidence, not anecdotes, just facts, the evidence in its purest form. I am interested to see how much fact for religion there is out there.

P.S. If you are religious and are reading this, yet cannot produce any facts to post on this topic, I suggest re-evaluating your beliefs.

You do realize nothing is backed up by facts right? Science is not backed up by facts. Facts are truths that are proven true, but nothing can be proven 100% true by science. This is known as the problem of induction. By your logic you should give up believing in scientific theories because they're not based on facts, rather they are based upon theories that are approximate to a body of observations of nature. But theories can never be 100% proven in the way you demand of theists.

Yes but there is something called reasonable assumption. If you are conducting an expirament, you assume that gravity will be in effect. However, do you know that gravity will be in effect? No. However, there is no evidence to suggest that gravity will suddenly stop being in effect, and we have always observed it to be so. Now, what science does, is it recognizes this. It makes those reasonable assumptions to jump certain gaps to be able to prove other things. There is one fundamental difference though. If gravity suddenly stopped working for a second, science would stop assuming gravity to be a constant. It would go back and reevaluate everything it 'knows'.

The mere possibility that these reasonable assumptions are wrong is not enough to go on to say that we shouldn't trust science. If we always observe a pattern, it is imprudent to not assume that the pattern is constant unless proven otherwise.
Birth Name: Graesil s'h'u Aln s'de Alanai'u s'se Saeron
Name: Grae
Titles: Lord, x'Sor Linniae (the false king), Elven War Chief, Heir to Aln
Class: Melee Archer/ Orator
Main Stats: Charisma, Dexterity
Weilds: Bladebow, Elven Slim Sword
Skills: Oration, Double Shot, Backstab, Snatch, Overwhelm Mind, Dominate, Parley, Restorative Sleep
Personal History: Born as the second of triplets, he was wed at an early age to a Dryad. He escaped several times, and on the last was captured and enslaved
Lordgrae
Posts: 666
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2014 10:46:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/20/2014 5:42:19 PM, dadman wrote:
If you believe the burden of proof is not on you .

no . . . if you are commanding others to believe what you believe then the burden of proof is not on you

What? Please re-phrase that so it makes more sense.

I apologize in advance. When people make no sense, and don't use commas, it makes it impossible to know what they are saying.
Birth Name: Graesil s'h'u Aln s'de Alanai'u s'se Saeron
Name: Grae
Titles: Lord, x'Sor Linniae (the false king), Elven War Chief, Heir to Aln
Class: Melee Archer/ Orator
Main Stats: Charisma, Dexterity
Weilds: Bladebow, Elven Slim Sword
Skills: Oration, Double Shot, Backstab, Snatch, Overwhelm Mind, Dominate, Parley, Restorative Sleep
Personal History: Born as the second of triplets, he was wed at an early age to a Dryad. He escaped several times, and on the last was captured and enslaved
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2014 11:31:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/20/2014 11:19:13 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
lol what the heck is "evidence in it's purest form"?

I presume he means we shouldn't believe in something unless we have scientific evidence for it.

So much for my belief in the the existence of logic, morality, metaphysics, beauty and truth then. *rolleyes*
Josh_b
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2014 1:54:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The problem that I see with debates of this nature is that the non-believer attacks the reasons for saying that God exists and never actually addresses the existence of God.
In logic, this idea is known fallacy of denying the antecedent. I don't have all of the symbols used in logic available, but I'll do my best. I'll use the 'greater than' sign in place of the sideways U which simply means 'then', and a 'double colon' for the final conclusion which must be able to be proved.

To create a reason for God's existence is perceived as an if/then statement. Such as "if my reason, then God exists". However, if God exists, the statement is true whether the reason is true or not true. The statement of God's existence is only not true if God's existence is not true.

The real world example that my teacher gave us was a cliche. 'If you study hard, then you'll make a good grade. Studying hard is represented by S, and a good grade is represented by G.

S>G
(simple right)
if/then statements have a truth table associated with them. Depending on which portions of the statements are true and false, the entire suggestion(E) is false or true. Here is the table.
S=T G=T E=T
S=F G=T E=T
S=F G=F E=T
S=T G=F E=F

I think that most people can recognize from my original statement, if you do not study hard, you will not receive a good grade, is the negation applied to the entire suggestion and therefore true as it shows in the truth table. And that G being true does not necessarily make S the only cause of getting a good grade.

In logic there is a term called 'modus tollens' it states that if the consequent isn't true, than the premise is also not true. There is no such similar thing that causes the consequent to be untrue if the antecedent is not true. I'll show how that looks using P as the premise and Q as the consequent.
P>Q
~Q
~P
If I've lost you at this point, please research 'modus tollens' and 'denying the antecedant' further.

As I was referring to earlier, Believers will often say this reason (R) is true therefore God (G) exists. non-believers will say, R doesn't exist, or R isn't related to God.

R>G
~R
~G
However, this is an impossible conclusion from denying the antecedent. And it only makes sense that a person cannot prove that God does not exist. They can only claim that reasons for saying God exists are wrong.
Scrutiny Welcome

AMAA http://www.debate.org...
bulproof
Posts: 25,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2014 1:56:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/21/2014 1:54:13 AM, Josh_b wrote:
The problem that I see with debates of this nature is that the non-believer attacks the reasons for saying that God exists and never actually addresses the existence of God.
In logic, this idea is known fallacy of denying the antecedent. I don't have all of the symbols used in logic available, but I'll do my best. I'll use the 'greater than' sign in place of the sideways U which simply means 'then', and a 'double colon' for the final conclusion which must be able to be proved.

To create a reason for God's existence is perceived as an if/then statement. Such as "if my reason, then God exists". However, if God exists, the statement is true whether the reason is true or not true. The statement of God's existence is only not true if God's existence is not true.

The real world example that my teacher gave us was a cliche. 'If you study hard, then you'll make a good grade. Studying hard is represented by S, and a good grade is represented by G.

S>G
(simple right)
if/then statements have a truth table associated with them. Depending on which portions of the statements are true and false, the entire suggestion(E) is false or true. Here is the table.
S=T G=T E=T
S=F G=T E=T
S=F G=F E=T
S=T G=F E=F

I think that most people can recognize from my original statement, if you do not study hard, you will not receive a good grade, is the negation applied to the entire suggestion and therefore true as it shows in the truth table. And that G being true does not necessarily make S the only cause of getting a good grade.

In logic there is a term called 'modus tollens' it states that if the consequent isn't true, than the premise is also not true. There is no such similar thing that causes the consequent to be untrue if the antecedent is not true. I'll show how that looks using P as the premise and Q as the consequent.
P>Q
~Q
~P
If I've lost you at this point, please research 'modus tollens' and 'denying the antecedant' further.

As I was referring to earlier, Believers will often say this reason (R) is true therefore God (G) exists. non-believers will say, R doesn't exist, or R isn't related to God.

R>G
~R
~G
However, this is an impossible conclusion from denying the antecedent. And it only makes sense that a person cannot prove that God does not exist. They can only claim that reasons for saying God exists are wrong.

So my dog "donut" really is god as I've said for eternity. Thank you for clearing that up. Subject closed.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Josh_b
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2014 2:08:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Appeal to Ignorance also works both ways in this debate also.
The simple claim of BOP on one side over the other shows that a person cannot prove his side to be true, and therefore cannot prove the other side to be not true.

I think the video explained that well, but I also think that the video misplaced the BOP by way of the same argument it spoke against. If BOP is shared, each side must make a case to justify their claim.

Non-believers often make BOP a condition of debates of this nature, because the only way for them to argue the non-existence of God is from ignorance.

If this type of debate has shared BOP, it would indicate that the non-believer is willing to address the issue of God and not the believers reasons for belief only.
Scrutiny Welcome

AMAA http://www.debate.org...
bulproof
Posts: 25,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2014 2:31:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/21/2014 2:08:04 AM, Josh_b wrote:
Appeal to Ignorance also works both ways in this debate also.
The simple claim of BOP on one side over the other shows that a person cannot prove his side to be true, and therefore cannot prove the other side to be not true.

I think the video explained that well, but I also think that the video misplaced the BOP by way of the same argument it spoke against. If BOP is shared, each side must make a case to justify their claim.

Non-believers often make BOP a condition of debates of this nature, because the only way for them to argue the non-existence of God is from ignorance.

If this type of debate has shared BOP, it would indicate that the non-believer is willing to address the issue of God and not the believers reasons for belief only.

I reject man's claim of the existence of gods.

What's my BOP again?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Josh_b
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2014 2:31:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/21/2014 1:56:59 AM, bulproof wrote:

So my dog "donut" really is god as I've said for eternity. Thank you for clearing that up. Subject closed.

Exodus 20:3 says "you shall have no other gods before me." I think that the implied conclusion here is that other gods exist or rather the ability exists to deify things that are not God. Romans 1:25 also makes reference to "donut" being worshiped, "for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."
Scrutiny Welcome

AMAA http://www.debate.org...
Josh_b
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2014 2:36:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/21/2014 2:31:09 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/21/2014 2:08:04 AM, Josh_b wrote:
Appeal to Ignorance also works both ways in this debate also.
The simple claim of BOP on one side over the other shows that a person cannot prove his side to be true, and therefore cannot prove the other side to be not true.

I think the video explained that well, but I also think that the video misplaced the BOP by way of the same argument it spoke against. If BOP is shared, each side must make a case to justify their claim.

Non-believers often make BOP a condition of debates of this nature, because the only way for them to argue the non-existence of God is from ignorance.

If this type of debate has shared BOP, it would indicate that the non-believer is willing to address the issue of God and not the believers reasons for belief only.

I reject man's claim of the existence of gods.

What's my BOP again?

I see what you did there. I'm amused.
Scrutiny Welcome

AMAA http://www.debate.org...
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2014 6:38:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/20/2014 4:29:42 AM, Picard wrote:

P.S. If you are religious and are reading this, yet cannot produce any facts to post on this topic, I suggest re-evaluating your beliefs.

If you are a philosopher and cannot produce any facts to post on the topic of logic, I suggest re-evaluating your beliefs.

If you are a mathematician and cannot provide any facts to post on mathematical statements, I suggest re-evaluating your beliefs.

If you're not an autist like me and you believe in morality and cannot provide any facts, I suggest re-evaluating your beliefs.

^this is you. This is how stupid you sound.
bulproof
Posts: 25,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2014 6:47:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/21/2014 2:36:15 AM, Josh_b wrote:
At 1/21/2014 2:31:09 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/21/2014 2:08:04 AM, Josh_b wrote:
Appeal to Ignorance also works both ways in this debate also.
The simple claim of BOP on one side over the other shows that a person cannot prove his side to be true, and therefore cannot prove the other side to be not true.

I think the video explained that well, but I also think that the video misplaced the BOP by way of the same argument it spoke against. If BOP is shared, each side must make a case to justify their claim.

Non-believers often make BOP a condition of debates of this nature, because the only way for them to argue the non-existence of God is from ignorance.

If this type of debate has shared BOP, it would indicate that the non-believer is willing to address the issue of God and not the believers reasons for belief only.

I reject man's claim of the existence of gods.

What's my BOP again?

I see what you did there. I'm amused.
I didn't seek your amusement , I sought your opinion on my BOP.

Don't you have one?

Oh dear!
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Josh_b
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2014 10:51:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/21/2014 6:47:03 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/21/2014 2:36:15 AM, Josh_b wrote:
At 1/21/2014 2:31:09 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/21/2014 2:08:04 AM, Josh_b wrote:
Appeal to Ignorance also works both ways in this debate also.
The simple claim of BOP on one side over the other shows that a person cannot prove his side to be true, and therefore cannot prove the other side to be not true.

I think the video explained that well, but I also think that the video misplaced the BOP by way of the same argument it spoke against. If BOP is shared, each side must make a case to justify their claim.

Non-believers often make BOP a condition of debates of this nature, because the only way for them to argue the non-existence of God is from ignorance.

If this type of debate has shared BOP, it would indicate that the non-believer is willing to address the issue of God and not the believers reasons for belief only.

I reject man's claim of the existence of gods.

What's my BOP again?

I see what you did there. I'm amused.
I didn't seek your amusement , I sought your opinion on my BOP.

Don't you have one?

Oh dear!

Oh, I thought you were making a Joke. You stated that your rejection is of Man's claim, not the actual existence or non-existence of God. Which is what I said that most non-believers do, they do not actually address the issue of God's existence. Your rejection of the man's claims, confuses the issue of God's existence. It doesn't matter what reason a person gives, if you have already predetermined that every reason is wrong.

A believer makes a clear case for the existence of God and a non-believer sits back, shouts "Liar, Liar pants on fire." and then when asked for proof of the denial claims that he has no BOP and is therefore excused from justifying his claims. If you want to make a radical statement like "God does not exist," you have BOP to show its non-existence. The video made that very clear. Even though the statement is ironic, because your claiming that thing is there, which isn't there.
Scrutiny Welcome

AMAA http://www.debate.org...
Picard
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2014 11:20:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/20/2014 6:06:39 PM, HPWKA wrote:
I don't believe in a specific religion (none convince me), but I tend to think there is an omniscient divine presence that "created" the universe we live in.

The evidence for such a "being" is rather poor, but then, the evidence against it is also rather poor.

That is a redundant post.
Picard
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2014 11:21:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/20/2014 11:19:13 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
lol what the heck is "evidence in it's purest form"?

I mean: Evidence that is completely free from opinion or bias.
Picard
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2014 11:25:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/21/2014 6:38:07 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 1/20/2014 4:29:42 AM, Picard wrote:

P.S. If you are religious and are reading this, yet cannot produce any facts to post on this topic, I suggest re-evaluating your beliefs.

If you are a philosopher and cannot produce any facts to post on the topic of logic, I suggest re-evaluating your beliefs.

If you are a mathematician and cannot provide any facts to post on mathematical statements, I suggest re-evaluating your beliefs.

If you're not an autist like me and you believe in morality and cannot provide any facts, I suggest re-evaluating your beliefs.

^this is you. This is how stupid you sound.

I am pointing out that dedicating your energy and time into worshipping and saying something as 'truth' yet there is no evidence on which to base such beliefs, then you should re-evaluate why you believe in such things. You will likely conclude that is is irrational for you to hold such beliefs without evidence.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2014 11:37:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/21/2014 11:25:10 AM, Picard wrote:
At 1/21/2014 6:38:07 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 1/20/2014 4:29:42 AM, Picard wrote:

P.S. If you are religious and are reading this, yet cannot produce any facts to post on this topic, I suggest re-evaluating your beliefs.

If you are a philosopher and cannot produce any facts to post on the topic of logic, I suggest re-evaluating your beliefs.

If you are a mathematician and cannot provide any facts to post on mathematical statements, I suggest re-evaluating your beliefs.

If you're not an autist like me and you believe in morality and cannot provide any facts, I suggest re-evaluating your beliefs.

^this is you. This is how stupid you sound.

I am pointing out that dedicating your energy and time into worshipping and saying something as 'truth' yet there is no evidence on which to base such beliefs, then you should re-evaluate why you believe in such things.

I can think of at least eight pieces of evidence for the basis of my belief in God. I'd tell you them, but as a fundie atheist you'd go "B-B-B-BUH IT'S NOT EVIDENCE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T TALK ABOUT STUFF I CAN OBSERVE WITH MY SENSES" you will then in the same breath tell me that people who believe in God are the close-minded people in this discussion.

You will likely conclude that is is irrational for you to hold such beliefs without evidence.

No I would not say it was irrational for me to uphold belief in the transcendent without evidence. You presumably believe in morals, logic, aesthetics, virtual particles and other assumptions made in science and metaphysical truths like the past being real, despite these being transcendent truths that cannot be supported by scientific evidence. It's perfectly rational for you to believe in those things without evidence, why is God the exception?
Picard
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2014 2:53:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/21/2014 11:37:15 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 1/21/2014 11:25:10 AM, Picard wrote:
At 1/21/2014 6:38:07 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 1/20/2014 4:29:42 AM, Picard wrote:

P.S. If you are religious and are reading this, yet cannot produce any facts to post on this topic, I suggest re-evaluating your beliefs.

If you are a philosopher and cannot produce any facts to post on the topic of logic, I suggest re-evaluating your beliefs.

If you are a mathematician and cannot provide any facts to post on mathematical statements, I suggest re-evaluating your beliefs.

If you're not an autist like me and you believe in morality and cannot provide any facts, I suggest re-evaluating your beliefs.

^this is you. This is how stupid you sound.

I am pointing out that dedicating your energy and time into worshipping and saying something as 'truth' yet there is no evidence on which to base such beliefs, then you should re-evaluate why you believe in such things.

I can think of at least eight pieces of evidence for the basis of my belief in God. I'd tell you them, but as a fundie atheist you'd go "B-B-B-BUH IT'S NOT EVIDENCE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T TALK ABOUT STUFF I CAN OBSERVE WITH MY SENSES" you will then in the same breath tell me that people who believe in God are the close-minded people in this discussion.

If it unbiased evidence then I would, of course, accept it; to disregard it because it does not agree with my point would make me close-minded.
I do not agree with the statement that people who believe in God are the close-minded people, there are people who have had personal experiences with religion, and if one had truly been met with unquestionable fact, even if it was only revealed to them, then they would logically believe in a divine being. However, that is a personal, unprovable truth, which cannot be used as evidence for others as they would have no way of verifying the information.

You will likely conclude that is is irrational for you to hold such beliefs without evidence.

No I would not say it was irrational for me to uphold belief in the transcendent without evidence. You presumably believe in morals, logic, aesthetics, virtual particles and other assumptions made in science and metaphysical truths like the past being real, despite these being transcendent truths that cannot be supported by scientific evidence. It's perfectly rational for you to believe in those things without evidence, why is God the exception?

Logic is what our brains have developed to allow us to survive; it prevents us from entering dangerous situations; it allows us to look for easier, quicker, less painful alternatives when faced with a problem. It is a basic instinct which has evolved to allow us to comprehend and critically evaluate situations and ideas. Logic is the most efficient and effective means that we have to understand the world, but if you have an alternative method I would be fascinated to hear it.

As for virtual particles, I, nor science, takes as a truth. It has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt that these things exist in the world as we know it, it is used in theorems to explain a possibility that we are still exploring because there is some evidence for it.

Lastly; morals and aesthetics, these are concepts that we have consciously developed as a society, they exist, by definition. They cannot be proven, because they are not a physical object or a testable theory. You could say that words do not exist, or indeed, question their existence, and that is a valid criticism and a most intriguing one.
biomystic
Posts: 606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2014 4:24:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At last! Somebody gets it! Language itself is based on belief and has no means of verification in and of itself. We agree to believe the same set of meanings assigned to symbols but in and of themselves the symbols are completely meaningless. Word of God starts with shared Belief in the meaning of words and it is exactly the same for secular words, they too require shared Belief they mean something in their abstract configurations. All human information therefore boils down to shared Beliefs that cannot be proven because the language itself must be taken on Faith that we share the same meanings. And often we don't..
bulproof
Posts: 25,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2014 7:55:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/21/2014 10:51:53 AM, Josh_b wrote:
At 1/21/2014 6:47:03 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/21/2014 2:36:15 AM, Josh_b wrote:
At 1/21/2014 2:31:09 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/21/2014 2:08:04 AM, Josh_b wrote:
Appeal to Ignorance also works both ways in this debate also.
The simple claim of BOP on one side over the other shows that a person cannot prove his side to be true, and therefore cannot prove the other side to be not true.

I think the video explained that well, but I also think that the video misplaced the BOP by way of the same argument it spoke against. If BOP is shared, each side must make a case to justify their claim.

Non-believers often make BOP a condition of debates of this nature, because the only way for them to argue the non-existence of God is from ignorance.

If this type of debate has shared BOP, it would indicate that the non-believer is willing to address the issue of God and not the believers reasons for belief only.

I reject man's claim of the existence of gods.

What's my BOP again?

I see what you did there. I'm amused.
I didn't seek your amusement , I sought your opinion on my BOP.

Don't you have one?

Oh dear!

Oh, I thought you were making a Joke. You stated that your rejection is of Man's claim, not the actual existence or non-existence of God. Which is what I said that most non-believers do, they do not actually address the issue of God's existence. Your rejection of the man's claims, confuses the issue of God's existence. It doesn't matter what reason a person gives, if you have already predetermined that every reason is wrong.

A believer makes a clear case for the existence of God and a non-believer sits back, shouts "Liar, Liar pants on fire." and then when asked for proof of the denial claims that he has no BOP and is therefore excused from justifying his claims. If you want to make a radical statement like "God does not exist," you have BOP to show its non-existence. The video made that very clear. Even though the statement is ironic, because your claiming that thing is there, which isn't there.

You don't seem to understand.

God is a claim made by man, that is all it is.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Romanii
Posts: 4,852
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2014 8:04:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/20/2014 4:29:42 AM, Picard wrote:
Do you believe in a divine entity? Whether it be a god, or gods from Christianity, Islam, paganism or so on. If you do, why? I am not asking for faith or opinion, just facts. Pure and simple, not circumstantial evidence, not anecdotes, just facts, the evidence in its purest form. I am interested to see how much fact for religion there is out there.

There is none. Only spiritual experiences are sure proof of God, and those aren't just handed out for free.


P.S. If you are religious and are reading this, yet cannot produce any facts to post on this topic, I suggest re-evaluating your beliefs.

No thanks. Spiritual experiences are enough for me.
It is not my job to make you believe, nor does God's sense of personal security depend on a puny human like you believing in him.


P.S.S If you believe the burden of proof is not on you, please watch this video

No educated person would believe that...
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2014 9:30:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/21/2014 11:21:39 AM, Picard wrote:
At 1/20/2014 11:19:13 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
lol what the heck is "evidence in it's purest form"?

I mean: Evidence that is completely free from opinion or bias.

There's no such thing. All evidence is interpreted and, naturally, or opinions and biases affect our interpretation of how evidence confirms or disconfirms some proposition.

All observation is theory laden.

http://plato.stanford.edu...

http://en.wikipedia.org...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Picard
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 2:17:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/21/2014 8:04:44 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 1/20/2014 4:29:42 AM, Picard wrote:
Do you believe in a divine entity? Whether it be a god, or gods from Christianity, Islam, paganism or so on. If you do, why? I am not asking for faith or opinion, just facts. Pure and simple, not circumstantial evidence, not anecdotes, just facts, the evidence in its purest form. I am interested to see how much fact for religion there is out there.

There is none. Only spiritual experiences are sure proof of God, and those aren't just handed out for free.


P.S. If you are religious and are reading this, yet cannot produce any facts to post on this topic, I suggest re-evaluating your beliefs.

No thanks. Spiritual experiences are enough for me.
It is not my job to make you believe, nor does God's sense of personal security depend on a puny human like you believing in him.


P.S.S If you believe the burden of proof is not on you, please watch this video

No educated person would believe that...

I share most of your views, many people could learn a lot from your post.
Josh_b
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 3:57:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/21/2014 7:55:37 PM, bulproof wrote:

A believer makes a clear case for the existence of God and a non-believer sits back, shouts "Liar, Liar pants on fire." and then when asked for proof of the denial claims that he has no BOP and is therefore excused from justifying his claims. If you want to make a radical statement like "God does not exist," you have BOP to show its non-existence. The video made that very clear. Even though the statement is ironic, because your claiming that thing is there, which isn't there.

You don't seem to understand.

God is a claim made by man, that is all it is.

OK, but why has man made this claim for so many years? I mean we're talking about ancient times here of men believing in gods. What's the purpose and why has it been so prevalent in every society? Has it not been proven that Theism transcends culture. Great thinking minds have come to the conclusion that god/gods exist in some fashion and often for no other reason than self satisfaction.
Scrutiny Welcome

AMAA http://www.debate.org...
srehtiw
Posts: 491
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 4:27:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/21/2014 6:47:03 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/21/2014 2:36:15 AM, Josh_b wrote:
At 1/21/2014 2:31:09 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/21/2014 2:08:04 AM, Josh_b wrote:
Appeal to Ignorance also works both ways in this debate also.
The simple claim of BOP on one side over the other shows that a person cannot prove his side to be true, and therefore cannot prove the other side to be not true.

I think the video explained that well, but I also think that the video misplaced the BOP by way of the same argument it spoke against. If BOP is shared, each side must make a case to justify their claim.

Non-believers often make BOP a condition of debates of this nature, because the only way for them to argue the non-existence of God is from ignorance.

If this type of debate has shared BOP, it would indicate that the non-believer is willing to address the issue of God and not the believers reasons for belief only.

I reject man's claim of the existence of gods.

What's my BOP again?

I see what you did there. I'm amused.
I didn't seek your amusement , I sought your opinion on my BOP.

Don't you have one?

Oh dear!

Actually you do. You don't seem to understand how science works. Let me explain. If I said that anything you drop falls up, you can't just say "I reject this." You have to falsify my claim. If I can bring even the tiniest scrap or evidence or logic or reason to my side the argument, then you have to fallsify. If you are unable to falsify (and you usually are) then you need to offer counter evidence. That is how both science and debating work.