By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Do you believe in God? Why/Why not?

 

Do you believe in any god?

Yes 63 36.21%
 
No 111 63.79%
 
Total:174
WolfpackN64 on 03 September 2018
Pemalite said:
WolfpackN64 said:

Just because sceptics throw away any rational argument and revelations because it's not empirical to them does not mean they are right. on the contrary.

Being rational is to throw away baseless assertions which cannot be tested via the scientific method even after being given thousands of years to try. (That's religion in-case you aren't aware.)

WolfpackN64 said:

If they are so sure there is no God, the burden is just as much on them as it is on us, as we have provided many an argument as they have failed to empirically disprove  anything.

No. That's not how it works. That is not logical.
Religion made the assertion that God exists, the onus falls upon them to prove it, Atheists aren't obligated to disprove it.
You are trying to use circular logic (A typical Theistic trap) which is a logical fallacy.

Otherwise I can assert the claim that I ride a Kangaroo to work every day... And if you don't have Evidence to the contrary, then it must be true, right?

However... The Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory has shown that as science continues to progress, that theistic perspectives will continue to wane.

WolfpackN64 said:

What people don't understand about proof of burden is that 1. It works both in a positive as in a negative sense & 2. Unless you're a sceptic, empirical proof isn't the only form of proof, for if that was the case, our own science wouldn't even be able to operate correctly.

False.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)

WolfpackN64 said:

The skeptics and empiricists discard revelation very easily, but if they then claim that God does not exist, the burden of proof is on them.

Correct. But only if they make such a claim.
I am not making that claim, I am claiming that the burden of proof hasn't been met by Theists after thousands of years (So they have had plenty of bloody opportunity!) and thus can and will discard their theistic claims as utter rubbish.

I explained my point enough.

Proof of burden DOES go both ways since negative claims are being made (and since arguments have been provided on one side).

And rationality does not equal empiricism, I hope that much was already clear.



Around the Network
Pemalite on 03 September 2018
WolfpackN64 said:

Proof of burden DOES go both ways since negative claims are being made (and since arguments have been provided on one side).

Any claim needs to meet the burden of proof.
Read the link I provided.

I also suggest you read up on how the burden of proof is handled within a legal framework as to why someone doesn't need to provide evidence that God doesn't exist, I have provided all the appropriate reading material for you to peruse.

And I will use the Kangaroo example again... I can assert that I ride a Kangaroo to work every day. - In your scenario, you would need to provide evidence that I do not, otherwise it's true, yes? Do you see the problem here?
That is why the burden of proof would fall onto me to prove that I ride a Kangaroo to work everyday... Otherwise anyone, anywhere, can make up any crazy conspiracy theory and assert it as being true because no one can prove otherwise.


And just so we are clear... As an Atheist I am not stating God doesn't exist. I am stating that there is no evidence and thus that claim can be discarded until such a time until there is.
But what there is evidence for is Evolution, Big Bang, Abiogensis and more that contradicts large swathes of the theistic view point.

Last edited by Pemalite - on 03 September 2018

--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Peh on 03 September 2018
WolfpackN64 said:
Peh said:

You mean this? 

https://de.scribd.com/document/90613528/Criteria-for-Recognizing-True-or-False-Private-Revelations

I know where this conversation is going and I am already bored by the next answer that you could write. 

So, because I simply don't care what the church thinks of revelations, as much as you do the same for all the other religions out there, I will end the conversation here. The church doesn't have the monopoly on the decision of what is true or not. It's pointless to argue about it as well as it is pointless to argue wether Joseph Smith read from some golden plates or not. It all ends in special pleading. I just don't want to go the path only to confirm it. 

If it's all pointless to you then I will end this pointless conversation as well.

I didn't said that all is pointless. Please don't put words in my mouth. I already explained what I mean and why.



Intel Core i7 8700K | 32 GB DDR 4 PC 3200 | ROG STRIX Z370-F Gaming | RTX 3090 FE| Crappy Monitor| HTC Vive Pro :3

Alara317 on 04 September 2018
WolfpackN64 said:

I explained my point enough.

Proof of burden DOES go both ways since negative claims are being made (and since arguments have been provided on one side).

And rationality does not equal empiricism, I hope that much was already clear.

Dude, give it up; you're so far out of your league it's actually depressing to watch you try. 

Furthermore, you are misunderstanding the difference between an assertion of truth(Theism), and the critique of the lack of evidence to support that statement (Atheism.) Atheists aren't saying 'There is no god', they are stating that your claim of a god is unsubstantiated. In a rational world, the complete and utter lack of evidence supporting a God means that it really is kinda crazy to believe in God. The ONLY reason God is still such a powerful force in our culture is that such a concept is so ubiquitous and pervasive that it won't go away and that those who believe have specifically manufactured an entity that cannot be questioned. 

Religion can be a force of good, but it is completely illogical to take any of it as sincere or actual truth. anyone looking to a holy book for anything other than a philosophy is doing it wrong. 

Last edited by Alara317 - on 04 September 2018

Snoopy on 04 September 2018

I'm not religious (agnostic), but I do believe in God. If I asked someone in the scientific community if I should play the lottery, they will tell me that would be a stupid move. However, the way the universe is created according to some scientific theories that will be like playing the lottery at least a million times over and winning it all in a row. It's crazy that some people think that everything came from nothing. In order for something to be created, it either has to be 1. The object has the potential to be something such as water turning into ice or 2.Needs to be created by something or someone.

Last edited by Snoopy - on 04 September 2018

Around the Network
HollyGamer on 04 September 2018
JWeinCom said:
HollyGamer said:

I didn't believe with God, until i stumbled on a question "  how the naturals laws and physical law works in this universe ,  or who created theses laws ???  "  because there is no coincidence,  probability which 100% accuracy  in every major and small event in this live.  

The laws of physics are not created.  There are descriptive laws and prescriptive laws.  A prescriptive law is something like the speed limit that tells somewhat what you have to do.  Then there are descriptive laws like the laws of physics.  They're not laws that have to be enforced or obeyed.  They're just our observations about how things act in the universe.

There's no one like creating those kinds of laws or enforcing them.  Unless you think god is up there saying "hey you photon! You better not go more than 299,792 km per hour or your ass is spending the night in the slammer!"

Then tell me ( i bet you will not able to answer) why the law act like that , why the law of physicist are work the way they now. The atoms is don't have mind  and even in the molecular and atomic level it's different then the physicist in the planetary level. 



WolfpackN64 on 04 September 2018
Alara317 said:
WolfpackN64 said:

I explained my point enough.

Proof of burden DOES go both ways since negative claims are being made (and since arguments have been provided on one side).

And rationality does not equal empiricism, I hope that much was already clear.

Dude, give it up; you're so far out of your league it's actually depressing to watch you try. 

Furthermore, you are misunderstanding the difference between an assertion of truth(Theism), and the critique of the lack of evidence to support that statement (Atheism.) Atheists aren't saying 'There is no god', they are stating that your claim of a god is unsubstantiated. In a rational world, the complete and utter lack of evidence supporting a God means that it really is kinda crazy to believe in God. The ONLY reason God is still such a powerful force in our culture is that such a concept is so ubiquitous and pervasive that it won't go away and that those who believe have specifically manufactured an entity that cannot be questioned. 

Religion can be a force of good, but it is completely illogical to take any of it as sincere or actual truth. anyone looking to a holy book for anything other than a philosophy is doing it wrong. 

It's funny to see you guys twist and turn and use concepts you all clearly don't grasp. But fine, clearly the academic has no idea what he's talking about.



Alara317 on 04 September 2018
WolfpackN64 said:
Alara317 said:

Dude, give it up; you're so far out of your league it's actually depressing to watch you try. 

Furthermore, you are misunderstanding the difference between an assertion of truth(Theism), and the critique of the lack of evidence to support that statement (Atheism.) Atheists aren't saying 'There is no god', they are stating that your claim of a god is unsubstantiated. In a rational world, the complete and utter lack of evidence supporting a God means that it really is kinda crazy to believe in God. The ONLY reason God is still such a powerful force in our culture is that such a concept is so ubiquitous and pervasive that it won't go away and that those who believe have specifically manufactured an entity that cannot be questioned. 

Religion can be a force of good, but it is completely illogical to take any of it as sincere or actual truth. anyone looking to a holy book for anything other than a philosophy is doing it wrong. 

It's funny to see you guys twist and turn and use concepts you all clearly don't grasp. But fine, clearly the academic has no idea what he's talking about.

This is exactly why an intelligent discussion religion about is such a waste of time. Half of the participants are so sure of their own superiority with no grasp of actual science or logic that no amount of explaining the scientific method, logical fallacies, poor debate methods, or reason gets through to them. They just assert their own intelligence, completely disregard the counterpoints, and can't be bothered to actually offer alternatives. 

It's so frustrating to participate in this discussion because PEmalite and SpokenTruth and a few others have so thoroughly debunked your arguments with actual science and sources, but your responses thus far have basically boiled down to 'facts aren't facts', or some philosophical variant of logic that basically gives you freedom to disregard what you want because it counters your point. Waste. Of. Time.  



Peh on 04 September 2018
WolfpackN64 said:
Alara317 said:

Dude, give it up; you're so far out of your league it's actually depressing to watch you try. 

Furthermore, you are misunderstanding the difference between an assertion of truth(Theism), and the critique of the lack of evidence to support that statement (Atheism.) Atheists aren't saying 'There is no god', they are stating that your claim of a god is unsubstantiated. In a rational world, the complete and utter lack of evidence supporting a God means that it really is kinda crazy to believe in God. The ONLY reason God is still such a powerful force in our culture is that such a concept is so ubiquitous and pervasive that it won't go away and that those who believe have specifically manufactured an entity that cannot be questioned. 

Religion can be a force of good, but it is completely illogical to take any of it as sincere or actual truth. anyone looking to a holy book for anything other than a philosophy is doing it wrong. 

It's funny to see you guys twist and turn and use concepts you all clearly don't grasp. But fine, clearly the academic has no idea what he's talking about.

I guess this is the 3rd time that you commit an appeal to authority. 



Intel Core i7 8700K | 32 GB DDR 4 PC 3200 | ROG STRIX Z370-F Gaming | RTX 3090 FE| Crappy Monitor| HTC Vive Pro :3

JWeinCom on 04 September 2018
HollyGamer said:
JWeinCom said:

The laws of physics are not created.  There are descriptive laws and prescriptive laws.  A prescriptive law is something like the speed limit that tells somewhat what you have to do.  Then there are descriptive laws like the laws of physics.  They're not laws that have to be enforced or obeyed.  They're just our observations about how things act in the universe.

There's no one like creating those kinds of laws or enforcing them.  Unless you think god is up there saying "hey you photon! You better not go more than 299,792 km per hour or your ass is spending the night in the slammer!"

Then tell me ( i bet you will not able to answer) why the law act like that , why the law of physicist are work the way they now. The atoms is don't have mind  and even in the molecular and atomic level it's different then the physicist in the planetary level. 

Of course, I can't answer that. And neither can you.  You can claim to have an answer, but a claim requires justification, which I'm sure you won't be able to provide.

WolfpackN64 said:
Alara317 said:

Dude, give it up; you're so far out of your league it's actually depressing to watch you try. 

Furthermore, you are misunderstanding the difference between an assertion of truth(Theism), and the critique of the lack of evidence to support that statement (Atheism.) Atheists aren't saying 'There is no god', they are stating that your claim of a god is unsubstantiated. In a rational world, the complete and utter lack of evidence supporting a God means that it really is kinda crazy to believe in God. The ONLY reason God is still such a powerful force in our culture is that such a concept is so ubiquitous and pervasive that it won't go away and that those who believe have specifically manufactured an entity that cannot be questioned. 

Religion can be a force of good, but it is completely illogical to take any of it as sincere or actual truth. anyone looking to a holy book for anything other than a philosophy is doing it wrong. 

It's funny to see you guys twist and turn and use concepts you all clearly don't grasp. But fine, clearly the academic has no idea what he's talking about.

Clearly he doesn't.  Being an academic (I have a master's degree so I guess I'd qualify too) doesn't make you right.  You've been saying things that are clearly and demonstrably false.  And you are now engaging in another logical fallacy.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/21/Appeal-to-Authority

You have already acknowledged that you can disbelieve in my unicorn without having to prove its nonexistence.  And atheists disbelieve in your god on those same grounds.

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 04 September 2018