No, but that's kind of the point, isn't it? Lack of disproof is not proof.  you're trying to preach God's word to us, yet you fail to understand the significance of your logical flaw.  as Dodece said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  I can claim I have telekinesis and can fly and have super strength, but unless I prove it you're going to be understandably critical of my claims.  

so can you prove I cannot fly and move objects with my mind? go ahead, until you are able to disprove me, it means I can do it, by your logic.  

(and yes, that is the exact same thing, applying the same logic; yes I know it's nonsensical and over the top, but so are your claims, and therein lies the point)

Runa216 said:



DaRev said:


Yes. Can you prove otherwise?






Well hey, if you've got all the answers, why not enlighten us?  
And your statement actually proves her point really, really well.  time to put your money where your mouth is. 

Really what point is that? That non-religious people always make claims about religion that they themselves ultimately can't support?

As for putting my money where my mouth is I wouldn't waste my time, seriously. Because you claim on one hand that religious people should quit but now you want me to convince you? Lol - Go read my many other posts on this religion if you want proof, it was already discussed.

lol, I don't know what you're on about but you might need to go back to law school. The claim here is that Religion, and as far as I'm concerned, Christiany is false. Well as far as I can remember from my law school days, he who brings a claim must prove it - what is your case against religion? The burden of prooof is on those claiming that religion is false. Religious pople here stand in Defense of religion. I hope you understand the difference. The rest of your post is rubbish so I wouldn't waste my time.

What if I said you were dlusional? What would you think of that? What if you were delusional, should I say so?

Maybe I think you're delusional, how does my judgement matter?

Answer: It only matters to the extent that I can justify my diagnosis. But even if you truly were delusional (even mad), calling you as such is demeaning and has no place in any social context. I hope that's not something too difficult for you to grasp.

Yeah...Truth is, both sides have to provide evidence for their argument. The whole burden of proof is just a cop-out by both sides. Both theists and atheists use it. Atheists usually try to argue that the burder of proof is on the rligious believer because atheism is just the lack of belief....which is wrong. The lack of belief is agnosticism. Atheists actually claim God does not exist. Theists claim God does exist. Both have to support their argument.

my personal belief is that religion and science are both as bad as eath other.

I can find 10 studies that say chocolate is good for you and at the same time 10 studies that says it is not good for you. Which do I believe?

Basically both rely on faith from followers that the information provided by someone else is accurate.

It really depend on what scientific field of study you are looking at, as there is going to be more disagreement on some issues and within some disciiplines. In the hard sciences, there's going to be more agreement when looking at core theories, however, there are naturally disagreements when moving to the frontier of research. The social sciences are a mess though....

So you're giving up?  You can't prove it, but since the other side can't prove the contrary you're just saying "Well, you can't prove there is no god, so that must mean there is a god"?  That's totally the way to gain respect. 

At least the non religious are mature enough to admit they don't know something and strive to learn more.  Religious folks think they have all the answers, and that further investigation isn't needed.  No wonder people say religion is the opiate of the masses, or that it's an archaic, occasionally barbaric belief system.  If you're stuck in the 1600's for morals, ethics, and science, it's no wonder people are critical of it.  

If you want to be taken seriously, then back up your claims.  At least the non religious people aren't actively making claims, just requiring you substantiate yours. 

There you go making links that aren't there. Nobody's saying that Christianity is 'false', we're not making claims.  We are, however, doing what any smart, rational person should do by questioning things people tell us.  We're asking you to prove christianity to be true if you want to argue religious points.  if there was evidence supporting the existence of God and that Christianity was the right religion, I'd happily accept that, but there just isn't any.  I go where the evidence leads me, and God is an out-of-the-way hobby shop a kilometer away from any logical path.  

Woo metaphors. 

Sorry I should have been a bit more clear. I don't disagree with science as a concept.

The point I was trying to make is that their are some areas of science that we rely on research by others to be accurate or not. We essentially take their word for it that the tests they performed where correct.  ie.e faith in the results lol.