| We hope you enjoy your visit to this forum. If you are reading this then it means you are currently browsing the forum as a guest, we don’t limit any of the content posted from guests however if you join, you will have the ability to join the discussions! We are always happy to see new faces at this forum and we would like to hear your opinion, so why not register now? It doesn’t take long and you can get posting right away. Click here to Register! If you are having difficulties validating your account please email us at admin@dbzf.co.uk If you're already a member please log in to your account: |
| The Great Religious Debate of 2017 | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 28 2017, 01:49 PM (13,396 Views) | |
| Copy_Ninja | Aug 13 2017, 04:11 PM Post #166 |
![]()
Novacane for the pain
![]()
|
My answer was only really in response to the specific example of attributing certain experiences to a god. There's a point there but I think there's a couple of reasons as to why the conversation is generally framed that way: 1. More people tend to identify as Agnostic rather than Atheist so it's more of a case of "I don't really know if there's a God or not." There's not really any assertions being put forward there that requires any evidence. 2. In case of dealing with actual Atheists, the general argument does not tend to stray from "there's no tangible evidence God exists so I don't think one exists." In which case, sure you can say that absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence but it's not much of a compelling argument as that inevitably loops back round to the faith issue again. 3. Religious beliefs were the default up until relatively recently. Atheism really grew out of a challenge to accepted norms about belief in God, so it makes sense that they would be challenging that acceptance. Even now, I believe that believers do outweigh non believers in most countries, online communities like these don't really represent the world or any country at large. There's also issues that spread off that such as the influence of religion on government and society at large that render it as the position to be challenged. |
We'll never be those kids again
| |
![]() |
|
| * Yu Narukami | Aug 13 2017, 04:15 PM Post #167 |
|
Izanagi!
![]()
|
Okay, fair enough. In regards to the second point, I was only explaining why the conversation is always framed that way. Non-belief in these kinds of discussion is the default position because the belief in a Deity is a positive belief, one that should be provable. |
![]() |
|
| Cal | Aug 13 2017, 04:17 PM Post #168 |
![]()
I may not deserve to live, but I will protect those in my reach with my reverse blade!
![]()
|
To satisfy my own curiously is it a fallacy for someone to identify as agnostic or atheist as you're describing below and participate in a debate about God's existence such as this? |
![]() | |
![]() |
|
| Copy_Ninja | Aug 13 2017, 04:28 PM Post #169 |
![]()
Novacane for the pain
![]()
|
I don't think it's a fallacy. Atheism is the absence of belief so the only real way you can structure any sort of "debate" around it is to challenge the belief system. I do think it's completely futile because of what I said before about the two sides approaching it with different logic but I suppose that neither here nor there. |
We'll never be those kids again
| |
![]() |
|
|
|
Aug 13 2017, 04:36 PM Post #170 |
![]()
|
The burden of proof is always upon the theists in debates such as this because they are the group asserting that something exists. Atheists do not assert that a god doesn't not exist; they simply reject the claims that one does. This is analogous to a trial. If a defendant is pleading innocent, it is the responsibility of the persecution to prove that the defendant is guilty using evidence. The burden of proof is on the persecution to prove their guilt, and the jury can then decide whether the defendant is innocent or guilty based on the evidence (or lack thereof) put forward. Also I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that it's fallacious for anyone to participate in a debate. Edited by Doggo Champion 2k17, Aug 13 2017, 04:40 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| + Pointer | Aug 13 2017, 05:06 PM Post #171 |
![]()
...
![]()
|
I think believers dont requite proofs or evidences at all. Thats why they are believers they believe in something. Why should any of them have any kind of evidence to prove something which is beyond our space and time ? Its like there s a believer dot and a non believer dot. The believer dot believes that I the creator exist thus i can create another dots or erease them ir tear the paper whenever i want. The other dot refuse to believe in this. How can they prove my existence ? Only i could prove it with either drawing a line or tearing the paper What i wanted to say. Either god exists or not. Wr can believe or not but there is no such thing as proof or evidence. Because we are just dots and god is the drawer who might exists in a different kind of reality where the rules of physics might work in other way or might not work at all The possibility that he exist is very much there though if we consider that the universe is eternal thus the chance of any other odd stuff is quite high |
| |
![]() |
|
| * Yu Narukami | Aug 13 2017, 05:17 PM Post #172 |
|
Izanagi!
![]()
|
There is such a thing as proof and evidence, and if religious individuals expect to be taken seriously in a public setting when debating their belief and its viability, then evidence needs to be presented. |
![]() |
|
| + Steve | Aug 13 2017, 10:09 PM Post #173 |
![]()
Greetings. I will be your waifu this season.
![]()
|
But there is supposed to be evidence. God has apparently shown up tons of times and done many things. Where is the evidence of any of it? Why isn't there more in modern times? Where did God go if it was ever here at all? Requiring evidence is not unreasonable when apparently thousands of years ago there was a crap ton of it, everyone back then had "proof" God existed and we just have to hope they weren't talking nonsense? You can still believe in something even if there's proof that it exists anyway, thousands of years ago people didn't take God on pure faith they "knew" God existed from the many events and such they allegedly experienced. |
![]() Definitely not a succubus, fear not | |
![]() |
|
| Strawberry | Aug 13 2017, 10:42 PM Post #174 |
![]()
Chiaroscuro ♥
![]()
|
Cal, may I ask you to describe the type of experiences you've had or the things you felt that made you certain of God's existence? How does it manifest to you? And why does it have to be a divine experience and not any other psychological phenomenon pertaining to chemical activity in the brain? Since you say you're a man of science yourself, how would you break down the experience so that another science person like myself would understand it better? |
![]() ![]() ♪ ♥ ♫ Across The Universe
| |
![]() |
|
|
|
Aug 14 2017, 02:51 PM Post #175 |
![]()
|
You don't need to have solid proof or evidence to believe in something, but then why would you believe it? It isn't logical to believe in something just because you were raised to believe in it despite there being no evidence to actually support said belief. If I grew up believing that dragons existed, I would be a laughing stock. While there is no evidence to disprove dragons, there is simply no evidence to suggest that they actually exist. I don't know why this is so difficult for theists to understand.
I really have no idea what you're trying to say here. What is a "believer dot?" It's kind of hard to comprehend this when there are so many typos, to be honest.
At least you admit that there is no evidence. Now all you need to do is admit that it's foolish to believe in something with no evidence.
The possibility is there, of course. The possibility is also there that dragons and unicorns exist. It's the exact same probability, in fact, considering that none of these beliefs have any evidence to substantiate them. One is simply more widely believed than the others. Back to Cal for a minute to address something I had missed: You brought up my structuring of this thread, and the reason I asked the theists to provide proof is because they are the ones making a claim. Their claim is that god exists. It is a firm claim. The atheist, on the other hand, simply rejects the claims given to them; they do not make a claim of their own, nor do they insist that a god's existence is impossible. Atheism simply means rejecting the god claim that theists present because there is not enough evidence to substantiate such a claim. You could take this a step further and assert that a god does in fact not exist, but that would make you a Gnostic Atheist (i.e. a "knowing atheist"), and in that case I would ask for evidence as well. Edited by Doggo Champion 2k17, Aug 14 2017, 02:52 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Cal | Aug 14 2017, 04:51 PM Post #176 |
![]()
I may not deserve to live, but I will protect those in my reach with my reverse blade!
![]()
|
Firstly, I do consider myself a person of science. That being said I do not consider science absolute. Science is only as great as it is because it changes with our thinking and knowledge as it progresses. With that understood you can understand that science is more of a method to understanding instead of absolutes. You cannot use science to explain certain types of phenomenon such as the ones I refer to (and others). That being said I will answer your other part of the question tonight or tomorrow. It will require a delicate post of it's own so that you can break it down and come to your own judgement about my experiences. @OFG I don't want to tangent very far off. I disagree with your description (and others) given on a fundamental basis (and the given definition of atheism as a hole). This would require a different conversation though and an in-depth understanding of cognitive dissonance. |
![]() | |
![]() |
|
|
|
Aug 14 2017, 04:58 PM Post #177 |
![]()
|
If you don't agree that atheism is a rejection of the claims put forth by theists, that it is simply a lack of belief in a deity and not the assertion that one doesn't exist, then point-blank, your definition is wrong. It could be your opinion, but it's still wrong. |
![]() |
|
| Cal | Aug 14 2017, 05:15 PM Post #178 |
![]()
I may not deserve to live, but I will protect those in my reach with my reverse blade!
![]()
|
Yea, you aren't following me..
I have no qualms with you or anyone quoting a definition of a word, obviously. My issue is the application of the word in the conversation in relation to the actual discussion. Then, I thought maybe we could go even a step further from that into an analysis of the definition based on the interpretation pertaining to logical rules and so forth. Obviously, we are nowhere near that.. -Anyway, back to work. Will come back with the intention to post again in 3-4 hours. |
![]() | |
![]() |
|
|
|
Aug 14 2017, 05:26 PM Post #179 |
![]()
|
Don't attempt to run me in circles pls. But yes, I will anxiously await your analysis of why you believe mine and others' definition (or application) of atheism to be wrong here. |
![]() |
|
| Strawberry | Aug 14 2017, 06:34 PM Post #180 |
![]()
Chiaroscuro ♥
![]()
|
Yeah Cal, it seems like you're purposefully being vague and going around in circles with your arguments here. How is the application of the word atheism in relation to this debate -- which has honestly been a pretty standard debate -- at all inadequate? I haven't seen anybody on the atheist side acting as if atheism was anything other than the absence of belief that deities exist. The debate itself has been presented and structured in that template. I'll wait for your response, but I can't help but feel like we're about to hit wishy washy territory if you're allegedly delving on "definition based on the interpretation pertaining to logical rules". I mean, wut. I'm sure many people have wrong definitions of atheism, but I don't see how that's particularly relevant for this debate tbh. Curious to read about your experiences and why they made you sure it was God and not any scientific phenomenon. I'm well aware science isn't absolute and in fact one of its first premises is nature being uniform. It's however the jump from science not being able to explain everything to having theism fill in the gaps of the unexplained that I haven't heard anybody defend convincingly. |
![]() ![]() ♪ ♥ ♫ Across The Universe
| |
![]() |
|
| 0 users reading this topic | |
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." Learn More · Sign-up for Free |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Deep Discussion · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
4:53 PM Jul 13
|
Theme Designed by McKee91
Powered by ZetaBoards Premium · Privacy Policy




























4:53 PM Jul 13