Also, you can’t prove there isn’t a God any more than theists can prove that there is one. So “this bickering is pointless.”
Well to be fair, the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim, not the one disputing it.
Therefore, when making a claim that God doesn’t exist, the burden of proof is on the one claiming God doesn’t exist.
Luckily, all I claim is that neither of us knows if God exists.
My proof is your lack of the same. :p
ok.
*sigh*
Besides, since my brillian thread over here was locked,
actually, I don’t think that thread is locked.
Lol dude, it was locked for like a month and then unlocked…five years ago.
oh.
Also, you can’t prove there isn’t a God any more than theists can prove that there is one. So “this bickering is pointless.”
Well to be fair, the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim, not the one disputing it.
Therefore, when making a claim that God doesn’t exist, the burden of proof is on the one claiming God doesn’t exist.
Disputing the claims of someone else is not a claim in and of itself.
Also, you can’t prove there isn’t a God any more than theists can prove that there is one. So “this bickering is pointless.”
Well to be fair, the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim, not the one disputing it.
Therefore, when making a claim that God doesn’t exist, the burden of proof is on the one claiming God doesn’t exist.
Disputing the claims of someone else is not a claim in and of itself.
For instance, saying “string theory is true” is a claim. Saying “string theory isn’t true.” Is not a claim. At that point the person who believes string theory can present evidence. Only if the evidence is shown to be accurate evidence is the opposing side then tasked with providing evidence which shows string theory to be untrue.
So, as the ones opposing the theory that God exists, the atheists need not provide any justification for their non-belief until those who claim God does exist provide some empirical evidence.
This is how claims are tested in laboratories and court rooms.
There is no evidence for or against the existence of God.
The Person in Question
There is no evidence for or against the existence of God.
And in science, if there is no evidence for or against something, it is not worth taking seriously. I think Einstein said something akin to that.
Seeing as how all religion is based on faith, it doesn’t matter to them that there is no proof. Funny you bring up Einstein since he was an agnostic who denounced the atheist movement.
The Person in Question
Ok I’m going to give my closing thoughts on the matter before departing from this thread.
In the 3 years I’ve been here I have purposefully not shown my disdain for religion because I knew something like this would happen no matter how I laid it out there. All I really have to say is that there is no evidence for a God of any kind and there is no evidence to the contrary. Given how efficient Science is at building the repository of data we have about our universe I am confident in the fact that there is more than likely no God. If you agree good for you; if you disagree good for you as well. As for Religion itself I believe that it was at once a necessary evil but like many archaic thought patterns it should be done away with. There is no empirical evidence for any events occurring in any religions and a lot of them copy each other so that exacerbates that issue quite a bit. In addition to this a decent percentage of certain teachings in Religious texts are morally reprehensible. They may have been acceptable way back when but we live in a different world now. Religion does help people through troubling times but there are multiple sources that have similar messages for those going through hardships and with none of the perversion of reality or history. I could keep going on but I think anyone reading this get’s the point.
Seeing as how all religion is based on faith, it doesn’t matter to them that there is no proof. Funny you bring up Einstein since he was an agnostic who denounced the atheist movement.
I know it doesn’t matter to them and that’s fine. This all stemmed from me asking in a polite manner why they have faith. Asking why would you believe something with no evidence.
Also, thank you for the snarky remark about Einstein. Funny you should bring that up since I prefer to be called agnostic rather than atheist as well. For the same reason as Einstein, mind you. Because the term agnostic refers to more than just disbelief in God. It means “One who does not know” when loosely translated. Einstein preferred it because it embraces the flawed nature of a human mind who will always have things they do not know.
I am agnostic, because technically speaking anything which cannot be disproven is theoretically possible. But just like Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, and any other undetectable supernatural thing, I do not entertain the notion of a god because if something cannot be proven or disproven, it is really not worth considering. (That may have come off as harsh. I promise I’m not trying to be an asshole. Just trying to effectively communicate my thoughts. Sorry if it comes off badly)
And now I’m just rambling but technically all agnostics are atheists. As an atheist is simply a person who doesn’t believe in any deities. Well if you are even the most middle of the ground agnostic, as in you don’t really know for sure one way or another, you are still not actively believing in a god, so in a way, all agnostics are atheists, and all atheists are agnostic, because to NOT be agnostic in the sense that Einstein thought of the word, would mean you know everything, which is impossible. So really everyone is agnostic. Even if you believe in God with all your heart, you can’t possibly say you KNOW for sure.
Maybe the notion of being agnostic is really the way people of every faith and non faith come together.
Something I don’t think a lot of people talk about is that the bible was not originally one flowing book. Ergo the violent and bloody God of the old testament shouldn’t taint your opinion of the God of the New testament, which explicitly states the old laws are no longer to be practiced. And yes over history Christians have done bloody and terrible things, but that is the fault of the Christians that did it, not god. You will not find any place in the New testament, which again was not written in a book with the old testament at the time of it’s creation, encouraging such things. Also Christ never condemned homosexuality or encouraged hatred or violence of any kind.
But again you can’t prove either way. Although it is much easier to disprove Santa than Satan.
Something I don’t think a lot of people talk about is that the bible was not originally one flowing book. Ergo the violent and bloody God of the old testament shouldn’t taint your opinion of the God of the New testament, which explicitly states the old laws are no longer to be practiced. And yes over history Christians have done bloody and terrible things, but that is the fault of the Christians that did it, not god. You will not find any place in the New testament, which again was not written in a book with the old testament at the time of it’s creation, encouraging such things. Also Christ never condemned homosexuality or encouraged hatred or violence of any kind.
But again you can’t prove either way. Although it is much easier to disprove Santa than Satan.
Well the other problem with the bible is it is contradictory. Yes Jesus does explicitly state according to the New Testament that the old laws are no longer to be practiced. But also explicitly states later that they MUST be practiced. It’s these contradictions that lead to people picking and choosing what from the bible to follow. Which, at that point, why not just form your own opinions on morality and disregard the bible as anything but interesting stories altogether?
For instance, saying “string theory is true” is a claim. Saying “string theory isn’t true.” Is not a claim.
actually they are both claims.
And now I’m just rambling but technically all agnostics are atheists. As an atheist is simply a person who doesn’t believe in any deities. Well if you are even the most middle of the ground agnostic, as in you don’t really know for sure one way or another, you are still not actively believing in a god, so in a way, all agnostics are atheists, and all atheists are agnostic, because to NOT be agnostic in the sense that Einstein thought of the word, would mean you know everything, which is impossible. So really everyone is agnostic. Even if you believe in God with all your heart, you can’t possibly say you KNOW for sure.
Maybe the notion of being agnostic is really the way people of every faith and non faith come together.
theist: someone who believes in God
agnostic: someone who neither believes in God or the existence of God
Atheist: someone who believes God doesn’t exist
That is how I understand the three to be.
Agnosticism goes further and is the belief that it is impossible for people to know or understand anything beyond the physical world. God could exist, but we could never confirm, deny, nor understand.
I would put this in my sig if I weren’t so lazy.
One interpretation is that Jesus only said the old laws must be practiced was to show the hypocrisy of high ranking religious officials.
He also said it BEFORE he said the old laws are null. He was a human being breaking against the religion he was raised as, probably wasn’t a decision made overnight.
Also those who wrote his story down would have also been going through a similar crisis of breaking old habits they grew up with, they might have put words in his mouth.
Anything written 2 thousand years ago must be taken with a grain of salt.
I’m not a christian. I’ve explained my religious beliefs before here But I don’t think I’ll do so again because it’s not worth the ridicule and I don’t have a great desire to explain myself anyway.
For instance, saying “string theory is true” is a claim. Saying “string theory isn’t true.” Is not a claim.
actually they are both claims.
Well of course they are technically both claiming something but in the context of needing to provide proof, the latter claim is really just a claim negating the prior claim, thus does not carry the burden of proof. I suppose I could have worded it better but I wanted to get my point across as simply as possible.
And now I’m just rambling but technically all agnostics are atheists. As an atheist is simply a person who doesn’t believe in any deities. Well if you are even the most middle of the ground agnostic, as in you don’t really know for sure one way or another, you are still not actively believing in a god, so in a way, all agnostics are atheists, and all atheists are agnostic, because to NOT be agnostic in the sense that Einstein thought of the word, would mean you know everything, which is impossible. So really everyone is agnostic. Even if you believe in God with all your heart, you can’t possibly say you KNOW for sure.
Maybe the notion of being agnostic is really the way people of every faith and non faith come together.
theist😒omeone who believes in God
agnostic: someone who neither believes in God or the existence of God
Atheist: someone who believes God doesn’t exist
That is how I understand the three to be.
How you understand them to be is almost correct. You can be agnostic about the existence of God, but the word agnostic really just means not knowing and can be applicable to anything.
And atheism, by definition, is the lack of belief in deities. Not necessarily belief that they don’t, have never, and can never exist, but rather just not having a belief in any deities to begin with.
It’s practically the same thing as what you said, but slightly different based on how it was said. Not a belief that gods don’t exist, but a lack of belief that they do exist. Hard to describe. I hope this is coming across and not making me sound stupid.
theist😒omeone who believes in God
agnostic: someone who neither believes in God or the existence of God
Atheist: someone who believes God doesn’t exist
That is how I understand the three to be.
There is also ignostic meaning someone who refuses to enter the debate without a clear definition of what they are asked to believe, not believe or be unsure about.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/11/14/religions-war-cause-responsible-evidence_n_6156878.html
Those of you who stated that religion is somehow the fount of so much evil, I encourage you to think a lot broader instead of looking for a single “common denominator.” I assure you, war will continue to exist as long as people cling to ideology, even if that ideology accepts or endorses atheism. Please read the article before touting your own ignorant bigotry again.
Some of us don’t hate you (as in Christians) just the Religion itself so that is in no way bigotry. You need to relax.
I assure you, war will continue to exist as long as people cling to ideology
That’s why war will always exist. There will never be a period in a history in which a war will not occur — and I mean never.
Some of us don’t hate you (as in Christians) just the Religion itself so that is in no way bigotry. You need to relax.
Exactly.