Completely skipped this section.

[Mister Agenda]

For what it's worth, if he's not claiming God exists, there's no burden at all, for either of you. Theists get to play the same 'I'm not making a claim' card that atheists often do, it's just kind of rare to run into one who does so online.

[fr0d0]

You're giving the op an opportunity to dodge the question. Let's keep to that.

I requested the thread split after r suggested it. As far as I'm concerned the discussion just grew. I got the impression the the op wasn't new here, from the thread title, which is why I was more willing to engage.

Who's "presumptuous" now?

I didn't dodge anything, your whole argument in this introduction thread is asinine. If you shift the burden of proof onto me in your first reply, then you are obviously a religious person. Do you have to say it directly? You did acknowledge later than you were Christian. It was in your custom title that you were Christian, until you changed it. And why would you claim it's my burden of proof? If you knew where the burden of proof rests you wouldn't show your "ignorance" on the topic.

This was done yesterday. It's just getting tiresome with you. Don't bother splitting this thread, there's nothing more to talk about with you.

I didn't say you had dodged, I said that you were being given an opportunity to.

I didn't try to shift the burden of proof, you misread.

no religion has met their burden of proof

You mean YOUR burden of proof

I explained this in very few words above so that you might see it. Once more: i said "your burden", meaning the burden you think exists, but doesn't....

I, and all Christians I know of, don't claim that an empirically proven God exists.

You say we carry a burden of proof to prove our claim that God exists, yet I can find no one in my religion that makes that claim.

[Angrboda]

You say we carry a burden of proof to prove our claim that God exists, yet I can find no one in my religion that makes that claim.

Calling it a belief rather than a claim doesn't make you any more rational for holding it, and I think that's ultimately the question, not do you have a burden of proof, but are you rational for believing what you do?

[fr0d0]

Nobody said it did rasetsu, but that's a point, a good one. The other, although widely spouted, is not.

I consider myself quite rational in that belief, yes. It was arrived at by rational process.

It could have no other origin.
People can't believe something contrary to their understanding.

I've explored this on this forum before. Some say, that I respect a lot, that the steps of faith cannot be entirely rational. In my adoption of belief, I reached a point where my head had an overwhelming amount of information in favour. I still had to make the jump from disbelief to belief, and I did. I changed my stance to mirror my understanding.

I don't think it's possible to live with cognitive dissonance. We must believe what our understanding leads us to believe.

[Whateverist]

You're like two children in the back seat of a car. "But he touched me first!"

Yeah, don't make us stop this car!

---

Nobody said it did rasetsu, but that's a point, a good one. The other, although widely spouted, is not.

I consider myself quite rational in that belief, yes. It was arrived at by rational process.

It could have no other origin.
People can't believe something contrary to their understanding.

I've explored this on this forum before. Some say, that I respect a lot, that the steps of faith cannot be entirely rational. In my adoption of belief, I reached a point where my head had an overwhelming amount of information in favour. I still had to make the jump from disbelief to belief, and I did. I changed my stance to mirror my understanding.

I don't think it's possible to live with cognitive dissonance. We must believe what our understanding leads us to believe.

Can't argue with any of that. Except we all live with cognitive dissonance at times and to some degree. No belief choice can alleviate it all .. or so it seems to me.

[fr0d0]

we all live with cognitive dissonance at times and to some degree. No belief choice can alleviate it all .. or so it seems to me.

Do you think that just emerges, and we assimilate it or work it out and get rid of it?

Thinking about it I think you must be right. The information bombarding us constantly challenges our beliefs.

[MJ the Skeptical]

Who's "presumptuous" now?

I didn't dodge anything, your whole argument in this introduction thread is asinine. If you shift the burden of proof onto me in your first reply, then you are obviously a religious person. Do you have to say it directly? You did acknowledge later than you were Christian. It was in your custom title that you were Christian, until you changed it. And why would you claim it's my burden of proof? If you knew where the burden of proof rests you wouldn't show your "ignorance" on the topic.

This was done yesterday. It's just getting tiresome with you. Don't bother splitting this thread, there's nothing more to talk about with you.

I didn't say you had dodged, I said that you were being given an opportunity to.

I didn't try to shift the burden of proof, you misread.

You mean YOUR burden of proof

I explained this in very few words above so that you might see it. Once more: i said "your burden", meaning the burden you think exists, but doesn't....

I, and all Christians I know of, don't claim that an empirically proven God exists.

You say we carry a burden of proof to prove our claim that God exists, yet I can find no one in my religion that makes that claim.

My impression of this whole thread.


I'm not playing dodge-ball with you. Some creationists love to play that game with atheists. You want to play a semantic game of "I didn't say X, I said X with context." It reminds me of how Christians have a separate context for the bible. Very dishonest way to "debate". I have no interest in this kind of mental gymnastics you're playing. I can't believe you're still typing back here after I said this was over and nobody can get anymore out of it, but you still type back like this introduction thread is some game to win for your ego. And it's still nothing from you but; misdirection, obfuscation, burden of proof shifting and claiming non material beings can exist, when you admit that something needs to be material to exist.

If you do claim a god exists, you have the burden of proof, tough luck creationist. Now stop being fallacious trying to shift it.

And if you can't prove your god manifests in reality, it's no different than not existing, I already went through this.

But I guess this is what you were doing when I replied with that..

[fr0d0]

You reply but you don't read.

[MJ the Skeptical]

I think we can all agree this random guy is troll-baiting now right? Okay friendo, have fun with your ego trip (when this is an introduction thread about me and how I became a non-believer).

[fr0d0]

I would troll bait if I could get you to read a word I post. That doesn't seem possible.


If you state something contentious anywhere, be prepared to defend it.