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.
Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: December 24, 2024, 9:52 pm
Thread Rating:
Completely skipped this section.
|
RE: Completely skipped this section.
February 21, 2014 at 6:34 pm
(This post was last modified: February 21, 2014 at 6:36 pm by fr0d0.)
(February 21, 2014 at 4:04 pm)Quantum Theorist Wrote:(February 21, 2014 at 12:39 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You're giving the op an opportunity to dodge the question. Let's keep to that. 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. (February 19, 2014 at 5:51 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:(February 19, 2014 at 4:10 pm)Quantum Theorist Wrote: no religion has met their 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. (February 21, 2014 at 6:34 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: 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?
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. RE: Completely skipped this section.
February 21, 2014 at 8:05 pm
(This post was last modified: February 21, 2014 at 8:11 pm by Whateverist.)
(February 21, 2014 at 11:53 am)rasetsu Wrote: Yeah, don't make us stop this car! (February 21, 2014 at 7:12 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Nobody said it did rasetsu, but that's a point, a good one. The other, although widely spouted, is not. 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. (February 21, 2014 at 8:05 pm)whateverist Wrote: 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. RE: Completely skipped this section.
February 22, 2014 at 11:57 am
(This post was last modified: February 22, 2014 at 12:32 pm by MJ the Skeptical.)
(February 21, 2014 at 6:34 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:(February 21, 2014 at 4:04 pm)Quantum Theorist Wrote: Who's "presumptuous" now? 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..
If the hypothetical idea of an afterlife means more to you than the objectively true reality we all share, then you deserve no respect.
You reply but you don't read.
RE: Completely skipped this section.
February 22, 2014 at 4:20 pm
(This post was last modified: February 22, 2014 at 4:22 pm by 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).
If the hypothetical idea of an afterlife means more to you than the objectively true reality we all share, then you deserve no respect.
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Possibly Related Threads... | |||||
Thread | Author | Replies | Views | Last Post | |
Le new, completely original introductory topic.. | le_procyon | 6 | 2348 |
April 7, 2012 at 5:51 pm Last Post: fuckass365 |
Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)