CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Atheism and Religion, which truly bears the burden of proof.
We all know by now what the burden of proof is and on to whom it falls. He who makes the claim must then prove it. Therefor Atheists have long said that we the faithful must provide proof of God's existence since we are claiming he exsists. But I say otherwise. The belief in God or God's in some form is not new, it is as old as humanity. However the lack of belive in any such deity is new VERY new. So Therefor I submit that it is not the idea of God''s existence which is the claim but rather the belief that there is no God which is the claim, and therefore the onus is on Atheists to prove that God dosent exsist.
being an atheist like myself, I believe in science and common sense, I decide at a young age to question the religious drivel being fed to me at school, and look at the evidence behind it all.
when you really break religion down and try to find the truth and fact behind the words and story's, there's nothing to be found.
so why would I dedicate my one life to myth and hearsay when science has given and proven everything to me.
Belief in a deity or deities probably serves some evolutionary function, possibly to do with herd instinct, otherwise, given how counter to rationale it is, it wouldn't be so strong and so common. It must make some kind of sense
Can science explain how our planet exsists in the state that it dose ie supporting life. Despite how incredibly rare that is? Can it explain how our planet somehow hit the intergalactic lottery and not only has all the right factors for supporting life interrerorly but exteriorly as well such as the moon, being the exact right distance from the sun, and having Jupiter in just the exact perfect position to protect us from meteors despite scientists themselves stating how incredibly rare even one of these factors are by themselves?
Can science explain how our planet exsists in the state that it dose ie supporting life. Despite how incredibly rare that is?
Yes, and it isn't. The planet exists within the Goldilocks zone, a range from the sun that requires a certain planet density. We have found millions of planets that exist within this zone.
Can it explain how our planet somehow hit the intergalactic lottery and not only has all the right factors for supporting life interrerorly but exteriorly as well such as the moon, being the exact right distance from the sun, and having Jupiter in just the exact perfect position to protect us from meteors despite scientists themselves stating how incredibly rare even one of these factors are by themselves?
Can you please provide a citation for this claim that all these factors are "incredibly rare"? Because, for example, this "exact right distance from the sun" is measured in millions of miles.
Its only rare because were still gathering evidence about our existence, and were finding out more and more day by day unlike Religion? if you think religion explains everything you have questioned me on then your incredibly lazy minded.
you have chosen the easy route in believing what your told and not questioning it. how old does religion believe the earth is?? does religion explain dinosaurs?? does religion explain the Jupiter the sun or anything remotely factual?? religion is a fools game and only fool would use it to justify our existence.
Many have lived and died waiting for science to answer very important questions. When scientists come up with an answer in some situation it is changed years later. (Pluto) I hope no Christian has told you that religion on earth can answer everything. The only one that can do this is God. The Bible is a guide to God. Chosen the easy route you say. Bringing our mind, body and spirit under subjection to God is no easy thing. You don't believe me then please try it. Earth's age, dinosaurs, Jupiter and the Sun is not our focus we leave that to science. Jesus crucified is our message. The purpose everlasting life, truth and righteousness. We are not saying this to make an enemy out of you but because we love you.
This is an ignorant question. If I make a claim, I have the burden of proof. If you reject my claim, you have Burden of Clash. It's simple. If you reject my claim, I'm going to ask you why. And that's where you're going to make a whole bunch of positive claims.
I agree, I was just referencing the recent excuse that Delvis has been trying to misuse to prevent him from presenting any actual arguments defending his position.
I just demonstrated how atheism carries the same burden of proof, because they cannot avoid making a positive claim. If they reject a claim, they reject it for rational reasons, or for irrational ones. If the reasons are irrational, they are simply dismissed. If the reasons are rational, they must elucidate them. And once they do, that's where the fun starts. Because they will have to make a whole bunch of positive claims.
I just demonstrated how atheism carries the same burden of proof, because they cannot avoid making a positive claim.
You never demonstrated that, you simply claimed it. If someone is rejecting a claim that is not made with evidence, then simply saying "That doesn't convince me" isn't a positive claim in need of proof. That means that no positive claims are crushed.
You are still further demonstrating that you don't provide any arguments to defend yourself. It's by far one of the most flawed concepts of debating I have ever seen, and one that generally is employed by "Nu-Atheists".
crushed it what way?? in the same way religion fails to produce any evidence what so ever? its only true strength is with the human minds thirst for finding out the reason for life, and so many of us including yourself chose the lazy minded route and believe what were told, luckily there have been humans who have questioned this nonsense and seek evidence to clarify or dismiss, unlike a religious fool who does what there told and lives there life by man made rules! not god made rules hence the variation from religion to religion and so on and so on!
""""crushed it what way?? in the same way religion fails to produce any evidence what so ever? """////
You see that ? I ask them to define evidence and they failed. And they know the implications of that. But they continue to repeat the same bullshit like well trained parrots. So don't send me messages telling me to be nicer.
Yer I see what you mean crushed!! what I mean by evidence is produce fact? like science is asked every time it makes a claim, we all say prove it, well the same applies to religion prove the existence, prove the word of the bible? I would believe in god if there was proof but I know like so many others there is none! and never will be!
plus I couldn't give a dam if your nice or not so I don't know what your on about???
When atheists ask that question in the arrogant way that you did, that fact has to be pointed out. And that leads to the real question : """what is wrong with my reasoning ?""
what's arrogant about asking you to produce fact? if we all believe in just what were told then where would the human race be? not where it is now! your reasoning makes no sense to me! your reasoning lacks substance!
.......................................................................................................................................................right back at ya!!
Notice that you were incapable of doing anything remotely close to what you just claimed, but have to rely upon declarations rather than arguments because you are not able to actually defend your stances.
In what way does your belief system have more proof than Atheism? Everything you have used is complete speculation. Atheists have fossils, scientific models, etc.
You just linked to a debate where you didn't provide any arguments and ran away half way through.
You didn't use logic. You think that if you can ask someone enough questions, you win. Your "trick" is that you don't ever even try to prove your point, you just try to argue theirs. Which is why you ran away half way through our debate: Because I knew what you were doing ahead of time.
Exactly, I had no position, but you did. You tried to "prove" your position by disproving mine, which you couldn't, so you ran away and made up the most hilarious excuse for it.
You haven't ever actually defend your positions on this website. You seem to think that tearing down someone else's argument lifts up yours.
we proved the earth wasn't flat yet for thousands of years we believed it was! only in the last hundred to two hundred years have we started to understand the universe and the world we populate, so only recently have we looked at religion and questioned it, because science has given us the evidence to do that, religion hasn't given us anything to counter or to clarify? thus more and more people choose to not believe in unfounded and man made myths and rules!! and more burden of proof is placed upon religion.
Atheism has the same amount of burden of proof every step of the way. Because if I give you an argument, you will conclude that I am right or I am wrong. If you conclude that I am wrong, you have to give me reasons. And you must demonstrate that your reasons are more Justified than mine
Atheism has the same amount of burden of proof every step of the way.
Atheism by definition is the negation of Theism. It bears no more burden of proof than the negation of any claim. It is the null hypothesis. If someone claims that they discovered a previously unknown species of primate in Peru, it is not my burden to prove that they didn't. If they have video or photographic evidence, hair samples, footprints, an article from a reputable publisher announcing the discovery, or other physical evidence, then they have met the burden of proof. If I counter-claim that these photographs, news article or hair samples are fake, now I am making a positive claim and now I bear the burden of proof.
Atheism has the same amount of burden of proof every step of the way. Because if I give you an argument, you will conclude that I am right or I am wrong. If you conclude that I am wrong, you have to give me reasons. And you must demonstrate that your reasons are more Justified than mine
It rests on whomever is making the positive claim. Religion is not a monolithic thing, people can make claims that can be broadly categorized as 'religious' just as they can make claims that can be broadly categorized as 'scientific', 'philosophic', 'historic' or 'mathematic'. It doesn't matter, if it is a positive claim then it bears the burden of proof. It doesn't matter if it is a subject area that is rife with unsubstantiated claims, or with substantiated ones -- every claim stands on it's own merits.
Your statement, "but when science has proven so much and religion so little the greater burden fall on religion", seemed to imply that the burden of proof is affected by whether similar claims had lifted the burden of proof. I was contending that implication. In that context 'all positive claims stand on their own merit' carries quite a bit of substance. If that is not what you were imply then I apologize, and ask for clarification on what exactly you were intending with this statement.
Errr yes it is how Burden of truth works because there's a greater burden on religion its pretty simple! science is about fact religion is about fiction so the greater burden lies where.............?
And what ever about facts, at least come up with something tangible to debate with rather than pick on minor detail.
The burden of proof, is the epistemological obligation of a claim to provide sufficient warrant to be accepted as reasonably true. Note the emphasis. Whether some claim has provided facts only tells us whether or not the burden of proof has been lifted; It does not determine if it has the burden of proof to begin with or how great that burden is.
.
.
Put another way: A claim with many supporting facts does not mean it has a lower burden of proof, what it means is that it is more likely to have actually met whatever burden of proof it had.
.
.
Think of the burden of proof as a container, and evidence as the liquid that fills the container. Smaller containers will require less liquid to fill and larger containers will require more. You're probably now asking, "Well, then what does determine the burden of proof?". What determines the burden of proof is the nature of the claim itself. As Carl Sagan put it, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
stop getting your answers from the dictionary or Wiki then cut and paste!
Religion is an extraordinary claim due to the nature of the claim, science is a fact finding process.
So as the question asks which truly bears the burden of proof its religion because it has no proof where as science and atheism is based on truth or facts so burden of proof met!
or to put it another way no containers filled with liquid but religion lots of containers filled with liquid so burden not met, so to put it simply religion bears the greater burden.
"Religion" isn't a claim, it's a very broad subject matter; Under which innumerable claims might be categorized, some being more extraordinary than others. Likewise some scientific claims are extraordinary, and some are mundane, it depends on the nature of the claim itself. You are attempting to lump all claims together by topic and calling it one claim.
Religion is a multitude of claims, it claims god made earth in 7 days it claims Jesus is the son of god, it claims good parted the sea for Moses, it claims Adam and eve were the first humans, it claims god flooded the earth and Noah built a boat etc..... I can go on all night! its far from a subject matter, science will make a claim then prove or disprove the claim one way or another they find an answer, religion makes claims and nothing else, it produces nothing or try's to produce anything tangible, the reason for this..............? its because it cant and never will so there lies the burden.
There are a multitude of claims that are religious in nature. Claims that must be examined individually.
it [religion] claims god made earth in 7 days it claims Jesus is the son[sic] of god
Er, no, that is a particular exegesis that in no way encompasses all of monotheism let alone all of religion.
I can go on all night! its far from a subject matter
Religion is quite literally a subject matter, and you have just listed topics in 'said subject matter.
science will make a claim then prove or disprove the claim
In the social sciences, for instance, when we report our findings from some statistical analysis we report our findings either as a rejection of the null hypothesis or as a failure to reject the null hypothesis. It's one or the other. Reject or fail to reject. Notice there is no accept the null. It's Reject or fail to reject. There is no 'prove'. Lawyers prove things. Mathematicians prove things. Logicians prove things. Scientists do not. There is no proof in science, only evidence.
its because it cant and never will so there lies the burden.
"I've determined preemptively that It can't meet the burden so the burden must be set higher" I hope you see the problem with this sort of thinking.
Your first point means nothing so its not worth answering.
Errr im speaking about Christianity and its claim god made earth in 7 days feel free to disprove that?
Third point again not worth answering!!
Of course science proves thing you buffoon!! your ramblings are just another way of wording it, has science not proven what drugs can be used for different illnesses?? has science not proven what element the world and its universe are made of, has science not proven how the human body works errrr yep!! and again I could go on all night!!
I don't see any problem with the way I think and your words mean nothing and invoke no thought process what so ever!! I hope you don't see a problem with that.
Your first point means nothing so its not worth answering.
Of course it means something, if your only retort is to tell me that you are not going to bother with a rebuttal then this is going to be a rather short exchange.
Errr im speaking about Christianity
There is no "Errr.." about it. You said religion, and I lambasted you for the egregious pigeonholing that you proceeded to do and continue to do. I want you to turn off the auto-pilot my friend, and not rely on these mental short-cuts.
its claim god made earth in 7
This is precisely the sort of thing I'm referring to. You're insisting that any and all religious claims automatically bear the burden of proof regardless of the nature of the claim, whether positive or negative, or the religion it comes from, because of a particular fundamentalist exegesis of one particular religion. That's the height of hubris. I like to imagine a Hindu, Buddhist or universalist person throwing his hands up in frustration. As I've been saying from the start you have to examine every claim on it's own merits.
Third point again not worth answering!!
The second exclamation point really sends home the message, does it?
Of course science proves thing you buffoon!! your ramblings are just another way of wording it
No, it's not. Evidence and proof do not mean the same thing. Proof is conclusive. All findings in science are tentative. Did Isaac Newton prove gravity with his theorems? Was it disproved when Einstein antiquated them with his own theorems on gravity? A theory stands until a better one comes along to replace it, and that is always in the realm of possibility. That is the way of science, the history of it is long attested.
I don't see any problem with the way I think
You don't see how that makes you vulnerable to self-fulfilling prophecy?
When you have proof of having the right to exist outside of Hell, then you have proof that there is no God. The fact that you are not burning in Hell is not proof that you will not be dying in the Lake of Fire forever the same as you are dying now.
Until you can prove the Lake of Fire is not your destiny, the burden of proof is on you. Saying there is no Hell is not proof that there is no Hell. Assuming you know things you do not know is not exemption from the burden of proof.
Atheist are fooling themselves when they say they have no burden of proof. The only burden of proof I carry is because I care about people who are dying and have one foot in the grave and one on thin ice melting over the fire of Hell. When they repeatedly insist they have the right to exist outside of Hell, and I have told them the gospel of God in His death, burial, and resurrection as the Son of God offering forgiveness through faith in His blood which paid to cover our sins if we will repent and believe on Him and receive Him as our Savior......once I have given them that message from God, and they reject the Savior, I have no more burden as I have done all I can do and it's time to leave behind the ones who would drag me down insisting it is me, and not them, who must prove they do not have the right to exist outside of Hell. Death delivers the proof which I cannot provide, and the fire of Hell is the wrath of God against sinners who demand proof that He has the right to reject them and leave them frying like eternal sausage in their pride after they have rejected what He did for them on the cross to buy them back from their sins and give them eternal life.
Most of the atheist here, I have given up on as they repeatedly say they will never stop insisting there is no God to rule over them, and they do not fear the wrath of God. Their blood is on their own heads, I tried to tell them the truth, the only proof of being wrong they will accept will be to see the reality of Hell's torment of sinners...they insist they have to see it for themselves to know it is real, and indeed they will see it. I have met my burden of proof, I have carried that burden, and now I leave behind the dead weight of people who insist their dying is ok.
Argumentum ad antiquitatem; appeal to tradition is not logically valid grounds for your conclusion. Not that you could actually prove that atheists are a relatively recent development anyways.
May God's grace be upon you. As a Christian you must understand we are not given the task by Jesus to prove God exist by physical evidence. We are charged to teach all nation about the truth. remember Israel in the wilderness. They made God prove himself time and time again but in the end many still didn't believe. It would be no difference with people of today. Some of them would say it was only an optical illusion. The Bible says blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed (John 20:29).
I thank God for your conversation my brother or sister. Because the proof of God existence is everywhere, in life itself. You and I are proof. The only way to see that is by FAITH. But this is and never will be enough proof for unbelievers. Read Luke 16:19-31. In the wilderness Israel made God perform many wonders to prove himself. But yet many of them still didn't believe. Because they had no faith. If you listen to an Atheist they will tell you they have no faith. They want everything to be proven physically. Hebrews 11:1-3 says (Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good report. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear). You see my brother or sister we are the children of faith there is no need for physical proof. I've learned to trust in God's word. So all you have to do is speak God's word, do God's word and love God's word. Unbelievers will look at you and get curious and then Jesus will enter into there hearts.
We all know by now what the burden of proof is and on to whom it falls.
Were that the case, there would have been no need for this debate.
He who makes the claim must then prove it.
He who makes a positive claim must prove it. You must prove that God exists because you say (without evidence) that God exists. If you had evidence, there would be no need for this debate.
Therefor Atheists have long said that we the faithful must provide proof of God's existence since we are claiming he exsists.
Well aren't you? If you didn't claim he existed contrary to all common sense and logic, then there would be no need for this debate.
But I say otherwise.
If you didn't, there'd be no need for this debate.
The belief in God or God's in some form is not new, it is as old as humanity.
I assume you were around back then? If so, then I'll assume it is simply the senility catching up to you, otherwise there'd be no need for this debate.
However the lack of belive in any such deity is new VERY new.
Not at all. The thing is, historically, when somebody goes against the grain and claims that knowledge of the Deity is unobtainable, he is usually burned at the stake or tortured to death. There have always been atheists, they just didn't feel comfortable coming out knowing how insecure the religious are.
So Therefor I submit that it is not the idea of God''s existence which is the claim but rather the belief that there is no God which is the claim, and therefore the onus is on Atheists to prove that God dosent exsist.
Humans have always believed in fairies and sea monsters and Wechselbälger.
Prove to me that they don't exist. Go on, give it a shot. I dare ya.
That actually was not originally a part of this rule. That was a latter addition added due to the false assumption that one cannot prove a negative. That is obviously false. If I make the negative claim that you are not stronger than me (provided that it's true) then I can quite easily prove such a thing.
if you didn't claim he exsisted contrary to all common sence and logic
Implying.
I assume you were around back then? If so I'll assume it is simply the senility catching up to you, otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate
Are you suggesting that atheist predates religion, because if so then there are very many archeologists who would like to have a word with you.
As for your following point whigh I won't quote as it is very long
All I will say is ASSERTIONS ASSERTIONS EVERYWHERE.
humans have always believed in fairies and sea monsters and wechselbälger
Prove to me they don't exsist I dare ya
I never said they didn't. Not that I belive they do I simply mean that I never made that claim and therefor I need not prove it. So no.
BTW sea monsters do exsist they are called giant squid.
That actually was not originally a part of this rule. That was a latter addition added due to the false assumption that one cannot prove a negative. That is obviously false. If I make the negative claim that you are not stronger than me (provided that it's true) then I can quite easily prove such a thing.
That is a positive claim, not a negative one. Him saying "No I'm not" would be the negative claim.
Are you suggesting that atheist predates religion, because if so then there are very many archeologists who would like to have a word with you.
And they would agree with him. Atheism predates humanity, technically speaking.
How can Atheism predate humanity? Just because a species isn't intelligent enough to to conceive of a God or ask questions that may lead to assumptions of God's existence dosent make them atheist. And even if it did we are talking specifically within the context of Humanity.
Atheism simply means without theism. That means that a lack of belief in god obviously predates a belief in god.
It sounds silly, because it is, but so is the nature of the argument I am responding to.
Atheism is the natural state, just as a-anybeliefsystem is the natural state. We are not born with positive belief systems, hence we are all born atheists. Nothing wrong with that, considering how everyone spends their whole lives being atheists towards the vast majority of gods.
If I make the negative claim that you are not stronger than me (provided that it's true) then I can quite easily prove such a thing.
No. What you would be proving is that you are stronger than me, and that is a positive (and very likely, but that's another story). You can make any number of conclusions from that point, but that is merely a rewording. The fact is, you are proving the positive concept that you are stronger, and by extension that I am not stronger.
However, that doesn't mean that I need to prove God doesn't exist. Prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist.
Are you suggesting that atheist predates religion
Not at all. I was mocking you.
But yet, I do believe that atheism predates religion based on that old chicken-and-egg argument. Before man made up deity, man was without deity, and was thus "atheist".
because if so then there are very many archeologists who would like to have a word with you.
Really? Name a few. I'd love to chat with them.
I think you mean anthropologists. Even so, you're dead wrong.
Anybody involved in paleoanthropology would admit that what we know about the past is a minuscule fraction compared with what we don't know. The few relics of prehistory paint a very small portrait, with colors filled in on almost entirely on guesswork.
All I will say is ASSERTIONS ASSERTIONS EVERYWHERE.
Says the theist.
Hahahahahaha.
You assert that a deity exists, without any evidence or even a argument not rife with fallacy.
P.S. Google "Inquisition" or "Giordano Bruno".
Not that I belive they do I simply mean that I never made that claim and therefor I need not prove it.
I never made the claim that gods exist. Igitur I do not need to prove that they do.
You did, thus you do.
BTW sea monsters do exsist they are called giant squid.
humans have always believed in fairies and sea monsters and wechselbälger
Prove to me they don't exsist I dare ya
I never said they didn't. Not that I belive they do I simply mean that I never made that claim and therefor I need not prove it. So no.
BTW sea monsters do exsist they are called giant squid.
VERY GOOD ANSWER. I WILL USE THIS IN THE FUTURE, if the Lord permits.
The comparison of creatures to their Creator is not a valid comparison to start with, but this is an excellent way of answering which leaves the worshippers of the flying spaghetti monster scratching their heads to try to come up with another twist of irrational logic.
If I make a claim, I have the burden of proof. If you reject my claim, you have Burden of Clash. It's simple. If you reject my claim, I'm going to ask you why. And that's where you're going to make a whole bunch of positive claims.
Saying that you are unconvinced, well, just means that you are unconvinced. Cornflake
If in the process of denying the claim the Atheist does make positive claims then you are correct. Your assumption that one must make positive claims in order to be Atheist is incorrect, hence your reference to the burden of clash is only partially correct.
You just unwittingly proved my point. You made the claim that God dosent exsist thus you have the burden. As you said I rejected your claim my proof (if it's even required) is your inability to prove y I urge own opposing claim is you can't prove that God dosent exsist thus it's not irrational to think that he does. People thought the world was flat until it was proven otherwise, people thought the world was the center of the Universe until it was proven otherwise, in the same vain people belive that God exsists and until it is proven otherwise their is no reasion to belive that he dosent.
""""You just unwittingly proved my point. You made the claim that God dosent exsist thus you have the burden.'''/////
Theists that have sent me messages, this is an example of how easy it is. This is a live example right here. Now he's going to have to quote where did I say that. Or demonstrate with a logical argument that anything I said lends itself to that interpretation.
Result ? Another atheist will end up looking like an idiotic moron. Yet another one............... They do it by themselves and with no hands. !
Notice how nobody conceded to you, you just tell yourself they did because it is easier than debating.
And you are right, you never defended your points. There were objections, but you never defended them. You seem incapable of defending them, as you have demonstrated with just about every debate you have ever accomplished.
And your "arguments" require arguments, so you might get hurt. Believe me, I tried, I watched how difficult it was for you to even attempt to defend your positions. I've got the debate links to prove it if need be.
Edit: Additionally, for me to be diverting to a tu quoque fallacy, you would have had to actually made some arguments in favor of your position.
There's no way for me to pull a tu quoque when you haven't done anything of the sort.
You've fallen to the point of "I know you are but what am I" and sex jokes the quality of which places it firmly within the High School range?
Come now. If you aren't going to ever actually debate, you could at least have the common decency to be amusing. Make more appeals to "your people", those are always funny.
This is a misunderstanding of what most atheists say. Most atheists do not say that there for sure is no God. Atheism is the state of not being convinced. If we start from the neutral state of not being convinced one way or the other we start off as atheists.
Which religion bears the burden of proof? Christians? Muslims? Jews? Hindu's? etc.! They all have "PROOF" that THEY have proof! They all disagree on the "proof". Even different Christian religions believe differently, Sunni's and Shiite's believe differently, Catholics and other Christians believe differently!
If you can make any sense out of this confusion, you must not understand the situation! At least Atheist's agree, religions are confused people.
I agree with Voltaire (1694-1778) "God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh."
Many keep sprouting Bible verses til the truth goes away.
For the prophesy below to have come true, God would have had to have fulfilled
2 OTHER Bible Prophesies,
1 -to scatter them to all the Nations, and 2 - then bring the Jews back from all the Nations He had scattered them, which are also other detailed prophesied! And bringing them back was fullfilled after ww2. .. ... Thousands of years after these prophesies!
Coincidence? Or is this inaccurate?
Was Terrorism a Biblical Prophesy?
Was the Middle East Crisis a Biblical Prophesy?
How many points can we accumulate for -
Bible Truth or Bible Lie?
It almost seems if it weren't for Israel life wouldn't be quite as disturbed. How is it that 4000 years of these people who really didn't bring much on themselves historically, are the matter that brings TREMBLING (OR TERROR!!!) To the door of EVERY Nation? Has Israel been a burden to lift? When lifting Israel
have those Nations face Trembling, and being cut into pieces?
How did the Bible know Nations would lift Israel? What Nations back then lifted other Nations?
Accurate prophesy?
Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of TREMBLING unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem. And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it… For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of
the people shall not be cut off from the city. Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You can use the "logic" you have provided here you can justify any claim whatsoever as being utterly true if it cannot be disproved.
Additionally, burden of proof lies with the AFFIRMATIVE claim. Atheism holds no affirmative claims - it is nothing more than the disbelief in a god or gods. Religion, on the other hand, claims (affirmatively) that a god exists and that his/her word is known and absolute.
Until any religion can be proved, none will have to be disproved.
Evidence is hard, testable proof. Something that can be scientifically proven. This is because it the most objective form of evidence - personal faith is by no way objective or any form of legitimate evidence.
This is the reason you are dealt with so easily in debates. Did the Zika virus reduce your brain ?
I don't think you know what the Zika virus is.
Can you prove that claim scientifically ? If you cannot, then the claim is false. And you just refuted yourself
Can I prove the claim scientifically? No, I cannot. I don't need to though. That is because I am making no claims on anything other than argumentation and logic - nothing on reality or anything else that can be scientifically proven. My evidence is reasoning and analytics, and unless you can provide a counter argument with a good warrant there really isn't a refutation.
For such an immense question as to how we all came to be, there has to be testable proof. An assumption does NOT make the cut. The proof has to be studied, and questioned, and tested until we are as sure as we can be (as we do with every other theory).
Until that happens, no assumptions can be reasonably made on the matter.
And again, I did not need to prove it scientifically. If I was making a claim on something hard and testable, then I would need to provide scientific evidence. I was not, I was making a claim on the way that we should determine things - so the only possible evidence for it is reason and logic
No reason to provide arguments to someone who doesn't respond in kind, really.
Figured I'd just take your approach and "declare" things and refuse to back them up.
I think now is the time where I am supposed to make a vague appeal to "my people" then declare myself the victor, if I remember your process correctly.
Really? What part of your point did I concede? Because as far as I can tell you're blatantly ignoring the point I made against it, make it not only a complete lie but hypocritical of you to call me out for conceding it.
You asked questions that had no logical relevance, and you have avoided every attempt at a legitimate conversation on this website. You simply insult people and then declare yourself victorious, much like a pigeon trying to play chess.
I can easily link to the "debate" with me where you ran away mid conversation, if you'd like.
Oh come now. The guy who is so afraid of people responding to him that he ends debates and runs away mid conversation tries to pull off intellectually belittling others with an ad populum attempt overshadowed only by the appeals to "his people".
Seriously, if you were capable of an actual debate, you would have demonstrated it by now. If you were capable of arguing and defending your stances, you would have demonstrated it by now. You have demonstrated the exact opposite on both attempts. Feel free to keep up with the attempted insults, because they do nothing to make up for your failures.
Oh come now. The guy who is so afraid of people responding to him that he ends debates and runs away mid conversation tries to pull off intellectually belittling others with an ad populum attempt overshadowed only by the appeals to "his people".
Seriously, if you were capable of an actual debate, you would have demonstrated it by now. If you were capable of arguing and defending your stances, you would have demonstrated it by now. You have demonstrated the exact opposite on both attempts. Feel free to keep up with the attempted insults, because they do nothing to make up for your failures.
Oh come now. The guy who is so afraid of people responding to him that he ends debates and runs away mid conversation tries to pull off intellectually belittling others with an ad populum attempt overshadowed only by the appeals to "his people".
Seriously, if you were capable of an actual debate, you would have demonstrated it by now. If you were capable of arguing and defending your stances, you would have demonstrated it by now. You have demonstrated the exact opposite on both attempts. Feel free to keep up with the attempted insults, because they do nothing to make up for your failures.
Delvis has the right idea. If you make a claim then the initial burden is on the one making a claim. And in the context of religion vs atheism the vast majority of claims, at least to me, appear to be by religion. Because it's religion which seeks believers and converts, and religion that tries to impose behaviors and norms and consequences based on their claims. That's not to say no atheist has ever made a claim. They do. But atheists don't typically send missionaries door to door or to the third world to try to tell people to abandon their religious beliefs. And atheists don't threaten eternal damnation and lakes of fire. And atheists don't insert anti-religious oaths, or "not under any God", or anti-religion holidays into the institutional practices of society.
Quite right. Atheists belive their is no God and thus that the universe in all its complexity can exist. And the exact correct conditions for life observed here on earth could happen by simple random chance. Despite the mathematical likelihood of such a planet forming with these exact Characteristics in the exact right place ie the correct distance from the sun with a gas giant like Jupiter close by to protect the planet from meteors is so infetesmally small as to be virtually impossible. I doubt this.
Proof. Ha. You can't prove what is undeciable. If I say there are leprechauns who's existence is unprovable as they disappear anytime someone looks at them or attempts to record them with instruments and they have no impact upon the universe, can you prove me wrong? You can't ask me to prove they exist because their existence is unprovable by definition.
By the same token, a deity's existence cannot be proven or disproven if they exist outside the phenomenal world and have no impact on the universe. If you want to put your money where your mouth is, you will ask who bears the burden of proof to explain natural phenomenon that are attributed to your deity. If you believe God heals the blind, that can actually be tested. If you believe mental illness is caused by demons, that can be tested. If the only thing you think your deity can do is send people to heaven or hell, you cannot prove or disprove that. Theologians have been working for the past 2000 years to make the concepts of heaven and hell empirically untestable because skeptics kept proving them wrong.
This is why religion in the 21st century is so pitiful. For the past two thousand years religions have been removing all substance from their theology because they cannot satisfy the rigor of empiricism. They removed curses and magic, then miracles, then divine revelation, then demons and blessings, etc. Evertime the apparatus of empirical science grew, the power of God faded. At this point all you are left with is a God who's only power is that he is the bouncer for heaven.
You miss the point. You cannot prove he did, I cannot prove he didn't. Therefore, the burden of proof is on no one. Please come up with an equation that disproves Jesus secretly killed small children at night. Come up with an equation that disproves Jesus is the son of Satan. You cannot. This doesn't mean it's true, but it also means we don't know that it is not true.
Why would anyone put any faith in something we know so little about? The answer is people want to believe miracles can happen today. That belief can be tested. We can disprove faith healing.
You miss the point. You cannot prove he did, I cannot prove he didn't. Therefore, the burden of proof is on no one. Please come up with an equation that disproves Jesus secretly killed small children at night. Come up with an equation that disproves Jesus is the son of Satan. You cannot. This doesn't mean it's true, but it also means we don't know that it is not true.
Why would anyone put any faith in something we know so little about? The answer is people want to believe miracles can happen today. That belief can be tested. We can disprove faith healing.
Do you believe there is any evidence in favour of either of the two cases?
I'm not asking for proof as such, just some evidence in favour of either one.
Clearly the burden of proof belongs to us religious people. But just as we can't prove who we worship other than a book 1400 years old (Al-Qur'an) or a compilation compiled between 100 - 400 CE (Bible), neither can anyone disprove the existence of God.
Yes, many religious statements have been disproved by science, but there will be one subject that cannot be disproven, that is, the existence of God.
Some of you will use the 'Big Bang' as a reason of God's nonexistence. To that, I can only say, "It was as God had willed."
Some will also use mankind's imperfection as an excuse of the lack of God. God has made us adaptable, and yet, we're not perfect in every way. And many of us will be born with defects. I was born with Hepatitis C, as well as Diabetes Mellitus, but I can only be patient, and take it as a test from God.
Truth be told I'm not even sure why I wrote all that. Now if you excuse me, I'll be arguing about whether technology is important or harmful
