Submit a question to our community and get an answer from real people.
Submit

Why are some Christians so convinced that those who don't agree with them must prove a negative to be right?

Report as

Because they are arrogant and think that Christians are better than everyone else.. And most christians are like this.. I have met some very wonderful true Christians but for the most part they all act like that.. And I can't stand people like this

Helpful (5) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (23)
Report as
yeah, im right with you on that one. i mean its usually the christians that us atheists are arguing with; rarely would it be a mormon or something like that. and yet here are the christians arguing with everybody, even mormons, or muslims, or whoever else believes differently than them. yet, they still cant offer proof. all they can do is talk about their religion. they cant actually say i wish you would have faith. but thats them i guess. i mean christians are just... ugh! yeah, there are good ones out there but the rest of them are...
Report as
It's too bad that most the so called Christians u know r self righteous and judgmental. So opposite of what Jesus calls his followers to be. Scripture says you will know them by their love.
Report as
yea, thats the irony in that.
Report as
like I said tho I do know some Christians that are as sweet as can be and true people of god.. I guess like all the people in the world you have to pick out the good from the bad..but It is such a shame
Report as
That's rude. I'm sure most people I know are christians, but I have really no way of knowing because it's not like I'm gonna ask. Point is, in the REAL world, you normally cannot predict someone's personality by their religion. You meet someone arrogant- doesn't mean anything about their beliefs. I've met lots of arrogant atheists on here, along with Christians. I mean, "for the most part they all act like that" No, they do not.
Report as
I mean they are arrogant when it comes to religion.. Keep up with the conversation before you butt in please
Report as
How am I butting in? People are SUPPOSED to comment, so don't get upset if I comment... Keep up with the conversation? You've barely said anything. And no, they're not always.
Report as
No I didn't say always I said most.. Like I said keep up with the conversation. I you had read what I said you would know that
Report as
"I mean they are arrogant when it comes to religion.." I do not see a "most" in there. Do you? You included "most" in your answer, not your comment. Generally, for a conversation to move forward I would have to respond to your COMMENTS, not your answer repeatedly- right? And btw, "most" Christians are not always like you say. MOST Christians are perfectly fine people, for all I know. It's just plain ignorant for you to make an assumption that most Christians are arrogant (most likely based on some personal experience of yours)
Report as
I Used to go to church you idiot... And do you know what someone said to me one time? They asked about my mother and I told them that she doesn't go to church.. Her reply was "oh she's one of those people".. My grandmother goes to church and she has become so arrogant and rude about people who do not go to church .. That is only 2 accounts I've had with arrogant church members.. But as I've also said, not all church members are like that.. It's impossible.. I've met wonderful church members who are kind and do not judge anyone.. They don't hold anything against you.. Given its hard for anyone to do that let alone someone with higher morals I understand.. But I find that most Christians ARE rude and arrogant.. More than any other religion.. So if you can just accept my point of view and opinion I would greatly appreciate it
Report as
I will agree with you on this one thing... Christians are more rude and arrogant than any other religion.
Report as
@Brooke Wow, resulting to name calling? T^T THAT'S a sign that someone has lost the argument (not to mention is totally immature..) You just made my point. Because one woman was rude, you're making a generalization about MOST Christians. IDK if you realize this, but Christianity is a BIG religion and it would be completely IMPOSSIBLE for *most* people of such a LARGE religion to be all alike. That's just not rational. I believe "some" would be a better choice of words for you to use. It doesn't make any difference to me what your personal views, experiences, or prejudices against Christians are, however in your answer you are telling people that most Christians are like this. You aren't saying "in my opinion" or "from personal experience". You are acting as though it's fact, when it most certainly is not. MOST Christians are all very different people with their own ideas and attitudes towards others; don't lump everyone together. So in the future, you should consider saying "some" rather than "most" and "from personal experience" rather than "this is how it is, no exceptions".
@gob No.
Report as
Well duh it's my opinion.. Anyone with common sense knows its an opinion.. And it's not an experience from ONE person.. It was MOST everyone in the church... And I'm calling you an idiot because you don't know me and you don't know my experiences and i don't expect you to but don't say it was ONE experience because I've spent most of my life around Christians.. I don't see any Mormons Buddhists or Hindus criticizing me... If it makes you happy for me to state the obvious, this is MY opinion.. This whole argument over the Internet is childish and immature.. So please do me and everyone else here on ask a favor and stop commenting on my answer.. Thank you
Report as
@MsStina: actually yes christians are more rude and arrogant than any other religion. i mean i rarely hear a muslim telling me about the quran or a pagan telling me about zeus. rarely do i ever see those conversions going on. i mean christians are always getting up and arguing with other people but rarely do i see the other religions doing that. i mean i cant even tell whos buddhist on here! i cant tell who believes judaism! i cant tell who believes in the quran! why? because those people dont come out here and start ranting about nonsense; and yes im including us atheists in that. oh, and i also wanna state something to you msstina. you say that not all christians are alike? well you have to realize the bible tells you to follow jesus, that jesus is the great example. i mean all these other people follow the bible and theyre showing me what kind of example jesus wanted. look, the point is not that every christian is horrible and pathetic. the point is that the ones that are horrible and pathetic are showing what an example of a christ follower is. and besides, the bible tells you to be a certain way.
Report as
@brooke... my expectation: dont worry, ill help you. the reality: holy sh!^, this girl is feisty! (cowers behind her back) anyway, yeah i think shes just trying to find a reason to argue honestly. i mean its weird she wont argue with me. but you are right about that. i mean, you dont see buddhists or hindus shoving anything down their throat. the only time they ever answer a question on here is when its a question asking about their own religion.
Report as
@Brooke You're so hypocritical. Now you say it's an opinion, but before you say it like it's fact. "Because they are arrogant and think that Christians are better than everyone else.. And most christians are like this.." Does that sound like an opinion to you? Uh, no. Anyone with common sense should know that for something to be an opinion, you gotta say "I think" or "in my opinion." How was what you said so obviously an opinion? You gave NO indication of it. I only said "one" because you told me about one (now that I reread, I see you mentioned your grandmother. So two.) I'm sure you've had bad encounters with other Christians- I was only going off of what you had told me. You don't see Mormons or Buddhists criticizing you maybe because, as you said,"I've spent most of my life around Christians.." (Duhh...) What made this immature was your name calling, which contributes nothing to the argument. How can you expect me to stop commenting if you keep responding? It's rude to not respond, you know. Do not criticize me for responding if you’re doing the exact same thing. That’s called being a hypocrite.
Report as
@gob Again, that is your opinion. Maybe you rarely hear this because (I'm assuming you're American..?) Christianity is a dominant religion here. You probably rarely meet Muslims or Pagans.. Anyways, how do you know that a person's attitude is caused by their religion? If anything at all, this would be correlation, not causation. Some people who happen to be Christians also happen to be rude- so what? Now you gotta assume most of them are like this? By the way, it’s inevitable for you to meet Christians that are arrogant because most people are Christian. There have to always be arrogant people in this world, right? FYI, my school has got 3000 kids and I've never once discussed religion with anyone (even though I'm positive most of the kids there are Christians) No, I don't see any Muslims or Buddhists criticizing me, but I don't see Christians, either. What you and Brooke are not understanding is that Christianity is way too broad of a religion to say any of the people share a define trait; just not happening. And by the way, the most argumentative people on this site are atheists and Christians. Atheists because (on this site) they're always on religious threads arguing against Christianity, and Christians because they're doing the same. They're definitely not all alike in personality. Yes they're supposed to follow Jesus in their actions- but most of them don't really. They just go to church and read the Bible, but the rest of their life doesn't typically revolve around their religion. Outside of church, most Christians are just like any other non Christians. "the ones that are horrible and pathetic are showing what an example of a christ follower is" What...? Again, their religion has little to do with their personality (most of one's personality stems from birth) I'm trying to find a reason to argue just as much as you are. I disagree, so I am commenting- why do you and Brooke have such an issue with that? That's the whole point in commenting. Anyways, nobody in person has ever shoved anything down my throat
Report as
you dont get it do you? im not talking about personality, im talking about behavior. if you say you believe something then you should act it out. if you say you think killing is wrong then you shouldnt kill, cuz youre going against yourself. youre not understanding what im saying because you think youre right. my point is, its christians and atheists that are always doing stuff like that. being stupid and arrogant. its never the buddhists, or the hindus, or whatever. its rarely ever them. like i said, the ones that are horrible and pathetic are showing what a christ follower is like. you tell me thats what you bellive but you act differently. so why cant i? what makes you any different than me, because youre a christ follower? thats what im trying to say. no, i already told you what im trying to say. and here you go, giving me a long paragraph that means nothing. and yes most people are christian. but why do you think this is? because before this, not many people could be anything else! they were forced to either believe in something they really didnt believe or they had to hide it. and why is that? it was because of christians. it wasnt because of a few christians, because a minority sure doesnt affect most of the nation like that. it was because most christians were like that. they thought if you didnt believe then you were bad. in fact some people were even killed just because they didnt believe. yeah america is made up of mostly christian but thats only because no one ever got a chance to ever do anything. it was because of people who supposedly followed the bible that that happened.
Report as
i dont think you get what im saying. again, rarely do you ever see hindus or buddhists arguing about religion. its because of christians and atheists. i mean us atheists have to at least defend our own view. i mean we have all these christians trying to shove their reliigon down our throats just because theyre unhappy. and then we have the christians shoving everything down peoples throats. yeah i might not be including you in that and maybe some others. but what you dont realize is that its because of most christians that most of this nation is christian. because they dont allow anyone to believe anything else or you are ridiculed. its because of them taht this nation is christian. you dont get what im saying.
Report as
Your a very Annoying person to have a conversation with. Your using everything I say against me and twisting it all around to your advantage.. Grow up.. It obviously is an opinion.. That's like if someone asks "what's the prettiest color?" and I respond "blue is the prettiest color" we all know it's not a fact, it's an opinion.. But I didn't have to say "I think" or "in my opinion to know that.. If you don't understand what I'm trying to say then please butt out.. Of course I'm going to respond to what you say because it's under MY answer.. If you don't like my answer then please go comment on your own answer and debate with yourself about stupid things that dont make sense.. Because no matter what YOU say, it's not going to change my opinion or the way I feel.. So goodbye and have nice night
Report as
@gobstoneninja
Thanks for backing me up here.. This chicks just ridiculous haha
Report as
Looks like my last comment was too long, so it did not post the last part. Anyways, I meant to say that this is not going anywhere and goodbye. Maybe if that'd been included you guys wouldn't have responded #-__- To be clear, what made you think I'm a Christian, gob? I never said I was. And that's a total stereotype that Christians shove their beliefs down throats. Honestly, atheists just like to say that to play victim (just like how you're saying you're defending yourself..) Of course I've used the same in an argument, but over time I've realized that it's not really true. And you can't just use the distant past to make a generalization about a person now. What you do no understand is that every single religion has been persecuted and killed because of their beliefs (Yeah, that includes Christians) You two did seem to be discussing personality, since arrogance is a personality trait... What you're saying isn't true, because there are plenty of radical Muslims who have done terrible things, however that does not mean one should assume all of them are like that. Or, does what you say only conveniently apply to Christians? By the way, behavior and personality go hand in hand. One's personality typically determines their behavior.. I gave you a long paragraph to explain what I'm saying. I doubt you'd understand it if I tried to make it concise (considering you aren't even understanding it as is) Yes, Christians were terrible in the past. And yes, most people were forced to be them. So what does that have to do with what we're talking about now? Rulers back then used religion simply as a cover for their own personal motives- most of their actions did not have to do with the religion itself. You're only stating the obvious and what's been known for a long time now. People didn't know a thing back then so they all had ridiculous beliefs. So what? That was THEN. And you're being very unfair. Many atheists shove their beliefs just as Christians do. Like I said, you're only playing victim. Neither party is innocent.
Report as
@Gob I understand perfectly what you're saying. I just feel that you don't completely understand what you or I am saying right now. So I'm finished talking. Wish I could have typed more to help explain to you. Goodbye.
@Brooke Your comparison doesn't really make sense of what you're trying to say. What you were saying was obviously of a completely different nature. Are you new to this site..? Just because this is your answer has nothing to do with who can comment on what. Okay, if I'm not changing anything, then I guess this is an argument for the sake of arguing (and like I've said, you can't blame me for commenting back. That's the whole point) Goodbye then. (I'm sure one of you is gonna comment back just to have the last word....)
Report as
Add a comment...

because they cant do the opposite without the bible. i mean i guess its their approach really. i mean i think its stupid to try to prove or disprove god considering science does neither. in order to be a scientific fact, something must be shown. in order for it to be shown, there must be an experiment showing it. and in order for there to be an experiment, the thing in question must physically be there. which is why some of the most complex human-made elements are not considered actual elements and proven to be there. because if they cant stay long enough to take place during an experiment, they cannot be fact. but i guess they just find it an approach.

Helpful (3) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (4)
Report as
What? All you said was zero,nothing that's why I fallow My Saviors Word the Bible,Jesus My Savior.
Try It plenty of room,at least you can learn something,because if your wrong about Jesus it doesn't matter what your right about,You need to be right, who Jesus Is period nothing else.
Report as
dude, i cant even figure out what you just said!
Report as
and all i said was zero? is this how you argue with logical thinking? actually being able to explain something by thinking for myself? you said zero? thats your best argument? really thats pitiful
Report as
lol
Report as
Add a comment...

Sorry we gave you that feel, but us Christians waNt people to follow and love Jesus because we know he made the universe and He's our father... I guess some of us are like a bossy brother or sister

Helpful (3) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (3)
Report as
Yes, what I meant in my question was when Christians say "prove god isn't real" which is about as impossible and pointless as proving unicorns or mermaids aren't real. I know not all of you are like this, but the ones who are really annoy me.
Report as
I think Christians get really tired of being told to " prove God" that it's their turn to say " prove there isn't." kind of goes both ways.
Report as
The fact is, Christians have the burden of proof. They say that god is real, and expect us to believe it without an iota of proof. We can't prove that he doesn't exist, it's impossible to prove a negative.
Report as
Add a comment...

What better way to hold on to a false belief system then by making it impossible to disprove. And they have no desire to attempt to prove it true themselves, so for them it's a win, win.

Helpful (4) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (1)
Report as
And there's a teapot in orbit around the sun - prove me wrong. Can't? Then it must be true ;-)
Report as
Add a comment...
just_saying

This isn't an answer, but a thank you. I appreciate the word "some" in your question. I tire of people lumping all people in a group together, whether they are Christians, atheists, musicians, whatever. Thanks!

Helpful (5) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (1)
Report as
You're welcome! I understand not everyone acts the way some people in their religion do.
Report as
Add a comment...

They let their faith overcome their reasoning. They pride themselves on the blind adherence to it. It is like trying to reason with a republican. THey are right no matter what evidence is presented to the contrary. I would call that blind stupidity.

Helpful (3) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (1)
Report as
I would call this blind stupidity, as well. You can't just say everyone who belongs to a specific political party or religion are all the same. Like the above answer says, stop lumping people altogether.
Report as
Add a comment...

All truths carry the burden of proof, either it be a positive or a negative truth. one defense that some theists and some atheists use, is that both try to argue the other's truth has no proof. Which in either case is illogical, because one can not use the lack of evidence as evidence. God bless.

Helpful (4) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (8)
Report as
I am sorry if I wasn't clear. Let me explain it this way. Evidence of absence: I don't have any change in my pocket. Upon emptying pockets we see there is no change. The negative claim still had a burden of proof and was satisfied by using absence as proof. Lacking evidence: at one time we had no proof of bacteria and viruses. It was believed that an unbalance has occurred within the 4 humors, and that was the cause of ailments. But, just because we could not prove bacteria and viruses at that time, didn't mean they were not the culprits for our ailments. Today humorism is a dismissed as nonsense. Also, this was not directed to atheists in general, but to thise individuals who do make this mistake; either they be atheists or theists. I did try to get that across, sorry if i failed. As for my comment that all truths require a burden of proof, I still stand by it. Other wise one could simply say antimatter doesn't exist, or even gravity for that matter. Because I took the negative route, I do not have to prove it, the burden is on the other to prove them. Before you state we fill the effects of Gravity, and use it as proof, can't one make the same argument for God; that we fill the effects of God and use it as proof. But I will admit we are anticipating to be able to see gravity in the form of waves with advanced LIGOR (long I). But that still leaves antimatter. Which according to our own theories, we won't be able to prove. Because as soon as antimatter comes in contact with matter a violent explosion occurs (unless there is a way to examine antimatter that I am not familure with). Now I am not saying I don't believe in them, just exemplifying how all truths positive or negatives have a burden of proof. Thanks for commenting. God bless.
Report as
I was hoping the parameters were understood in my analogy, thus eliminating the fallacy, It was implied though. But to establish them, one cannot see (maybe we will in the near future though), hear, touch, smell, or taste gravity (don't forget antimatter as well/ I did through that in there). Now that the parameters are set, maybe we can examine the analogy and use it for what it's actual purpose was intended; clarification. Here is the kicker, I agree with you. You accept how gravity manifests itself as proof, the only difference is; I accept to choose to acknowledge the Lord's manifestations. But we are getting side tracked. We were not asked to prove God's existence, or prove the existence of a spiritual life. My intent was to state all truths have a burden of proof, and the dangers when we just accept a claim without challenging it. I also tried to utilize humorism, along with science, to establish how this creates issues. Again, I believe in gravity, antimatter, bacteria, and viruses; our only difference is when it comes to God. I chose to acknowledge the manifestations of God as well. Now I am not trying to convince you of God, I am not even trying to change your mind about all truths having the burden of proof (actually, according to your parameters, I am at a disadvantage, you are claiming a negative thus no proof is needed on your part ;)). I am just providing my own perception. If you feel it is okay to accept certain truths with out proof, I am fine with that. God bless
Report as
Wisert at the end of the day your dealing with a "troll" on your comments that will say things that these "Laws" "just are" there... He can give you no account...
-- when put to the question, he went so far as to say Philosophy was "bunk" and ""the Laws of Logic and Non-contradiction were my Laws not his""" lmao....
-- When the Atheist is backed into the corner these are the REPLY's you will get... Notice that they scoff but "never" can they explain ... But there faith in naturalism is 100% and yet unproven... They want "no God" .. I say give them what they beg for.
Report as
Amen spang. Thanks for the support. The thing is, I just wanted to say that all truths have a burden of proof and leave it at that. God bless brother!
Report as
Yep and I agree!
Report as
Yes, indeed! The "you can't prove a negative" comment smells strongly of a divergent tactic. An assertion is a belief and irreducibly so. If it weren't then it's not an assertion. It would be like saying "the sun is going to shine on my part of the earth tomorrow, but really don't think so" Lol. Also, the whole issue of "evidence" can create a lot of confusion since in truth evidence is in the eye of the beholder. There exists no golden standard that is universally understood as pure human intelligence regarding how and when data is evidence or not. The atheist and theist have their own presuppositions it just seems that the atheist just sweeps that question under the carpet while most theists will happily admit "I have faith". Not that there aren't "honest atheists" out there and certainly honest doubt, but when someone is pointed out that there unbelief requires a faith in something somewhere down the line and they continue to shirk the rational responsibility to own up to it....well it's a thing that makes me go hmmmmm! God bless you all. ;)
Report as
Thanks dk. I agree many atheist seem to fail to acknowledge their own level of faith. Many seem to think that it is limited to just religion, which those individuals couldn't be more wrong. God bless you too!
Report as
Proof of what? Are you trying to change this into an argument about God's existence? If so, to what ends? Do you wish for me to change my mind? We would need to have a much more efficient forum for that. Are you wanting to prove your intellect? If so go to one much wiser than I, and truly earn that victory. I don't understand your point. I stated that I require a burden of proof for all truths. You have stated that you accept some truth without requiring that proof. I am fine with you doing so. Are you wanting me to change my mind, and through some epiphany declare that I will now accept certain truths without proof? Again we will need a more efficient forum for us to discuss this in depth before that happens. Remember, you came in my conversation to, through your misunderstanding, wrongly accuse me of logical fallacies. I have already stated how you were wrong in declaring these fallacies. Using the lack of evidence is different then using absence as evidence, and it is illogical to do so. It is logical to use an analogy, if the audience is struggling with understanding your point. For the sake of argument, let's say I did commit these fallacies; the bottom line is you are willing to accept truths with out proofs, and I am fine with that. Your salvation is between you and God. I am not your judge. I just believe truth has a burden of proof. So, I wish you and your family many blessings from the Lord (no offense, I know you are an atheist, but what kind of Christian would I be if I didn't).
Report as
Add a comment...

You can believe what you want. It's non CHRISTians who insist we prove GOD is real.

Helpful (3) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (2)
Report as
If you want "non CHRISTians" to believe in your god, you have to prove it.
Report as
If non CHRISTians are willing to see, they will. I have nothing to prove. Believing IS seeing. I will not throw pearls before swine.
Report as
Add a comment...

Because that is their only possible argument. It's like,
Prove God exists!
Oh yeah? Prove he DOESN'T exist muahahaha

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (2)
Report as
It's illogical to try to prove a negative. Do you believe in Zeus? Prove he doesn't exist! Muahahaha!
Report as
Yeah I knowwww.
Report as
Add a comment...

The Atheist can't prove it's case for "naturalism" but begs the question to the Theist to prove Gods existence...
Quite hypocritical don't you think?
I sure do...
The Atheist stands on his faith of "Naturalism" and is then ruled and controlled by that unproven assumption....
Yet the Atheist will use Laws that they cannot even philosophically account for being in there worldview..... And still argue from a standpoint that it's "natural".... what does this show??
it shows the Atheist isn't logically looking for proof...... The Atheist wants "no God".....
If mans will is bent to rejecting God I say let them have what they want and deserve.... No God

Helpful (3) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (21)
Report as
Green, spang. I love reading your posts!
Report as
flipflop53
Amen Brother Spang. That's what I say too. Thank you.
Green
Report as
Thank you wisert, Flipflop.. I love your inputs as well !
God Bless !
Report as
God bless you too brother!
Report as
Spang. Again, very nice. I've still yet to hear a materially significant answer to that central point you've made from an atheist. I do think that I've noticed a tempering of some on here after driving that point home with them, which really makes them more along the lines of being agnostic. The only things I've heard to try to ovoid your point are the paper thin veils of "you can't prove a negative" and "disbelieve is not a belief". I will point out that I feel that there are some atheists that are "honest" and struggle with issues outside of the philosophical quandaries of the topic. Also, I sometimes point out how many "believers" may in fact really be essentially atheists since it seems many do not live in a manner that would really reflect that there is God as revealed in the bible...do we all really believe God??
Report as
Hey DK.... Thank you and yes Ive noticed that as well...
//
-- There is only one that appears to just call philosophy "bunk" and say "there my laws and not his""... But it makes the educated man appear even more foolish by those statements
//
-- it appears that to God their is no such think as a Atheist. Romans 1:18 is very clear.. ""KNOWING the truth, they SUPPRESS it in unrighteousness"""
..
Report as
Neo... I'm sure this post seems VERY
Incoherent to you ;)
-- you seem to be the "poster child" of the "Atheist troll" that give other Atheist a bad image.
-- Rather than attempt a answer to my question... You choose the statement a ignorant individual would say when you call Philosophy "bunk"
//
-- you even go so far as to say that Philosophy uses "no evidence" !!!
Lmao!
-- What's sad is that without Philosophy science would NEVER have been what it is today... It is even as "Cere" points out , the VERY "underpinnings" of the scientific method... That YOU use.!!!
//
Im beginning to think your problem isn't ignorance buts your problem is leaning towards sheer stupidity to state absurdities like you do.
//
-- You "Neo" even go so far as to saw ""the Laws of Logic and Non-contradiction are MY laws and NOT yours"""
//
-- ARE you really that naive, ignorant or stupid, or do you just hate the idea of God so much that your willing to sound irrational and stupid to ignore pure logic and reason.???????
//
-- A intelligent person would explain how Philosphy is "Bunk"
-- A intelligent person would show me how a philosopher doesn't use evidence
-- A intelligent person would show me how these are my Laws and not yours.
//
-- But all you seem to be able to do is name call, and deny.... But you NEVER explain yourself ......
-- your lack of a educated response void of ANY intellectual retort shows me your true colors... Therefore your words to me are that of a emotional child trapped in the body of a 60 year old retired biologist that wants to bang his rattle at God.... By all means bang away. ;)
Report as
What did you say?
-- I couldn't hear you over your banging....
-- I wouldn't address your foolish remarks anyway...
-- move on to the more gullible please.
Report as
Btw if your VERY BEST ANSWER is that I'm saying "disconnected spew"
But don't back up you say with ANYTHING intelligent,
-- you become the middle school child that places his thumbs in his ears and sticks his tongue out when he can't answer for his statements..
-- the sad thing is you say your 60 and educated... Ugh sigh..... Really?
I can't tell.
Report as
Pseudo-cleverness??? Really??
//
- Do you deny you said these absurd statements???
Here's what you said verbatim ;)
1. "Philosophy doesn't use evidence"
2. "Philisophy is "bunk"
3. "The Laws of Logic and Non-Contradiction are MY Laws NOT YOURS""
//
Go ahead explain yourself...
IM WAITING....
-- You say I'm clever?? I quote your ignorant reply's.... How is that clever?
OMG - your like dealing with a child.
//
Defend your three statements above or go troll someone less astute...

Report as
Neo.. IM STILL WAITING
Report as
So you don't deny your statements.
I REST MY CASE.
//
-- There can be NO rational discourse with a man, such as you, that says those ( 3 ) statements...
//
-- You don't want proof.. You want no God..
And you've just shown me and everyone else that reads this that you will deny clear facts about Philosophy and it's underpinnings for Scientific method, not to mention, and Laws of Logic to have no God.
-- I just had a conversation with a mental patient :-/
Good day...
Report as
I don't have to review a thing... :-)
//
-- You JUST made my day ;) thanks!
//
-- You proclaim to be a Evolutionary Biologist??.... I guess you never used "Scientific method" then.... Because it came from Philosophy... :-)
Do they use "Scientific Method" in biology??? Lol ... Sure they do!!!
I guess that makes Biology , in your limited understanding , "bunk" as you put it !! Lol
//
Again ... I'm talking to a mental patient.. That's obvious..
For the ones that desire to be educated on the impact of philosophy in science... Please read the link below ...
Neo cannot answer a simple philosophical question that he can't defend in his Atheistic Worldview... So this becomes his answer....
""PHILOSOPHY IS BUNK"" lol
Thanks Neo!! You made my night! ;)
Goodnight ...
Here's the link everyone ...
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CA4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjcmooreonline.com%2F2010%2F12%2F28%2Faristotles-enduring-contribution-to-science-education-and-physics%2F&ei=Z4dWULOVOpCy9gTByICoDA&usg=AFQjCNHfuCbt0VvYrsYvL4eKSW3I-5pjzQ

Report as
Report as
Report as
Spang, indeed...from God's perspective. However the "vain philosophies" defile humanity's natural knowledge of God and thus from man's perspective there are "honest" atheists. There are different brands of atheism including the "practical" atheism of self proclaimed believers that simply live as though there is no God at all... or the existentially invalid theism of some that intellectually say God is but have no personal investment of trusting and actually relating to God. In light of that, there is really is no clear line between those that CLAIM to believe vs those that CLAIM not to believe. In the end God certainly knows our intents and separates the sheep from the goats. ;)
Report as
@dkloven....
-- Yes... I agree ... Just like the Philosopher Hume'.... Hume assumed Naturalism rather than deal with the "pre-conditions" of experience , which he was critiqued badly for..
//
-- In regards to Neo.. My point has been made very clear. Instead of answering this question below.... Neo would rather appear foolish.
//
((((((((((( As an Atheist in your world view how do you account for the Laws of logic and contradiction that are, non-material , transcendent, universal, and invariant , yet the are not falsifiable but very meaningful.
You still are not accounting for the "Philosophical"reason that they are uniformity of the laws of logic and reason in a "Material", "Variant" Atheistic world view. ))))))))
//
- What's sadly funny and still makes me chuckle is that "Neo" did at first try to explain these Laws stating "Gauge Theory"... Now..., in attempting not appear more foolish Neo failed by stating they are my Laws and not his, and Philosophy is "Bunk"....lmao !
I don't waste my time for neo's sake ..
He's a 60 year old , unhappy, retired biologist troll.... I write this only to show the absurd lengths some will go to keep their worldview close to them like a "warm blankee".
Report as
"Gauge theory" simply put is the "interaction" of elementary particles that give "rise" to other properties...
//
NO ONE in there right mind in Physics will say this has ANYTHING to do with the Laws of Logic or Non-contradiction.....
//
Please show me one thing "other than your opinion" that shows "ANY" relationship between them..
ABSURD... You talk out of your neck a lot.... Just like your opinion of Philisophy... But without it you couldn't have learned biology... Idiot
Report as
Neo... Do you believe things you tell "yourself" , therefore there true? I can answer that. Yes it grossly appears you do.
//
Heres a leading Atheist..
//

Name: Dr. Gordon S. Stein ( PHD in Physics :-)
//
//
Senior Editor, Free Inquiry magazine
Consultant, Committe for the Scientific Investigation of the Claims of the Paranormal
Director, Center for Inquiry Libraries
Degrees:
//
Library Science Management, University of Rochester, Adelphi College and UCLA
Ph.D. Physiology, Ohio State University
//
Here is the debate between Him and
Dr. Greg Bahsen PHD in Philosophy
//
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1hSx2evTGM
//
You will NOT hear Dr. Stein saying the absurd , irrational , ludicrous statements you have made here.
//
-- I'm beginning to think your just a uneducated troll that believes WHATEVER comes out of YOUR OWN mouth..
//
-- I'll make you a deal.. SHOW me ANY evidence that "Gauge Theory" has ANYTHING to do with the Laws of Logic and Non-Contradiction.. And I'll leave this app... I want a link..
And if you can't .. You leave this app and take your absurd opinions with you
Report as
Btw ... In THAT DEBATE LINK ABOVE THAT ATHEIST WITH THE PHD IN PHYSICS WAS ASKED THE ""EXACT"" QUESTION I ASKED YOU..
Report as
Your "inability" to answer bores me as well.... That's why I posted a link to show what a Atheist PHD, in "PHYSICS" would and would "not" say when asked that question...
Report as
Add a comment...

Because they know they can't prove it so then they tell you to disprove it because they know it's impossible.

Helpful (2) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (29)
Report as
That may be true in many cases, however when someone says "there is no God" without proof or some kind of evidence then why wouldn't a "Christian" ask? Just like if a Christian says "there is God" without proof/evidence and a skeptic asks the Christian to prove it. I'm just sayin'...
Report as
Because the very idea of god is nonsense. That's why we say there is no god. There will no more evidence for the existence any god then there will be for leprechauns walking on rainbows. And we know there are no leprechauns.
Report as
Well to say "the idea of god is nonsense" as a reason for there not being "god" then that is actually a fallacy of reasoning (most commonly referred to as "begging the question") since to say it's nonsense is really just another way of restating the atheist position (at least materially speaking). Therefore saying it's "nonsense" establishes nothing as to supporting the claim of "no god".
Report as
Regarding the second half of your comment: God vs Leprechauns(on rainbows) represents another fallacy (one of mistaking the essence of one thing with that of another). God is not a leprechaun, weather they exist or not. The manner of having or obtaining evidence for one vs the other is unlikely to be the same in nature. For if there are or ever where leprechauns (funny story: my Irish music teacher in elementary camas actually told us that they were real!!!...in a public school Lol), then they would have been created by God if God in fact is (along with rainbows they presumably where on)....in other words there is a huge categorical difference between them. ;)
Report as
@dkloven: your arguments were so crappy i thought YOU even know what you just said
Report as
Gobstone,
Well I'm not the sharpest guy around here so yeah maybe I'm not aware of how crappy my comments were. It seems to me however that your comment made a claim without providing a basis for it....I'm curious how u see my "arguments" as "crappy".
Report as
oh, its the fact that you argue with elementary school logic, thats how. and what comment did i make that had no basis for it? i mean dude, i cant even explain to you how big of an epic fail that was. you argue with elementary school logic dude. your arguments are based on you trying to worm your way out of something even though its completely against you. okay, you make one argument that god cannot be compared to leprechauns cuz even if theyre real they would have been made by god. youre taking your argument into something that is irrelevant. it doesnt matter if it might have been created by god even if real or not. the point is, both god and leprechaun have one thing in common: they are both come from man's mind.
Report as
To be specific, it was your comment "your arguments were so crappy" that you provided no apparent basis for. Then u seem to have expanded it by saying my next comment was an "epic fail" (or something like that), again without a basis other than calling it "elementary school logic", which is no basis at all. That is just another claim(linguistic proposition) that also had no apparent basis.
Regarding god/leprechaun: if you aren't aware of the difference between the general Christian (as well as the overlapping Muslim and Jewish) definition of God then perhaps I can understand why u say seem to ignore a fundamental difference between those two. Your basis for why it doesn't matter what the supposed difference between the two are is irrelevant was the claim that they are both made up by people's minds. You seemed to brush over the fact that I said "if God is". Which shows that I'm not making a final claim but rather plainly showing what my presupposition was. Your last claim besides the previous two that God is made up in our minds was made by u without any basis let alone even how that is possible to even make up a being that has no source, that is absolute, that is the irreducible source of life and perception of it (God). The "leprechauns on rainbows" can certainly be made up in our minds easily since the idea of a short elusive human like person and such a thing being in some way "on" a rainbow all are linked to something tangible in the universe. Whereas God by definition can't be sourced to any mundane (tangible) thing humanly known in the universe. Anyways, I'll continue to discuss with u, but only if can name the logical fallacies you say I'm making ("elementary school logic" as u called it) and give a basis for your claims against mine.
Report as
Lillep, anything to share?...my comments were originally with u...
Report as
you argue with big words and you try to be so philosophical about it... but you make no argument whatsoever. its like me saying "in order to find the substance of the hidroliter, i must corregelate the theimine to the corrosive dehydrosubs, then i may inexplicably dehydrate the hydraulic system which causes a mantonic malfunction". yes those words are not real words but what sense are you even making? even if they were real words they still wouldnt be making any sense. its just basically trying to take big words and things you cant even half understand and use them for an argument just to make yourself sound like you know what youre talking about. believe me, im a philosopher, i think about things and i know about stuff like this. i know about things like all this. but as far as im concerned i cant possibly see what your point is! i mean your argument is so riddled with large words and things that dont even fit together its pointless just to argue with you.
Report as
Lol, yes I suppose it may sound like "big words" and is a bit on the abstract side of things. I'm sorry to sound that way, but I can assure u though that what I have said isn't new or things I just mixed together with no rhyme or reason. I'm actually not directly arguing as though I have "proof" for the existence of God. I'm directly challenging claims made by those that are saying they somehow know there is no God. Anyways, the invitation still stands...show me the faulty logic that I've made. At any rate, it's helpful for me to know when I'm not communicating well enough to be understood. I guess it comes from the type of books I read and forgetting to use illustrations to help clarify the abstract concepts.
Report as
well if it comes from the books you read then you must read some pretty stupid books. i mean you sound like science has proven there isnt a god and youre trying to move around the facts to show proof that there is a god (just a scenario). i mean i see a few points but i just dont see how you get your conclusions from those points. and i cant show you the faulty logic youve made. because personally i dont even know what logic youve given me.
Report as
Ok I fell asleep last night so that's why I wasn't responding. When I compare god and leprechauns it's because there are equally far fetched in their very nature, they are equally imaginative, and they both come from peoples minds. I could compare god to just about any super hero that's ever been thought up and god would still won't look any more real than a super hero. I'm saying that it's just common sense that such outlandish things don't exist so if god exists then it's just as likely that people can have super powers as well because they are both equally imaginative. And just because there will never be any proof that god doesn't exist doesn't mean there is even a possibility that he does exist. Telling me to prove that god doesn't exist is like me telling you to prove that there is not an invisible, silent, intangible dragon flying over Los Angeles. How can you disprove that? Can you even disprove that? No, you can't. But we both know that my dragon claim is just nonsense so that's how we know that I am wrong about the dragon.
Report as
yeah, i think hes overthinking the whole analogy
Report as
dklovens overthinking it i mean
Report as
Yea and I think he just doesn't want to understand what we're saying because he doesn't want to admit that we have a good point.
Report as
Ok guys, sure I'm not meaning to ignore your analogy. I get the idea you're intending to show with it. I was just moving past the obvious element of the analogy and pointing out how it really is irrelevant to the question of God since leprechauns/invisible-dragons are not God. The only point you are making clear is your own presupposition that God is far fetched or merely invented in the mind. Something that many strike many as "far fetched" or "imaginary" does not mean that it must not be real. Just because I do in fact have a certain notion of God in my mind doesn't make that a basis for it being merely in my mind. I am imagining a mountain in my mind right now that I have seen...that does not make it ONLY in my mind. Now I'm not saying of course that just because I can imagine something in my mind must mean that it is real! Lol
The difference is that a mountain is based upon actual perceived mountains. In fact right now I'm imagining a mountain that is merely in my imagination, meaning its an actual image in my mind that if I was a good enough artist I could paint it for u. Yet, it's not a "real" mountain. Now how can we explain how I can conceive of such a unreal mountain? Well the only explanation is that i conceive of it because I have seen "real" ones. Now regarding conceiving God in my mind, how can I conceive of something that has no other parallel (an absolute source that is the source of the perceivable reality itself) unless it is based on something that is in fact real. Why can't that be true like anything ales we have in our minds? You might say well what of the invisible flying dragon? Such a thing is only imaginary. Well actually a dragon is either real (large lizard like a Kimono Dragon) or based upon images or a combination of images of known creatures. Also, the "flying" part is also based upon something that is real (flight is known to be real). Ten there is the invisible. This may depending on how u mean the specific use of the word, it may in fact be a parallel to God or on things we have perceived (like not be able to see items in a room right after the light is turned off in a room that has no adequate source of light). The same analysis can be made of any analogous example u wanna use (FSM, leprechauns, unicorns, etc.). God on the other hand (at least Yahweh, the God of the bible) can by definition not be parallel to anything of the perceivable universe, yet we can perceive Go non the less. Am I saying that I just proved God is real, certainly not. Only that it isn't necessarily unreasonable to rationally consider God to be real. There are
Report as
Sorry for the long comment...I think it cot cut off at the end. Regarding the "stupid" books I've been reading. I don't follow all what they say, I was just pointing out why maybe it sounded like I was using "big words". It wasn't because I was trying to sound smart or "trying" to use big words. Basically the reading I do is of authors that hold a Phd in their respective fields and often multiple Phds or additional masters degrees along with their primary doctoral thesis....I guess you're saying they are stupid Phds?? Lol
Report as
It seems to me that you are saying that nothing can be created in our minds that isn't based on something that already exists. That's kind of true but you still dot get what I'm saying. Just because imaginative things are based on things that are real, that doesn't mean that they could ever be possible. For example I'll use super man. We know that flying is real, lasers are real, hurricane winds are real, being very strong is real, running fast is real. Those are all real things that are exaggerated by the character but the actual character, Clark Kent, we know is not real and everything that he does we know is impossible. Yes, boulders are real and fire is real and rain is real. But the character god raining down fire balls from the sky is not real. Let's be honest with each other. We both know that Greek god like Poseidon, Apollo, Athena, Hades, etc. are not real. But we don't have any real proof that says they are not real. We don't need any proof because we just know that they are impossible. Another thing about believing in god is that just because some people in one part of the think that he is possible, that still doesn't make him anywhere near possible. If you were born in China you would very likely be part of Confucianism or Buddhism, etc. If you were born in India you would very likely be Hindu. If you were born to native Americans it is very likely you would worship mother nature (or whatever they worship). And you would believe in any of those just as strongly as you believe in god. That is just another thing to consider when talking about people's belief in god.
Report as
I'll respond tomorrow...i think now we're getting a little closer to clarity from both sides! ;)
Report as
Ok, well I can't prove nor disprove the Greek pantheon. Neither can I regarding the One True God. It's only that our minds as far as any of us can demonstrate base what they imagine upon what is "real". I like your analogy of superman. We know (not absolutely, but reasonably) that Clark Kent isn't real, however like u pointed out all the components that when put together creatively are real. Except we would generally say the "impossible" things about him aren't. I agree, from a general human sense perception perspective. However, if such "super human" features utterly do not and can not exist in ANY form then how can it ever enter our mind? As far as we can experience with anything else that we have in our minds they always stem from what is. So, it is not at all unreasonable to consider that the creative process in our minds that synthesizes different features together to imagine a superman likely ALL stem from what is real...including the God characteristics of superman or the Greek Pantheon, Egyptian gods, so on and so forth. So, in other words how can it be possible that we can even think in our minds that there is a being that is utterly irreducible, absolute and having perfect knowledge, etc unless there be that that very being?....God. There is nothing in our minds that are not sourced from something that is in some way knowable to us. I choose to seek that God. It seems that is why we enjoy "imagining" superheroes in movies, novels, ancient stories and the like. Perhaps because there is in fact a reality to that universal hunger.
Report as
We could analyze any example in the same way... FSM, magical invisible unicorns, Loche, etc.
Report as
So are you saying that it is even possible that Clark Kent, the hero of the superman comics, is real? No. I'm sorry but that is not possible. Such super human features enter our minds because of our natural ability of imagination and creativity. There is no limit to what we can imagine. A 5 yr old can imagine some of the craziest things anyone can think of. I don't get why this is so hard for you to understand the concept of imagination and reality and why it's so hard for you to distinguish between what is real and what's impossible.
Report as
No I think I really get what you're saying...that there are things we can think in our minds that truly are impossible for us humans and that there may be no limit to what we can imagine creatively. Im only saying that those "God" like qualities we imagine may very well come to us not out of nothing but out of something that is in fact real: God. Just like we can imagine all the other "possible" elements of an imaginary creature or thing. If u are saying that we can actually imagine things that have no source to something that is real then u are saying we can think things out of literally nothing. But how do know that for certain. Nothing we have experience of comes from an absolute "nothing". So why is it that when we easily and quite naturally imagine something of a "God" quality that must conclude that it isn't because that there is a reason besides "nothing"...the reason being that there actually is God? Just because it's impossible for a human to have such a quality (like the God-like qualities imagined in superman) doesn't automatically make it based upon something that isn't there. If the "real thing" (God) is in fact real then that is a natural response of the mind to creatively imagine things that in some way reflect God. Why else can we imagine those things?
Report as
Omg! Sorry, I really should proof read before posting!! Lol
It should say something more like *So why when we easily and quite naturally imagine things that have a "God" quality must we conclude that it's base upon "nothing"? The reason we can imagine it would be because it has a root in what is real....
Report as
I know I have explained this already. The qualities of a god are actually based on things that we know are real. The thing is is that the qualities are so dramatically exaggerated. Back in those days, they knew about fire, floods, lightning, boulders, sickness, pain, torture, healing, love, punishment, kings, etc. So they did not base their imaginary god on nothing. Especially back then, they had no real explanations for just about anything natural. If a drought happened then they would have no idea as to why it could have occurred. They couldn't even grasp the concept of a drought. So their best explanation wa that their almighty king of the world had caused it because he was angry with them. A fair amount of people have been indoctrinated as children and spent a large portion of their lives worshipping god and much later in their lives they finally come to their senses. I have heard a lot of stories about atheists and agnostics whos lives were a wreck and they didn't know what to do so, feeling helpless, they just get deaparate and pray to god. Then, some time later, something good happens and they think "oh my, there is a god!". When actually something good was bound to happen eventually. I find that in most of those stories the people were all just looking for some kind of emotional appeal.
Report as
Also, I think that the thought is in most of us of "how could there just be nothing after death?" "we humans are so great so how can we just die and that's it?". People want there to be something thing that they can go on to and hold on to. The thought that we will die and our bodies will decay and we will disappear scares us. So many people want to think we'll be happy ever after so bad that we will be willing to accept any seemingly possibility. Just because you cannot actually disprove any god, that doesn't mean there is even a chance that something like thy actually exists. Some people grasp on tightly to that fact that god can't be disproven and that is a big reason for them to justify that their god actually exists. Another thing is their mind set. One example is that many christians don't believe in chance but they believe in miracles. An example for that could be that so many people who acquire cancer die from it. Buy some people actually beat their cancer. If a christian person beat cancer then they would automatically think it was god that did it. But someone like me would just be happy that they beat the incredible odds. There is no way around trying to convince them because in their minds, god can do anything which means that, for them, anything is possible. But I'm reality not everything is possible and they just can't comprehend that.
Report as
Thnx for reading and responding!
Wow, a lot of good things to talk about and much of it agree with actually...no way I have time for all you brought up, especially in the second of the two last posts u made.
Yes, I didn't directly acknowledge your point about the characteristics of say superman being based on things we as humans actually know of (via sense perception, I'm assuming that is the mode of knowledge you are referring to when u speak of things that we know). Perhaps superman isn the best example (though I think it stillserves to illustrate my point). Take Thor or his brother Locke(sp?) from the Avengers as an example. They both certainly have lots of mundane "earthly" elements that we "know" are real. However they have qualities that are not just exaggerated, but actually are specifically God-like. These characters in the movie combine things that we "know" with things that by definition are exclusively of a God nature. Characteristics that are God-like are definition not "things" that we know of via sense perception (empirical knowledge), otherwise they couldn't be called that. The bottom line is that we have a "knowledge" of who God is without having anything ales to refer to. The God of the bible does not make God to be just a physical phenomenon like terrible storm or the sound of the wind. Though the bible uses these as well as anthropomorphic (man-like) qualities as analogies to teach about God, it clearly reveals God to be in essence a wholly other being that is absolute and irreducible that both transcends and involves God's self in the universe. This God has no "known" basis other then Himself and yet we can imagine this God all the same....weather we believe in Him or not changes nothing of this reality. There is no need to equate superstition or "spooky" or blind faith notions with the One True God that is the source of the universe.
Well, anyways I'm gonna work out now and crash.... Latter Dude
Report as
Ok. Yea I'm tired and my eyes are starting to shut and my brain hurts so I'll get back to you tomorrow!
Report as
Add a comment...

In a logical debate - the person making an assertion - such as "God exists and loves humanity" - has the obligation to back this assertion with evidence. What evidence is offered? The testimony of ancient men - testimonies that have been massaged, adulterated, edited, improperly translated, for thousands of years. In a courtroom such "evidence " would not even qualify as "hearsay" and would quickly be ruled "in admissible" as valid evidence. The more honest religious understand this problem of evidence deficient belief and will simply admit that they believe anyway - they congratulate their irrationality by framing their evidence deficient beliefs as "virtuous" - commendable - of which they take great sanctimonious pride (obviously not all of the faithful). The counter argument is of course, why does skepticism and a need for verifiable claims of the religious by the non-believers even exist? This now forces the question of what constitutes "free will" - which we now know is not quite as free as we have always assumed. That conundrum forced religion to invent the opposite of God - Lucifer or Satan. Man is then a pawn being pulled by great supernatural forces to submit him to religious servility to his imagined celestial dictator or devilish mind twisting games to turn the gullible human away from God. The atheist is not mired in supernatural belief - and is more stringent in advocating belief, given the current evidence. Atheists do not believe personal self-deception and intellectual dishonesty, no matter how encased in ritual, is a virtue, but instead, a pathetic lack of courage to face reality as we know it - not as we've been told by less than reliable ancient men or as we wish it to be.

Helpful (3) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (16)
Report as
Oh no...you've got him started up again... You know I'm teasing you friend!
Report as
I couldn't resist.
Report as
Cerebrogasm, I love your brain.
Report as
Cere... You live in Vegas... You can't resist ... That is CLEAR!!! 8-D
Report as
Cgasm, I finally responded under the previous discussion where u and Spang were also talking about trollers. I'll check back there. Otherwise there is plenty under answer here to take the pleasure to comment under... I'll first see if u respond in the other thread. :)
Report as
Neo: I'm going try to stay neutral - I'll give you my take on anyone - including myself - as much as can be understood through this tiny window into any person's life. Why do you think Spang is a fraud? Fraud in what way (there are many kinds of frauds)? By any chance - are you a psychologist? All I ask - is no matter how ticked off anyone gets you - try to keep it civil - as in no name-calling. Spang: if you're reading this - please let him speak before responding - I'm not sure if you guys have some history sparring with each other that I'm unaware of - I'd like to be brought up to date - I'm kind of the debate moderator on this one. ;-)
Report as
Belly dancer: what a great compliment - why thank you, fellow desert dweller; the only downside with brain-love, however, is that human brains have no sensory nerve endings. ;-)
Report as
dk: ok, I just signed on - I remember some discussion about trolling - it happened quite a lot on another big blog, The Huffington Post - it's a problem that comes with the nature of the medium. I'll respond to you when I find it - thanks.
Report as
What happened to the "Fraud (aka "charlatan") debate between Spang and Neo? I can start it off with a question to Ask if you wish - not in this language, but more to the topic - I'll try to get more specific - and detail a rule of no name-calling, no matter how ticked off you get - just walk away from the computer - cool off - and then jump back in the ring. Say the word.
Report as
Neodarwin,
Wow, I'm not sure if I want to really know how u feel. Yikes!
Well if it is the darwanian ideal you harken to then let "let survival of the fittest" take it's course. Time will tell if religion will die....although you allude to a value imperative by saying it "must die". Weather it "will" or
"must", which one best fits the impersonal "random" principal or survival of the fittest?
Report as
Cgasm,
It was a thread that u answered regarding "who was the true prophet of God..." question. Anyways, I appreciate your time in reading and responding.
Report as
Dk: - thanks - I'll find it.
Report as
Neo: I'll let you and Spang argue this out. Back to the issue - I have the same attitude about children - but most children, whether it's evolution or early development, trust authority with question. This is why religion targets children - they have yet to develop the ability to think critically, argue reasonably, insist on evidence back great claims, use logical inference while identifying smoke screens of logical fallacies, and have some historical - as in non-theist massaged history, information to work with. They have only been exposed to the religion they were born into - which is connoted to them as factual, replete with ritual, and a pile of rules, along with majesty of the church and the behaviors of adults caught up in religious hysteria (depending upon the religion). What chance does a kid have? This indoctrination is child-abuse in my view. Let's see the theists "sell" these bizarre, evidence-less stories to fully grown and mature adults. Only dire need to believe or some traumatic incident - or hallucination - will indoctrinate an adult - but not as easily if he or she is a natural skeptic and knows something about how the brain can be so self-decieving.
Report as
Neo Part 2: your second point alludes to the "God of the gaps" - whenever science can't completely explain something - which they no doubt are working on - such as the mechanism of abiogenesis - the whole in their continuum of rationale delights the theist - can't explain this? Must be God. This is not only fallacious and irrational thinking - it's absurd - the minute science does figure out what goes in that knowledge gap - theists must now find another gap to claim their God. The thing of it is, theists are running out of gaps.
Report as
Neodarwin,
As to your question if I am a "Spang", no I am not. I am what I am however and "who" I am is irrelevant as far as I can see. I am a "theist", but have very little power over others...I do like to dialogue, be challenged and to challenge. I do not seek a "god of the gaps" sins that would be no god at all as far as the One True God. There have always been "gaps" in our perception of reality, but if God be true then any such gaps are irrelevant to God. ;)
Report as
Neodarwin,
You really have no idea how many books I have cracked open, nor the age of them. My question remains unanswered. That's fine...it was a loaded question after all. Yet it was an honest one. Take care ;)
Report as
Add a comment...
Do you have an answer?
Answer this question...
Did you mean?
Login or Join the Community to answer
Popular Searches