- Joined
- Nov 3, 2010
- Messages
- 12,510
- Reaction score
- 12,605
- Location
- New York City
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
You cannot disprove the existence of God any more than anyone can prove it. It is a belief. Asking someone to prove something that is by definition un-provable is pathetic. You really seem to have this complex about you that whatever you believe and cannot prove is right and fact, and everyone who believes differently is stupid and should be mocked. Not much more pathetic of an argument than the one you put forth.
And before you cry about Christians again, yes it is just as pathetic when they mock your beliefs too. But that doesn't make you any less pathetic.
You are correct in that the concept of God by definition cannot be demonstrated. That means, without qualification, that it is fiction, or as related to reality, false.
To Christianity though, doesn't it teach that non-believers are sinners and will burn for eternity in hell? That's by definition, teaching discrimination as a core belief
You are the first Christian I have seen on these forums that has so succinctly agreed to that.
Go one level deeper as to WHY the behavior was engaged in, and there you may find good vs bad.
It would be astoundingly easy to prove the existence of a god. Literally any evidence of divine intervention would suffice. Intercessory prayer working, actual spontaneous creation of life, natural disasters actually being linked with adherence to biblical rules, sightings of angels, prophets publicly performing miracles, you name it...
You're missing it. It's not about subjective morality. It's any being consistent with your own beliefs. Atheists are not violating any self professed beliefs of tolerance, acceptance, turn the other cheek etc... For Christians it is..
Again, it's hypocrisy when tested against your own beliefs for Christians, atheists don't have a central dogma, so there is no conflict or hypocrisy.
I see what you are saying. But I don't hold Christians to any different standard than anyone else. I expect tolerance from everyone whether it is written in a book or not.
People who want to believe in God do see proof all over and see that it fits with their beliefs. Those who don't, don't see or acknowledge it or explain it another way. Perception is a big part of beliefs. But beliefs are just that. Beliefs. If you believe that there is no God, it is still a belief.
Christian candidates for office can definitely be discriminated against as a Mike Huckabee or a Ben Carson will be deemed unsuitable for high office because of their Christian views and studies or research done by some organizations will be dismissed as prejudiced or irrelevant because the organizations are founded on Christian values.
I agree with the first part. God cannot be proven or disproven. However you cannot assume that if something cannot be proven that it is then false.
No, big bang is a scientific theory, that has evidence to support it. It is by definition a claim about REALITY. God as you point out, CANNOT have evidence to support it. There are only two buckets you can put it in. real things - which all have evidence in reality. Non-real things, which are by definition NOT real, and thus any claim about "evidence in reality" is contradictory. There can be no evidence.Big bang cannot be proven for example, doesn't make it fiction. Many things that are accepted cannot be proven. To draw the line here. You have beliefs, which beliefs cannot or have not been proven, and you have facts, which can be proven.
Existence, in reality, is by definition not equal to "a belief". These are two different concepts, and we have different words to describe them, and they have demonstrably different meanings.The existence of God, either way in the argument is a belief.
Yes, you agree Christianity teaches discrimination. Of course it doesn't force people to act on it. It just encourages them to.No, I don't think it is. Christianity does teach that,
You believe false beliefs should be toelrated in science?I'm not Christian. I just believe in tolerance. I don't think Christians should be mocking or be intolerant of people with different beliefs, and I don't agree with it when people do it to them.
Then it would fall on you to prove your belief is true. You can talk all day about what you have to do or don't have to do. I don't have to prove my beliefs. Neither do you. Neither does anyone. They are beliefs. The fact that two people believe 2 different things doesn't make one except from proving or put burden on the other.
However, if you are going to call someone else's beliefs idiotic and all the hate you spew about Christians, you are making a definitive statement and then I would ask you to defend your position. You call people idiots and mock their beliefs and I ask you why they are idiots and why you attack them for believing differently than you and all you have is "i don't have to". We are right back to pathetic. Learn a little about tolerance. You cannot prove yoru beliefs any more than I can prove my. Which by your own logic, if you cannot prove your beliefs, then you are calling yourself an idiot.
Are you saying its ok for you to be an intolerant, idiotic, douchebag (by your own words) just because you've been doing it for 8 years?
And perception is not a big part of reality. I don't "believe that there is no god". It's not a belief, not anymore than "believing" that JFK is dead. It's real. He was shot in the head. And gods are obviously made up. If they were real, then we would see proof all over even if it didn't fit with a belief someone already held. But we don't.
No, they're unsuitable for high office because they hold more loyalty to those beliefs than they do to the laws of this country, and because they would seek to impose those beliefs on the rest of us, in direct defiance of the constitution. They're unsuitable for an office where they swear to uphold and defend the constitution, because they make it very clear that they won't.
And that's when the discrimination comes in because you have no evidence - zero - nada - zip - that they would impose those beliefs on the rest of us or that they would use their religious beliefs to override the Constitution.
And perception is not a big part of reality. I don't "believe that there is no god".
.
It's not a belief, not anymore than "believing" that JFK is dead. It's real. He was shot in the head.
nd gods are obviously made up.
If they were real, then we would see proof all over even if it didn't fit with a belief someone already held. But we don't.
[/QUOTE]you are almost there! No, it is not an assumption. The only thing that we can know, that cannot be proven or disproven, by definition is something false, i.e. made up. If it were real, you CANNOT claim to know it cannot be proven...because that would be contradictory. So it cannot be real. That's just logic. I can break it down in simple form if you like.
No, big bang is a scientific theory, that has evidence to support it. It is by definition a claim about REALITY. God as you point out, CANNOT have evidence to support it. There are only two buckets you can put it in. real things - which all have evidence in reality. Non-real things, which are by definition NOT real, and thus any claim about "evidence in reality" is contradictory. There can be no evidence.
There are not other buckets we can put God in.
Existence, in reality, is by definition not equal to "a belief". These are two different concepts, and we have different words to describe them, and they have demonstrably different meanings.
Existence logically comes before belief. You cannot believe if you do not exist. And you cannot rationally believe something exists, when there is no evidence by your own admission, to support that claim.
Yes, you agree Christianity teaches discrimination. Of course it doesn't force people to act on it. It just encourages them to.
You believe false beliefs should be toelrated in science?
How about schools, should we tolerate teachers teaching demonstrably false things?
what about hospitals, should they refuse treating someone who is dying because of their "religion"?
Should you tolerate a christian bomber who blows up clinic where your daughters husband worked?
Tolerance is neither good nor bad. Tolerance is justifiable in certain situations, and unjustifiable in others. It's good in some situations, and bad in others.
If you're just "tolerant" always, I don't believe that's a good thing. It's kind of nice to be around I bet thoughI'm quite tolerant too, but only in situations where I don't think it really matters or in public space. Remember, Christians who push faith-based laws don't just discriminate in the public square though, they go way, way beyond that into the legal square. You tolerate that? For shame.
I'd like you to go further with this.
Yes you do believe there is no God. You cannot prove it, therefore it is a belief. It is something you believe.
If I had a belief, I would. I don't. I just reject your belief based on lack of evidence. I'm not the one making the claim here, the theist is. I'm the one saying I'm unconvinced by their claim.
Do try again though.
But we don't need evidence they are wrong, they need evidence they are right and barring that evidence, their beliefs are not worth taking seriously. There's no discrimination involved.
But we don't need evidence they are wrong, they need evidence they are right and barring that evidence, their beliefs are not worth taking seriously. There's no discrimination involved.
You do have a belief. You express it often and mock those who believe differently. By that logic, I reject your belief based on a lack of evidence. And you are making a claim. For instance:
I don't believe God exists. That is what you are claiming to believe. That is fine and I respect that.
God does not exist and anyone who believes differently is an idiot and a douchebag. That is a statement of fact. And as a statement of fact, it is not unreasonable for me to ask you to prove it.
You're so close, yet so clueless. You just said it and then screwed it all up. I don't believe God exists. That isn't a belief, it's a lack of a belief. Learn the difference.
Do you think they are?
Why? If I think you are wrong in your opinion about a lot of things, should you have to be able to convince me you are right and I am wrong before you can be considered suitable to be elected to something? The Huckabees and Carsons are taken very seriously in their beliefs by anti-Christian, anti-religious types and they are declared unsuitable for high office because of those beliefs. Not because they can't prove they are right. They are dismissed or denigrated because they hold the beliefs.
You do have a belief. You express it often and mock those who believe differently. By that logic, I reject your belief based on a lack of evidence. And you are making a claim. For instance:
I don't believe God exists. That is what you are claiming to believe. That is fine and I respect that.
God does not exist and anyone who believes differently is an idiot and a douchebag. That is a statement of fact. And as a statement of fact, it is not unreasonable for me to ask you to prove it.
We can certainly have a conversation about it, but whereas we can discuss specifics and present evidence, the religious can't do that, they have no evidence, they only have blind faith. They believe they're right because they get an emotional high out of believing it. They didn't objectively evaluate the evidence and reach a conclusion based on research, if they did, they'd have no use for faith. As such, they have earned no respect for their critical thinking skills.
I accept that the Huckabees and Carsons of the world really do believe what they believe. I also think that what they believe is absurd and ridiculous. They cannot defend their views rationally. Until they can, why should anyone give them what they have not earned?
Until God's existence is proven, then at best it's moot, but it doesn't even reach that level of evidence.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?