Do theists not comprehend the concept of disbelief in God? (minority, children)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nah...You hoisting my wallet is not a "World Standard" like "God Belief" is.
"No God Exists" is the extraordinary claim. So...PROVE IT!
Just as soon as you prove that invisible, non-detectable, one-legged horses don't exist. See just how dumb your claim is?
Quote:
Until then...the "Standard" (God Exists) will Reign Supreme, like it always has for thousands of years.
No so, lesser mortal. The standard has been that 'gods' exist not 'God'. 'God' is the monotheistic version found in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. ...and those religions do not encompass the 'world standard'. So small minion...go take a tablet and be quiet.
Just as soon as you prove that invisible, non-detectable, one-legged horses exist. See just how dumb your claim is?
No so, lesser mortal. The standard has been that 'gods' exist not 'God'. 'God' is the monotheistic version found in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. ...and those religions do not encompass the 'world standard'. So small minion...go take a tablet and be quiet.
Yes...that concept is the World Standard. Over the the concept I endorse, and the one you endorse.
BUT...I can, in fact, substantiate the concept I endorse (Pantheism) with Objective Proof of its validity...it is now on the Atheists to substantiate the concept they embrace with Objective Proof.
Whatcha got? I wanna see it.
BTW..."God" is a TITLE, not what you claim. Also..."invisible, non-detectable, one-legged horses" existing is NOT the "World Standard...and is almost as nuthin' a concept as Atheism. Well, not THAT bad, but almost.
Who ever suggested that atheism is a concept of nothing?
Most atheists believe very much in science, rationalism, logic and humanism, for example.
We just don't take to invisible spirit beings who create universes.
It has been said many times, right on this board, that based upon "Nothing on offer" in the way of data, proof, etc of God Existing...the Atheists have concluded that they reasonably determine that they should not believe in the existence of God.
The "Nuthin' Concept" based upon the flawed premise of nuthin' as far as evidence to prove the existence of any God.
Well said!
No it is not making a claim, otherwise, you would be hoist on your own petard about not making any claims about the existence of God. We are presenting our views and defending them. There is no requirement for anyone to accept them. In the religious world, it is called witnessing to their faith and hope.
That is a bogus requirement. Why would anyone believe what they don't have any good reason to believe. Obviously, TO THEM the reasons are good. Demanding that they say they aren't is tantamount to asking them to refute their own beliefs. Not surprised you would expect or want that, Arq, but THAT is unreasonable.
I am not hoisted with my own petard nor with yours. Anyone coming here to argue for something is making a claim. I don't care whether you agree or not. If they are not making a claim, I don't need to address it.
Claiming a god exists is making a claim. It is worthless unless substantiated. Those declining to accept the claim are making no claim. That is how logic works and if you want to invent your own logic, feel free. As with your own usage fo "God" nobody else is going to use it.
And why indeed would anyone believe what they have no good reason to believe? Plenty of reasons and, as you say, they seem good to them. They may not seem good to us, so we don't accept them. That is the way it works and you can work any way you like. In your own little township of Semantica Fiddelrey.
Your fiddling is hoist high and illuminated by your attempt to say that I am demanding that posters claim or deny anything. That's up to them. Saying they had no good reasons for what they believe - and reverting to "faith" is effectively that - would end the dicussion. That doesn't happen as a rule of course and what happens more often is they lose the argument and either revert to faith, or resort to Denial or evasion, as do you.
It doesn't matter since (as is usual) everyone can see who is making the rational argument and who isn't.
P.s Oh...it's you. Sorry..I thought I was talking to your Disciple. I stand by what I said, of course but would have been a leetle more polite as I respect your intelligence more than I do his.
I am not hoisted with my own petard nor with yours. Anyone coming here to argue for something is making a claim. I don't care whether you agree or not. If they are not making a claim, I don't need to address it.
Claiming a god exists is making a claim. It is worthless unless substantiated. Those declining to accept the claim are making no claim. That is how logic works and if you want to invent your own logic, feel free. As with your own usage fo "God" nobody else is going to use it.
And why indeed would anyone believe what they have no good reason to believe? Plenty of reasons and, as you say, they seem good to them. They may not seem good to us, so we don't accept them. That is the way it works and you can work any way you like. In your own little township of Semantica Fiddelrey.
Your fiddling is hoist high and illuminated by your attempt to say that I am demanding that posters claim or deny anything. That's up to them. Saying they had no good reasons for what they believe - and reverting to "faith" is effectively that - would end the dicussion. That doesn't happen as a rule of course and what happens more often is they lose the argument and either revert to faith, or resort to Denial or evasion, as do you.
It doesn't matter since (as is usual) everyone can see who is making the rational argument and who isn't.
P.s Oh...it's you. Sorry..I thought I was talking to your Disciple. I stand by what I said, of course but would have been a leetle more polite as I respect your intelligence more than I do his.
You should respect his intelligence more than mine...as it is greatly superior.
OTOH...I don’t need to bring a tank to a knife fight.
Atheism has no "Rational Argument"...it is illogical on its face.
The burden of proof is on those who expect others to agree with that belief.
I don't expect everyone to agree on this. There are plenty of intolerant people in the world and disagreement on this point is where I see the line between the tolerant and the intolerant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
That is it, we don't have problem with what people believe, sometimes we have a problem with how they believe. For example, They don't have to "save" me. Well, not in the way they mean anyway, we all could use a little help. Especially the ones that don't think they do.
I accept your declaration that YOU don't have a problem. I do not, however, accept the my-side bias which white-washes the body of those with a similar position on objectively undecidable issues. Not everyone is tolerant of the beliefs of others and that goes for both theists AND atheists. The only difference is that theists happen to be more numerous at the moment. And wherever there is a majority (either way) then the people with the majority position strongly tend to be less tolerant. So yes, currently, the greater intolerance is by the theists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
You, et al, need to face ***THE REALITY OF THE WORLD*** about "God Belief...and why that reasonably puts the onus on the Atheists to "represent" and "prove their claim".
An appeal to the authority of the majority has often been the excuse for the perpetuation of evil and injustice. This excuse for intolerance is rejected!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius
The BoP is on those making anassertion. When two parties are in a discussion and one asserts a claim that the other disputes, the one who asserts has a BoP to justify or substantiate that claim.
I am quite aware of this empty rhetoric by which people attempt to make their own beliefs on objectively undecidable issues immune to demands for proof. The only reason they do this is because they want to shove their belief on other people. That is intolerance.
You say theism is the positive assertion with the burden of proof and atheism is the negative assertion which is true by default. GldnRule says atheism is the positive assertion with the burden of proof and theism is the negative assertion which is true by default. I say you are both full of manure.
Excuse for intolerance rejected!
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Perhaps the aspect of "Going public" obtains here.
I seem to remember similar arguments about homosexuality. Nope. This rhetoric and excuse is also rejected. In a free society we have something call freedom of speech. It is not freedom of speech for those who can prove what they say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Of course, if they say 'It's what I believe - but I don't have any good reasons for it" then that IS an end to the discussion - and a satisfactory one for those who don't agree with it.
People always have reasons for what they believe which they judge to be good. What we must reject in a free society is any attempt by people to appoint themselves judge and arbiter of the reasons of other people.
So I suggest the following correction: You are free to add this modifier in response to their declaration, "That is what YOU believe, but if you cannot show me objective evidence for this or prove it, then you cannot reasonably expect me to agree."
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
As far as "The Burden of Proof"...that obligation is upon the one making the "extraordinary", "remarkable", or "new" claim.
Yes this is another excuse I have heard quite often. It is more empty rhetoric which is nothing but special pleading to claim ones own belief is special because it is not "extraordinary" or "remarkable". These are clearly subjective judgments which establish exactly NOTHING!
Nor will I accept the bias for either old beliefs or new beliefs. Accepting the old by default is a formula for the perpetuation of error. Accepting the new by default is a formula for non-retention of knowledge. Both of these are an obstruction to learning, which requires BOTH retention and the consideration of new possibilities.
However, I should point out the difference between belief and convention. Convention consists of largely arbitrary decisions where it is more important to have a decision than what the decision is. In the case of convention, there is an excellent reason to be biased in favor of the old.
There are other reasons in favor of the old for many other practices as well, such as the cost, confusion, and uncertainty likely to result from changing. However I don't see how any of this is relevant with regards to objectively undecidable beliefs.
Last edited by mitchellmckain; 07-17-2016 at 03:13 PM..
It has been said many times, right on this board, that based upon "Nothing on offer" in the way of data, proof, etc of God Existing...the Atheists have concluded that they reasonably determine that they should not believe in the existence of God.
We even have Christians like Mightyqueen801 and millions of others who agree that the book of Genesis is merely a fable. And we have no idea how God created anything at all.
That's a good start towards the direction of agnosticism, if you ask me.
I accept your declaration that YOU don't have a problem. I do not, however, accept the my-side bias which white-washes the body of those with a similar position on objectively undecidable issues. Not everyone is tolerant of the beliefs of others and that goes for both theists AND atheists. The only difference is that theists happen to be more numerous at the moment. And wherever there is a majority (either way) then the people with the majority position strongly tend to be less tolerant. So yes, currently, the greater intolerance is by the theists.
yuppers. the numbers say the bigger the group the more of any given personality type it will have. Many don't see this. But the good news for the minority is that the marginalized are starting to fight back, they have killed more cops today.
The burden of proof is on those who expect others to agree with that belief.
An appeal to the authority of the majority has often been the excuse for the perpetuation of evil and injustice. This excuse for intolerance is rejected!
I am quite aware of this empty rhetoric by which people attempt to make their own beliefs on objectively undecidable issues immune to demands for proof. The only reason they do this is because they want to shove their belief on other people. That is intolerance.
You say theism is the positive assertion with the burden of proof and atheism is the negative assertion which is true by default. GldnRule says atheism is the positive assertion with the burden of proof and theism is the negative assertion which is true by default. I say you are both full of manure.
Excuse for intolerance rejected!
Yes this is another excuse I have heard quite often. It is more empty rhetoric which is nothing but special pleading to claim ones own belief is special because it is not "extraordinary" or "remarkable". These are clearly subjective judgments which establish exactly NOTHING!
Nor will I accept the bias for either old beliefs or new beliefs. Accepting the old by default is a formula for the perpetuation of error. Accepting the new by default is a formula for non-retention of knowledge. Both of these are an obstruction to learning, which requires BOTH retention and the consideration of new possibilities.
However, I should point out the difference between belief and convention. Convention consists of largely arbitrary decisions where it is more important to have a decision than what the decision is. In the case of convention, there is an excellent reason to be biased in favor of the old.
There are other reasons in favor of the old for many other practices as well, such as the cost, confusion, and uncertainty likely to result from changing. However I don't see how any of this is relevant with regards to objectively undecidable beliefs.
I make no "excuses".
I'm a pragmatic, "facts on the ground" kinda guy.
I'm not passing judgements...just stating how the world actually is and/or has been.
That's not an "appeal" or "intolerance".
It is like saying, "Most societies in the history of the world had slavery". That isn't an "appeal to the majority" or an "excuse" to justify slavery. It is just a statement of fact.
I state my perception of GOD (All That Exists And Has Existed) ...which I can fully substantiate, validate, and objectively prove the existence of.
OTOH....Atheism tries to use "No Proof" as a premise to base a position on. THAT is illogical. Again...just how it is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
