Do You Hate God?

[Storm]

Why? Isn't my claim equal in weight to his?

I was just responding to the statement that the burden of proof is always and automatically on theists, while atheists are exempt.

 

[Magic Man]

Well, from a linguistic point of view, that's perfectly valid, but it's just not what the phrase actually refers to.


Ok, I get your point, but we'll just have to agree to disagree.

However, it may interest you to know that I don't just assume God exists. I believe because of personal experience. In fact, if you want to pick nits, I claim knowledge rather than belief. But I don't pretend that my subjective experience even approaches objective proof, so I avoid making positive claim as best I can. I just get cranky when people on either side of the issue act like their stance is an obvious fact when nobody's got proof, or even strong evidence.


You're not a moron, I wasn't positive myself.

You lost me.Rephrase, please?

Well, I guess if that statement refers to something else, I disagree with the statement. Wouldn't that mean that any statement is necessarily a positive claim?

I don't have to agree to anything!

I don't so much think that atheism is obvious fact. I just think that you need to start there, and anything beyond that needs to be proven. You had an experience that tells you there is a god, so that your proof.

Thanks.

Regarding proving that I think, what I meant was that something is going on, otherwise I wouldn't be typing right now. If you say that nothing exists, you contradict yourself. For that statement to be made, something has to exist to make it. If nothing existed, then the statement "nothing exists" wouldn't exist either. So, to even talk about the idea of thinking in and of itself proves the thinking. I hope that's clearer. If not, I'm sure you'll let me know.

 

[DallasApple]

I dont know..for some reason I dont feel like I have to "prove" anything.I mean..Im not trying to prove anything and I dont care to.At least thats how I feel about it.

Blessings

Dallas

 

[DallasApple]

This reminds me..One time(at band camp) ...A Christian protestant asked an LDS Christian to "prove" they were a Christian...I almost fell out of my chair.I was actually embarrassed for the person that asked her that.

Blessings

Dallas

 

[Magic Man]

I dont know..for some reason I dont feel like I have to "prove" anything.I mean..Im not trying to prove anything and I dont care to.At least thats how I feel about it.

Blessings

Dallas

You don't have to. If you wanted to have a debate about it, though, I think that your position would require the proving. But that's only if you wanted to convince me that your view is right.

 

[DallasApple]

You don't have to. If you wanted to have a debate about it, though, I think that your position would require the proving. But that's only if you wanted to convince me that your view is right.

I guess that explains it..I dont consider what I believe personally should be debated and "proven"..That God exist to me is a fact in my life..I cant prove it other than my word..Just like if God doesnt exist to someone else they cant really prove that to me other than they say so.

Blessings

Dallas

 

[Storm]

Well, I guess if that statement refers to something else, I disagree with the statement. Wouldn't that mean that any statement is necessarily a positive claim?

Any statement of fact, yeah. Of course, what level of proof we require is a judgement call. Example: I'm a natural brunette. I can't actually prove that to you in this forum, but do you have any reason to doubt me?

I don't so much think that atheism is obvious fact. I just think that you need to start there, and anything beyond that needs to be proven. You had an experience that tells you there is a god, so that your proof.

Do you accept the validity of believing without such an experience, though?

Thanks.

You're welcome.

Regarding proving that I think, what I meant was that something is going on, otherwise I wouldn't be typing right now. If you say that nothing exists, you contradict yourself. For that statement to be made, something has to exist to make it. If nothing existed, then the statement "nothing exists" wouldn't exist either. So, to even talk about the idea of thinking in and of itself proves the thinking. I hope that's clearer. If not, I'm sure you'll let me know.

It wasn't easy to translate, but I think I got it.

The thing is, if you don't just accept that some things exist, solipsism is a valid argument against your position. You can't prove that you're not a figment of my imagination.

 

[camanintx]

That does not make it a myth.

Unless you have a better definition of myth, I think it does. Did you notice that there is nothing in this definition relating to the truth of the story?

 

[Magic Man]

Any statement of fact, yeah. Of course, what level of proof we require is a judgement call. Example: I'm a natural brunette. I can't actually prove that to you in this forum, but do you have any reason to doubt me?


Do you accept the validity of believing without such an experience, though?


You're welcome.


It wasn't easy to translate, but I think I got it.

The thing is, if you don't just accept that some things exist, solipsism is a valid argument against your position. You can't prove that you're not a figment of my imagination.

No, I don't. As we grow, we take things for granted. I tell you I work in a hospital. You have no reason to doubt that statement, but if you accept it, you accept any facts that make it up. You assume that there is a hospital and that I exist, for instance. That's all. You could question that if you wanted to, it's just not practical for everyday life.

I do accepting believing without proof as valid. I just don't think it's the best mindset, but that's just my opinion.

I guess I can't. But if I didn't exist, could I do this? *pokes you in the eye* Ha!

 

[Storm]

I guess I can't. But if I didn't exist, could I do this? *pokes you in the eye* Ha!

That's about how I feel about it, too. :yes:

 

[Kungfuzed]

Do you hate God? If so, what do you mean by "God"? And why do you hate that God?

There are some ideas of God that seem somewhat repulsive and others that I don't have a problem with. If there were to be an actual God I don't know It and would only be referring to my idea of God when discussing my opinion of Him/Her/It.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Unless you have a better definition of myth, I think it does. Did you notice that there is nothing in this definition relating to the truth of the story?

Fact is you can't prove it, then again, neither can i. Just because you have some Princeton sictionary doesen't make you mor intelligent.

 

[camanintx]

Fact is you can't prove it, then again, neither can i. Just because you have some Princeton sictionary doesen't make you mor intelligent.

Once again, the definition of myth does not concern itself with the truth of the story, just how it is used. All I need to prove that God is a myth is the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, the Vedas, or any other religious tome. Or are you saying that these are not stories used to define a persons world view?

 

[ravenstrike]

Just because you have some Princeton sictionary doesen't make you mor intelligent.

maybe not, but judging by your typos....
i'm joshing
your alright

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Once again, the definition of myth does not concern itself with the truth of the story, just how it is used. All I need to prove that God is a myth is the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, the Vedas, or any other religious tome. Or are you saying that these are not stories used to define a persons world view?

No they are not. The Vedas is REALITY to me.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

maybe not, but judging by your typos....
i'm joshing
your alright

Im a poor keyboard person, normally my grammaar is perfect. I type very fast, but not with much accuracy.

 

[ravenstrike]

No they are not. The Vedas is REALITY to me.

To you.
not to me
or anyone else.
so..
that's no argument.
if you can't argue a faith, it's best you don't have one.
the Vedas is no more valid than the Torah, or the Koran, or the Infancy gospel of Thomas (which describes Jesus at age 6 using his powers to slaughter a group of schoolchildren because they mock him)(ICKY!). so get over yourself, stop saying one sentence replys that don't get us anywhere, and moreover are in no way amusing. seriously.

 

[Quagmire]

I guess if you go with the idea that God is everything then hating anything would require hating God.

 

[Magic Man]

To you.
not to me
or anyone else.
so..
that's no argument.
if you can't argue a faith, it's best you don't have one.
the Vedas is no more valid than the Torah, or the Koran, or the Infancy gospel of Thomas (which describes Jesus at age 6 using his powers to slaughter a group of schoolchildren because they mock him)(ICKY!). so get over yourself, stop saying one sentence replys that don't get us anywhere, and moreover are in no way amusing. seriously.

He didn't say they were reality to you. "If you can't argue a faith, it's best you don't have one"? Seriously? That makes no sense. He can think whatever he wants. He doesn't have to argue it. If it's real to him, why does he care whether you think it's real?

 

[ravenstrike]

because blind faith is damaging, and if you can't argue a faith, then it must be blind. I'm sure that groundless faith has killed more people than any disease, or war, ever.
also, the whole "one sentence reply" was killing me