Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
No evolution exists is a counterclaim to the claim that evolution exists and it is a perfectly reasonable counterclaim when considering the lack of evidence supporting the claim of evolution existing. Tinker Bell does not exist either.
Any information pertaining to the question at hand according to anyone asking the question.
Not necessarily. "Experts" fool themselves as often as anyone else. They just do it in a more complicated and precise way. Many an expert in Biblical studies, for example, has managed to see just what he was looking for to reach the conclusion he already believed to be so, and dismissed everything else. And experts in science can be no less biased.
Everythng relates to everything to some degree. We live within a single holistic existential event. All that is required is that those engaged in the question be able to articulate the relationship between the information and a possible solution to the question. For example, the fact that we humans have for so long contemplated the existence of gods is clearly evidence in relation to the existence of gods as this information directly relates to the question. But whether it's evidence for or against the existence of gods depends on the answer being proposed by the person presenting it. The pro position might say that we have been designed by the laws of existence to ask, lending credence to the idea that there be some sort of god-source to provide the answer. While the con side might claim that because the question has remained unanswered in spite of so many humans asking, it implies that there is no answer, because there are no gods.
I think it would be foolish for anyone to claim no God's exist without making it clear which God he is talking about. There are things that people call God that does exist, there are people as real as you and I who people call God. It would be foolish for someone to claim (for example) that Haile Selassie never existed simple because there are those who choose to call him God. There are people who worship nature, even the Sun. Obviously those things exist. My view is; though whatever it is you might choose to call God may exist, I don't call it God; I may perhaps call it something else.
Yes, I disagree.
This is in fact a very straightforward, trivial matter that leaves no room for true controversy... except for the significant yet usually overlooked matter of what is even meant by the word "god".
There are several good arguments and illustrations for why it is preposterous to expect (let alone demand) "evidence" of non-existence of any deity. One of my favorites is Russell's Teapot.
Russell's teapot - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
But in practice the matter of non-existence is not nearly as important as those of non-significance, incoherence and uselessness, which are very much created and aggravated by the insistence of claiming certain deities as "real".
I think that most proponents of theism fail to realize how ill served they are by claims of literal existence of their deities. Counter-intuictive as it may sound, existence - even raising the matter of their hypothetical existence in any way, shape or form - is not something that would benefit most deities worth taking into consideration.
In practice, existence is only relevant for deities that are not really very functional (nor usually constructive) as a religious concept. By that perspective, we atheists are effectively extending those deities more attention and respect than their own believers do. It happens. It happens very often and very noticeably.
As a secondary objection, I have to point out that belief does not come without a cost. Our time, hopes and attention have limited reaches and should therefore be used wisely. And beliefs inform motivation and behavior, which we all should take responsibility for.
It depends what the participants want of get out of it, doesn't it? If you want to improve your writing skills and an unstructured debate gives you that, then do it. But don't do it with people whose objectives are different.
My worst experiences have been on religious and political sites. Not this one.
I know what you mean. There's one particular forum I'm thinking of that was just... well, looking back on it, it's honestly the sort of awful anyone would reasonably expect of a forum that was mostly geared towards teenagers and college students.
I'd add avoiding answering the question when an honest answer might make the debater look bad.
#1 - Solipsism. Impossible to prove or disprove.
"One more try" I said. I'll stick to it.
I can only assume that you failed to understand my previous post.
So you are claiming that the evidence for God is as good as the evidence for evolution? At least now I know what I'm dealing with.
You are better than that, Salix.
Science is a tool. A good one. It can answer a lot of questions that we can use to make subjective judgments. I don't think it's beyond the bounds of science to predict what choices we would make given enough information about how our brains and bodies work. But it may be that we are asking too much of it, and claiming too much for our intuition and so on.Well, where does this then fall:
