Proof of God=Lack of Faith?

[kejos]

Ridiculous statement. Do Buddhist exist? Muslims? Deists? Hindus? Taoists? Pagans? Are all beliefs other than Christianity non-existent?

Do those questions follow from what was written?

Do they all actually believe the Gospels when they hear or read it? Are they all in denial?

Can it be proved that they are not? Is an attempt to ridicule not evidence that they are all in denial?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Do those questions follow from what was written?

Yes, they do.

Can it be proved that they are not?

Attempting to prove a negative is futile.

Is an attempt to ridicule not evidence that they are all in denial?

Ah, so ridicule is proof of denial. So when I ridicule the Scientologist, I am truly in denial of their truth.
Come on, use a little logic.

 

[kejos]

Yes, they do.

Because?

Attempting to prove a negative is futile.

Another well-used false argument.

Ah, so ridicule is proof of denial.

It's certainly evidence, when there is no rationality in support, only rhetoric, as in this case.

Come on, use a little logic.

Funny you should say that.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Because?

You stated that ALL who have read or heard the Gospels believe, yet are in denial. Therefore there are no Atheists. It logically follows from this statement that the ALL includes ALL non-Christians who have heard or read the Gosples. The Buddhist, most of whom are also atheists, do not exist according to your statement, especially if he has read or heard the Gospels.
The Hindu who has read the Gospels must not exist. According to you, they are simply in denial.

Another well-used false argument.

Actually, claiming a premise is true based simply on the fact that it has not been proven false is a logical fallacy called the Argument from Ignorance.

It's certainly evidence, when there is no rationality in support, only rhetoric, as in this case.

Again, claiming something is true based on lack of evidence against it is the logical fallacy of Argument from Ignorance.

Funny you should say that.

Indeed.

 

[Willamena]

Yes, they do.

No. What was said was a claim about what Christians believe, not a statement about the existence or non-existence of others beliefs.

 

[kejos]

You stated that ALL who have read or heard the Gospels believe, yet are in denial.

Where?

Therefore there are no Atheists. It logically follows from this statement that the ALL includes ALL non-Christians who have heard or read the Gosples. The Buddhist, most of whom are also atheists, do not exist according to your statement, especially if he has read or heard the Gospels.

Christians, along with Muslims, Hindus, Mormons etc., believe that all other religions besides their own have no great validity. There does not seem to be anything new about this approach.

Actually, claiming a premise is true based simply on the fact that it has not been proven false is a logical fallacy called the Argument from Ignorance.

True, but has anybody made that claim, actually?

 

[kejos]

the "atheist" is most-often defined as having no belief about "God".

Everyone has a belief about God- even if it's 'Don't Know'. (And that's an agnostic.)

 

[tarasan]

So the drive to "prove" God is driven by a need to be seen as rational?
Doesn't this revel an insecurity in the believers faith?

not really we know were rational we are just presenting it to show others that it is,

 

[Willamena]

not really we know were rational we are just presenting it to show others that it is,

But why do you need to show others that it is? That's the thing. It expresses a need. If you are firm in your beliefs and your own relationship with "God", does what others think matter?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Where?

...that everyone believes the gospel when they hear or read it, though are often challenged by it to the point of refusal.

Christians, along with Muslims, Hindus, Mormons etc., believe that all other religions besides their own have no great validity. There does not seem to be anything new about this approach.

Nothing new, but still illogical.

True, but has anybody made that claim, actually?

Can it be proved that they are not? Is an attempt to ridicule not evidence that they are all in denial?

 

[DeitySlayer]

God cannot be conclusively proved or disproved, and believing is a matter of personal faith. You don't need evidence to believe. But if this is the nature of your belief, I will not have it impact on me in any way.

 

[kejos]

Nothing new, but still illogical.

Because?

True, but has anybody made that claim, actually? A respectable answer, is there?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Christians do not believe that atheism exists. They believe that everyone believes that their own existence and that of the cosmos are the results of a creator; and they also believe that everyone believes the gospel when they hear or read it, though are often challenged by it to the point of refusal.

Do they all actually believe the Gospels when they hear or read it? Are they all in denial?

Can it be proved that they are not? Is an attempt to ridicule not evidence that they are all in denial?

Actually, claiming a premise is true based simply on the fact that it has not been proven false is a logical fallacy called the Argument from Ignorance.

True, but has anybody made that claim, actually?

True, but has anybody made that claim, actually? A respectable answer, is there?

Yes, as shown above, you stated that everyone who has heard or read the Gospels actually believes them. But that non-Christians are in denial. When asked about this, you replied with "Can it be proven that they are not?" This is presuming something is true (everyone believes the gospel when they hear or read it,though are often challenged by it to the point of refusal.)based on lack of evidence against it (Can it be proved that they are not?). Or, Argument from Ignorance.

 

[Willamena]

Yes, as shown above, you stated that everyone who has heard or read the Gospels actually believes them.

Technically, he claimed that Christians believe that.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Technically, he claimed that Christians believe that.

And representative of his beliefs as a Christian.

By attempting to prove this position of faith in the truth of the Gospels with a Logical Fallacy, "Can it be proved that they are not? Is an attempt to ridicule not evidence that they are all in denial?", Kejos falls into the very subject of the OP.

Is attempting to 'prove' God actually reveling a lack of faith? Do those who attempt to find evidence for God need this evidence to bolster their beliefs?
Aren't those believers who do so no different from the atheists they so despise?
For many atheists, it is the overwhelming lack of empirical evidence for a deity that leads them to unequivocally state that there is no such being.
While for the believer who attempts to find such evidence, it seems that they also need to find proof that God exists.

 

[kejos]

Yes, as shown above, you stated that everyone who has heard or read the Gospels actually believes them.

That is not shown above.

 

[tumbleweed41]

That is not shown above.

Now who is in denial?

Christians do not believe that atheism exists. They believe that everyone believes that their own existence and that of the cosmos are the results of a creator; and they also believe that everyone believes the gospel when they hear or read it, though are often challenged by it to the point of refusal.

Or do you claim that what you wrote as what Christians believe not actually representative of your Christian beliefs?

 

[Eliot Wild]

That is not shown above.

With all due respect, I am certainly not taking sides in this matter. I just thought you might appreciate a third-party perspective in order to get some idea of how effectively your point is being made . . . or not.

But I too would interpret your statement that " . . . they (Christians) also believe that everyone beleives the gospel when they hear or read it . . . " to be precisely what it says, an assertion that Christians assume everyone believes the Gospels when they hear it or read it.

You are obviously free to ignore the foregoing, but I thought, if you didn't really mean your statement to be taken that way, then you might want to amend or clarify it.

Just trying to help.

 

[kejos]

Christians assume everyone believes the Gospels when they hear it or read it.

That is something like what I wrote. But there is nothing like a genuine quote, is there?

 

[Eliot Wild]

Christians do not believe that atheism exists. They believe that everyone believes that their own existence and that of the cosmos are the results of a creator; and they also believe that everyone believes the gospel when they hear or read it, though are often challenged by it to the point of refusal.

Okay. Honestly, I was just passing by and trying to help out. I'm certainly not trying to misrepresent what anyone has said or hasn't said.

I just thought, since you seemed to claim you didn't actually say what tumbleweed was claiming you said, that I'd let you know, for your own benefit, that I interpreted your statements in the exact same way as tumbleweed.

I don't know what to tell you, however, if you are now claiming that you never wrote the statements above attributed to you. To me, it seems to clearly state the following: " . . . (christians) also believe that everyone believes the gospel when they hear or read it . . . "

Again, I was only hoping to help you see that you might want to amend or clarify your statements, if the inference we we're extracting was not exactly what you meant to convey. I will humbly back out and say no more if you are claiming now not to have said what your previous posts claim you have said.