Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Oh really? Would you like to see who knows more about religion, you or me?
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Prove that humans aren't blind to God's existence
- Thread starter tomspug
- Start date
Oh really? Would you like to see who knows more about religion, you or me?
little_monkey
atheist
How do you know for certain that any and every person who has declared himself to be God's messenger is NOT delusional?
little_monkey
atheist
So when I say, God doesn't exist, from your own statement, I need not to prove. Your position, that God exists, needs to be proven. Good luck...
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
>sigh<
The burden of proof is on whomever makes positive claim. Positive claim is a statement of fact, as opposed to belief or opinion.
If you are claiming that all alleged messengers of God are deluded, the BoP is on you. If you claim that God does not exist, the BoP is on you. Saying "I believe in God" does not take up the BoP*.
Why is this so difficult?
*Well, ok, technically it does, but only insofar as you have to prove you believe.
The burden of proof is on whomever makes positive claim. Positive claim is a statement of fact, as opposed to belief or opinion.
If you are claiming that all alleged messengers of God are deluded, the BoP is on you. If you claim that God does not exist, the BoP is on you. Saying "I believe in God" does not take up the BoP*.
Why is this so difficult?
*Well, ok, technically it does, but only insofar as you have to prove you believe.
little_monkey
atheist
Saying "I believe in the invisible pink unicorn" does not take up the BoP.
Why is this so difficult?
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
I don't know that. Remember, I'm an atheist. My first reaction to any "messenger of God" is extreme skepticism. It's just that I realize that there is room for error. I would highly doubt any messenger of God's sanity, but wouldn't necessarily just dismiss them all outright.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Um...he doesn't believe in God, hence the name "Untheist".
little_monkey
atheist
Ha, I do remember the word skeptical in my post #262...
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
I didn't say or imply that it did, so what's your problem?
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
Could it be that what often separates the theist from the atheist is just the picture frame?
Your picture is framed by skepticism, fair enough - mine might be framed by belief, fair enough too. We wind up arguing about frames and stop looking at the picture that neither of us comprehends anyway
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Yes, so do I. Putting the same word in a post as I did doesn't really mean much unless you use it to get across the same point I did. In this case, it was used in an unrelated comment to the one that started this.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
I agree completely. I have actually made this point in other threads just today. That's not what this is about, though. This is about someone's claim that every person who claims to be God's messenger is delusional. I was just trying to point out the problem with making such an absolute claim.
little_monkey
atheist
I was just returning your silliness in kind. So what's your problem?
little_monkey
atheist
You are nit-picking.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
You said that anyone who has declared himself to be the messenger of god is delusional. Do you believe that statement to be true or not?
Your second sentence in your original post has nothing to do with that. It only reflects on other people, not those who claim to be God's messenger. I'm not sure why you think using the word "skeptical" in a sentence completely unrelated to the point of contention shows anything at all. I'm also not sure how pointing out the irrelevance of your use of "skeptical" is nit-picking.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
How is explaining how BoP works "silliness?"
little_monkey
atheist
You're reading my post out of context. That initial statement was addressed to one who had previously quoted to me lines from the Qu'ran. So obviously, the messenger of God refers to Mohammad. In mho, Mohammad was delusional.
My second sentence follows through as it recommends to the poster to be skeptical instead of gobbling without questioning the teachings from a person who in mho IS delusional.
So my two sentences are related and make perfect sense.
If you were not nit-picking, then I would have to conclude that your reading skill is a lot less than what you think it is. Your pick.
little_monkey
atheist
You were either silly or you don't understand BoP. Your pick.