3rdAngel
Well-Known Member
Hi stv, not sure of the point your making here in relation to the OP.
-
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!
Those who believe there is no God live by faith
- Thread starter 3rdAngel
- Start date
- Status
Hi stv, not sure of the point your making here in relation to the OP.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Just for fun let's correct the errors in the OP again:
This is a bit of a strawman since no one has claimed it. It is not wise to use strawman arguments because rhey are quite often the product of dishonesty.
Again a bit of a logical fallacy here. What the OP does not realize is that absence of evidence can be evidence of absence in certain circumstances. But since this is not my argument I will leave it at the correction.
And here we have his classic error. A lack of belief is not a belief of nonexistence. A concept our OP cannot understand yet.
And here we have the typical error of arrogance. "I can't figure out how to do this so no one can". Not all versions of god can be refuted, but some can. If a god is contradictory in nature one can refute it.
This is a bit of a strawman since no one has claimed it. It is not wise to use strawman arguments because rhey are quite often the product of dishonesty.
Again a bit of a logical fallacy here. What the OP does not realize is that absence of evidence can be evidence of absence in certain circumstances. But since this is not my argument I will leave it at the correction.
And here we have his classic error. A lack of belief is not a belief of nonexistence. A concept our OP cannot understand yet.
And here we have the typical error of arrogance. "I can't figure out how to do this so no one can". Not all versions of god can be refuted, but some can. If a god is contradictory in nature one can refute it.
And one last error and it is a doozy. The burden of proof is upon him for his god, it is not upon others.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
As a supposed Christian you really should not break the Ninth Commandment.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
Hi all some questions for consideration for this response....
1. If one does not believe that there are leprechauns and they have no evidence that there are no leprechauns does that mean that leprechauns does not exist?
2. If one believes there are no leprechauns and cannot prove there are no leprechauns then is this belief simply another religion that is based on faith and not evidence?
3. Now for those who do not believe in leprechauns and you have no evidence for this belief (faith), does it not worry you that you could be wrong if the legends are true?
4. Finally if there are leprechauns obviously not all legends can be correct as many are contradictory to each other. How would one go about finding what is the correct legends? Seems we all live by faith IMO whether we believe or do not believe in leprechauns .
Thanks for your thoughts...
stvdv
Veteran Member
Oh, sorry for not being clear enough.
Scriptures are there for the believers, so all the good/bad granted by scriptures is for those who believe and act accordingly
Those who do not believe in a particular scripture won't get the good/bad granted by scriptures; obviously, because they don't read/believe it
Hypothetical:
Imagine you were punished as per Koran, because you follow the Bible in a way the Koran disapproves.
Does that not sound strange to you?
Same, but other way around, it is with the Bible
Those who do not believe in a specific Scripture will not be judged according to that Scripture
No, although the lack of evidence strongly points in that direction. it is possible, of course, that nobody knows how to define or test for that entity. In which case, the default position is to say that clarification is required before the question can even arise sensibly.
No. it can be based in evidence in spite of the evidence not being 100% conclusive (it seldom is). In particular, a lack of specific agreement across several different religious positions would strongly suggest all are wrong.
Sometimes absence of evidence *is* evidence of absence.
No, I am not worried at all. Too many different scriptures with too many different claims to be worried any of them are correct in the absence of evidence in their favor.
Well, at least part of the problem is the ambiguity in the word 'God'. There are many different characteristics associated with that word and the method of searching would depend on the specifics of the definition.
The first step is to see if there is consistency among God-believers. If not, the default would be that all of them are wrong and evidence would be necessary to move from that default.
Well, isn't that special.
The point is that proving a negative is always harder than proving a positive. That is why the burden of proof is on the positive existence claim.
No problem.
No. It is the absence of belief.
No more than someone is living by faith that there are no unicorns or leprechauns.
We've all heard of people who believe they've had an experience with Satan. We've all heard of people who believe they've had an experience of the Virgin Mary.Yea heard it all before. Let me know when you want to address the OP? I do not know of anyone who believes in what you have posted above. Yet there are many that have claimed they have had an experience with God. You not believing is simply your faith
Here's a question for you -- why is that Hindus never, ever, have visions of the Virgin Mary? Why is it that Shinto priests never see images of Jesus on their grilled cheese sandwiches?
Do you know anything about the science of mind? Have you ever read the works of neurologist Dr. Oliver Sachs, who has shown how people can very strongly believe that they've experienced what they cannot possibly have experienced? Have you never heard of children who believed with strong fervour that there were monsters under their beds, or in their closets?
Have you never heard of the people who have been convinced that they've been in contact with their long-dead grandmother in a séance? Or read how easy it is for mediums to convince the gullible that they've done just that?
Yes, I did answer the question in the OP. And it's not faith, it's knowledge.
I believe nothing. I’m a “show me” kinda guy.
Sight is not the only sense. We can hear the wind. Using certain techniques with shadows, we *can* see the wind. We can stop the wind, cool it down, and make a liquid or even a solid.
Again, sight is not the only sense. We knew about static electricity from direct experience long before we knew how to control electricity. We saw lightning and heard thunder long before that.
It is impossible to prove without a doubt that *anything* is non-existent. That is why the burden of proof is on the one making the existence claim. provide a method of testing for your deity that, if it goes the way you don't expect, would show your conception is wrong.
There isn't indisputable evidence that the sun exists. There isn't indisputable evidence that conservation of energy is true.
That isn't a reasonable standard. Can we have the standard that is used in, say, particle physics: how about a 6 standard deviation to show existence? Or a similar 6 standard deviation from prediction to show the opposite?
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
1. No
2. No, since a LACK of belief in something and belief in something are two completely different things
3. No, see question 4
4. If there is a god and this god chooses not to provide any verifiable evidence for it's existence, then my lack of belief in this god due to this god's choice, not me.
Lacking belief in something requires no faith whatsoever. All that's required for a lack of belief is a lack of verifiable evidence.
Wouldn't it then be best to not believe in any scripture?
And, saying a person doesn't, and there does happen to be a God, what would this person be judged by?
Audie
Veteran Member
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I don't think he wants to understand this point. I have tried to explain it from several different directions and the closest thing to a positive response was a claim that I was changing my story.
Audie
Veteran Member
McBell
Unbound
He has already demonstrated in another thread that this is nothing more than a test of patience for those who engage him.
McBell
Unbound
So, not believing is believing?
In exactly the same way that starving to death is eating, but only if you're eating nothing. Note that "eating nothing" is not the same, according to those who like this sort of argument, as "not eating."
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
For them, yes.
No. One doesn’t have to believe in a lack of evidence. “Lack of evidence” of the existence of a thing means that we don’t assume it exists anyway. That’s what constitutes faith of the existence of God — the stuff Christians have: belief even though there’s no evidence.
Can you prove that they are? If not, why does your belief impact other people?
- Status