Who's really right?

[richardlowellt]

Bruce Almighty FTW!!!!!

God is sensed by everybody. However, God is not recognized by everybody. (I believe, anyway.)

Well I believe you are full of ----. God is sensed by everybody? How can an intelligent person, or so I thought, say something as foolish as that? Are you saying I can sense God? Do you have any idea how insulting that is? And to state such BS as factual is even worse!!!! God is not recognized by everybody be cause he/she/it simple does not exist!!!

 

[Riverwolf]

Well I believe you are full of ----. God is sensed by everybody? How can an intelligent person, or so I thought, say something as foolish as that? Are you saying I can sense God? Do you have any idea how insulting that is? And to state such BS as factual is even worse!!!! God is not recognized by everybody be cause he/she/it simple does not exist!!!

:hug:

Calm down, brother. No need to yell. If you feel insulted, then I apologize. However, I will not retract what I say, because I believe it. (For now, anyway.)

You say that it is foolish to say that God can be sensed by everybody and yet is not recognized, by using the unprovable claim that God does not exist. Believe me when I say that I can perfectly understand this position, and respect your right to hold it. Nevertheless, when you make so bold a claim as "God does not exist," as if it were factual, then I expect you to back up the statement, as would in any debate.

However, since you are not my Teacher, I expect you to not, either directly or indirectly (as you have done) call me a fool. That right alone belongs to my Teacher, who must then explain why I am such. You have not done so.

Now, I shall explain my opinion (NOT fact) that God is sensed by everybody and yet not recognized by many: God is everything, within and without. God is consciousness. God is both personal and transcendent, independent of duality.

In other words, God is anything and everything that ever was, is, and will be, either abstract or concrete.

However, this is purely my opinion; I stress that I make no claim (and I apologize if I have come across as doing so) that this is factual. It is not factual, as I cannot provide objective and verifiable evidence. It is my opinion based on my recent readings and beliefs I've held ever since late adolescence, and is subject to change if future information requires that I do so.

If you feel like you have that information, then please provide it.

 

[richardlowellt]

:hug:

Calm down, brother. No need to yell. If you feel insulted, then I apologize. However, I will not retract what I say, because I believe it. (For now, anyway.)

You say that it is foolish to say that God can be sensed by everybody and yet is not recognized, by using the unprovable claim that God does not exist. Believe me when I say that I can perfectly understand this position, and respect your right to hold it. Nevertheless, when you make so bold a claim as "God does not exist," as if it were factual, then I expect you to back up the statement, as would in any debate.

However, since you are not my Teacher, I expect you to not, either directly or indirectly (as you have done) call me a fool. That right alone belongs to my Teacher, who must then explain why I am such. You have not done so.

Now, I shall explain my opinion (NOT fact) that God is sensed by everybody and yet not recognized by many: God is everything, within and without. God is consciousness. God is both personal and transcendent, independent of duality.

In other words, God is anything and everything that ever was, is, and will be, either abstract or concrete.

However, this is purely my opinion; I stress that I make no claim (and I apologize if I have come across as doing so) that this is factual. It is not factual, as I cannot provide objective and verifiable evidence. It is my opinion based on my recent readings and beliefs I've held ever since late adolescence, and is subject to change if future information requires that I do so.

If you feel like you have that information, then please provide it.

I do tend to get a bit crazy don't I, I just get bent out of shape when religious beliefs are stated as factual.

Reason and logic tell me there is no God, thats all I have to go on. To me the cosmos is either black or white, things are or they are not. I will admit that there are certain grey areas, but I mostly see things in black or white, hence science tells me everything I need to know.

 

[Riverwolf]

I do tend to get a bit crazy don't I, I just get bent out of shape when religious beliefs are stated as factual.

So do I. Believe me when I say that I do feel some shame when I realized that I had done so.

Reason and logic tell me there is no God, thats all I have to go on. To me the cosmos is either black or white, things are or they are not. I will admit that there are certain grey areas, but I mostly see things in black or white, hence science tells me everything I need to know.

Thanks. ^_^ I may disagree, but respectfully.

I'd like you to know that I'm not a person who feels that all people need religion to be happy or whatever. If science tells you all you need to know, great! In the words of Bill Nye, "Science rules." ^_^

 

[ChristineES]

I have come to realize it isn't who's right as much as it's what's right. And I doubt any person knows what is right, yet.

 

[Beaudreaux]

....when you make so bold a claim as "God does not exist," as if it were factual, then I expect you to back up the statement, as would in any debate.

It is not the atheist's responsibility to prove that God does not exist anymore than it is our responsibility to prove that giant, flying spaghetti monsters, Bigfoot, the tooth fairy or any other proposed entity that is undetectable throught the 5 senses exists. There is as much physical evidence of God as there is of invisible flying spaghetti monsters. A normal person going through the course of his/her day encounters nothing to suggest that either exists. If you propose that such a thing exists, it is YOUR responsibility to justify such a proposition.

 

[Storm]

It is not the atheist's responsibility to prove that God does not exist anymore than it is our responsibility to prove that giant, flying spaghetti monsters, Bigfoot, the tooth fairy or any other proposed entity that is undetectable throught the 5 senses exists. There is as much physical evidence of God as there is of invisible flying spaghetti monsters. A normal person going through the course of his/her day encounters nothing to suggest that either exists. If you propose that such a thing exists, it is YOUR responsibility to justify such a proposition.

Atheists are not automatically exempt from burden of proof, Beaudreaux. It falls on anyone who makes positive claim, that being a statement of fact as opposed to belief or opinion.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Atheists are not automatically exempt from burden of proof, Beaudreaux. It falls on anyone who makes positive claim, that being a statement of fact as opposed to belief or opinion.

Do you believe that you are constantly followed by invisible pixies that watch your every move? If not, is the burden on you to prove they are not there?

 

[Storm]

Do you believe that you are constantly followed by invisible pixies that watch your every move? If not, is the burden on you to prove they are not there?

No, the burden is on the one who makes the claim. It's that simple.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Atheists are not automatically exempt from burden of proof, Beaudreaux. It falls on anyone who makes positive claim, that being a statement of fact as opposed to belief or opinion.

What positive claim are atheists making though?

 

[Mr Cheese]

Many Christians today argue that Islam is incorrect. Some Christians even harass and persecute Muslims. Now, it is well known, yet incessantly denied, that Christianity is an add on to Judaism, and Islam is an add on to Christianity. But if Christians can deny Muslims the right to tolerance,the Jews can deny Christians the right to tolerance, can't they? Give your opinion. Anything goes.

Your statement is false

Christianity and Islam are both "add ons" to Judaism
Islam is essentially a new take on judaism in answer to Christianity, stating that Christianity got it wrong.. That is closer to how thigns are than saying Christianity gave birth to Islam.

The simple fact is both Judaism and Christianity actually owe a lot to Islamic mysticism.

Exoteric faiths however, often feel the need to proclaim their view is the only correct one. Some more wise people within the exoteric recognise tolerance of some kind, many do not. At the esoteric, mystical level of course, ultimatly there is no conflict as Judaism, Islam and CHristianty are the same thing... of course I doubt few here would understand that.:sarcastic

 

[Storm]

What positive claim are atheists making though?

Inherently, none - just like believers. However, "there is no God" is as much a claim as "God exists." It just depends on whether you present your stance as fact or belief. Richard made positive claim when he said God doesn't exist.

 

[Beaudreaux]

No, the burden is on the one who makes the claim. It's that simple.

Well, I'm asking you if you believe that invisible pixies who follow us and watch our every move exist. Do you? If you don't, that is a claim that they do not exist, isn't it?

 

[Storm]

Well, I'm asking you if you believe that you are contantly follwed by invisible pixies that watch your every move. Do you?

*sighs* I don't answer set-ups. Make your point.

 

[Beaudreaux]

*sighs* I don't answer set-ups. Make your point.

If you would feel comfortable making the statement "I do not believe that invisible pixies that follow us and watch our every move exist" (as I hope you would) then you are making a claim. Under your rule, isnt' the burden of proof on you to show that they do not?

 

[Vile Atheist]

*sighs* I don't answer set-ups. Make your point.

He's made his point in the "set-up". Do you believe you are followed by invisible pink pixies all the time? No? Then the burden of proof is on you to prove that you aren't, by your logic.

Do you believe in Bigfoot? No? Then the burden of proof is on you to prove that Bigfoot does not exist.

 

[Storm]

If you would feel comfortable making the statement "I do not believe that invisible pixies that follow us and watch our every move exist" (as I hope you would) then you are making a claim. Under your rule, isnt' the burden of proof on you to show that they do not?

No, because it's a statement of belief, not of fact. And it's not MY rule.

 

[Storm]

He's made his point in the "set-up". Do you believe you are followed by invisible pink pixies all the time? No? Then the burden of proof is on you to prove that you aren't, by your logic.

Do you believe in Bigfoot? No? Then the burden of proof is on you to prove that Bigfoot does not exist.

Why is "statement of fact" such a difficult concept for people of such intelligence to grasp?

 

[Paraprakrti]

Many Christians today argue that Islam is incorrect. Some Christians even harass and persecute Muslims. Now, it is well known, yet incessantly denied, that Christianity is an add on to Judaism, and Islam is an add on to Christianity. But if Christians can deny Muslims the right to tolerance,the Jews can deny Christians the right to tolerance, can't they? Give your opinion. Anything goes.

Each of these religions is right in so far as each is applicable to a certain group of people of a certain time, place and circumstance.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Why is "statement of fact" such a difficult concept for people of such intelligence to grasp?

So you're saying that a claim - either way - that God exists or does not exist, the burden of proof is on the person making that claim? And a statement of belief - "I believe God exists vs I believe God doesn't exist" - there is no burden of proof?