Atheist Arrogance?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 20 NEXT
 

So your proof is "something we can't explain happened, must be divine". How is that proof? How is that any different than when the Greeks believed that Zeus threw each lightning bolt by hand? Do you really have that little an understanding of what "proof" is?

Superbeast:
To answer the main point of this topic, and in light of the above post yeah, there may be some arrogant and offensive Atheists, and I really wish that they were not so haughty. It lowers the tone of any discussion between those of faith and those without. But against such barrages of self-righteousness, condemnation and offensive remarks from faith communities, is it really so surprising?

This is really sort of a chicken and the egg sort of situation. You say the atheists were spurred on by the Christians? Okay. But who are those Christians? That looks like England, so that would be the Anglican church. Where did those Protestants come from? Why those obnoxious and hypocritical Catholics of course, with their indulgences and their overly-formal Latin prayers and chants. The Protestants didn't like what the Catholics were doing and the Catholics hated the changes the Protestants wanted to make, so they split off into separate churches and spent several centuries struggling for power in Europe. But where did the Catholics come from? They came from a long standing feud with what is now the Eastern Orthodox church a long time ago, in what is now called the Great Schism. They didn't like what the Catholics were doing, so the Catholics had to run off and make their own church to do what they wanted in peace.

But where did the Eastern Orthodox come from? Well that's a bit more unclear, but that's also getting so far back into the church history that we're getting close to the time when Christians weren't accepted at all really by anybody. During its first few centuries Christians were persecuted by everybody, but especially the Romans. They set up little temples and places of worship in the catacombs under Rome because there was no other place that was safe for them to meet.

So who really? started this? It was the Romans who treated the Christians like shit, who went on to treat the Catholics like shit, who went on to treat the Protestants like shit, who now sometimes treat atheists like shit. So if we're really going to be that petty, don't blame the Christians. Blame the Romans.

Putting all that aside, I think we live in a self-conscious enough of a society that there really is no excuse for reflexively treating an entire group like shit just because they happen to belong to that group, or judging them all equally by their parts. Some, or even many, Christians being bigoted or self-righteous does not excuse addressing all Christians in an equally smug or condescending fashion. And it seems rather strange to me that you're trying to argue one group is better when they are currently dealing it out as much as they are receiving it. It doesn't matter who started it, and now both sides have the capacity to end it. And the only way one side can argue they are better is if they just stop dealing out the negativity.

EDIT: Strange, I definitely made this post with double-spaced paragraphs. And the post preview is showing them too. If they don't appear then I'm sorry, I guess the Escapist is just flipping out on me or something.

Witty Name Here:
Snipcicles

Thank you for that piece of anecdotal evidence.
And have you ever heard of the burden of proof? That might be a good thing to learn about also.

And a wise atheist, an agnostic atheist, would not assert there is no god. They would merely say there is no evidence for god. One could say there is no god, but only in the same way as they could say there are no faires. There is no defence for a gnostic atheist though.

Witty Name Here:

So, after taking a visit to a sacred site associated with healing of the sick, a man's hip bone is miraculously reconstructed with no medical explanation give towards why he would make such a miraculous recovery. This is evidence for the existence of God.

Atheists, on the other hand, have had zero, absolutely zero evidence to prove God does not exist. By your own logic, would that not mean that Atheism is false, and that the existence of God is a fact. After all, there's more evidence pointing towards God's existence, then his lack of existence. Your position, it seems, holds no ground in fact or reason.

I think it's worth looking up the history of the incident and "The Medical Bureau" first:

It all started in 18587, in the town of Lourdes, France, when Bernadette Soubirous, an illiterate peasant girl, had a series of eighteen visions of the Virgin Mary, which she called "the lady"8. A shrine was established in 1876 to which some six million pilgrims and visitors flock each year, occupying around 400 hotels built for them. The number of healings reported each year amount to about 30.000, if we take into consideration the word of the public relations persons who sell Lourdes as a business. The church representatives took more caution and in 1883 a body called Bureau des Constatations Médicales was established by the Church, which, in fact, is the forerunner of the current Medical Bureau. The latter was established by Pope Pius X in 1905, who declared that the miraculous cures at Lourdes should be submitted "to a proper process". The Bureau is led by a single doctor, the current head being Dr. Alessandro de Franciscis. The medical board that meets annually to establish the occurrence of miracle(s) is not formed by the same body of doctors, but any doctors practicing in or visiting may apply to become members of the Medical Bureau.

So it's all a steaming pile of bullshit of just a single person making crap up under a body created by the Church.

I mean seriously, if it were real, I would hate God for replacing people's hips with miracles while starving to death people in Africa or killing friends with cancer. It's a bit of a dick move now isn't it?

Anyway, your story is all crap because it's one guy appointed by the church making it up.

Arakasi:

That you for that piece of anecdotal evidence.
And have you ever heard of the burden of proof? That might be a good thing to learn about also.

And a wise atheist, an agnostic atheist, would not assert there is no god. They would merely say there is no evidence for god. One could say there is no god, but only in the same way as they could say there are no faires. There is no defence for a gnostic atheist though.

In law, the Burden of Proof is on the accuser, he is accusing me of being false and his position of being "fact", with little evidence to back it up. In fact, he is placing the burden of proof on me, rather then attempting to prove his position or disprove mine, he's attempting to make me prove mine; in court such an accusation would not hold up.

Regardless, I am not interested in an argument. Arguing religion for long periods of a time just gets me angry, and that's something I've been trying to avoid lately.

Witty Name Here:

Arakasi:

That you for that piece of anecdotal evidence.
And have you ever heard of the burden of proof? That might be a good thing to learn about also.

And a wise atheist, an agnostic atheist, would not assert there is no god. They would merely say there is no evidence for god. One could say there is no god, but only in the same way as they could say there are no faires. There is no defence for a gnostic atheist though.

In law, the Burden of Proof is on the accuser, he is accusing me of being false and his position of being "fact", with little evidence to back it up. In fact, he is placing the burden of proof on me, rather then attempting to prove his position or disprove mine, he's attempting to make me prove mine; in court such an accusation would not hold up.

Regardless, I am not interested in an argument. Arguing religion for long periods of a time just gets me angry, and that's something I've been trying to avoid lately.

Lack of evidence is a form of statistical proof, so him saying that god not existing is a fact, is quite possibly apt. Of course just because it is a fact now does not mean it cannot be overturned later, and that's where the whole gnosticism agnosticism thing comes in.

Aris Khandr:
So your proof is "something we can't explain happened, must be divine". How is that proof? How is that any different than when the Greeks believed that Zeus threw each lightning bolt by hand? Do you really have that little an understanding of what "proof" is?

When you resort to insults, your case is incredibly poor. We have proof that lightning is created by factors outside of our control; in fact we know how lightning is created first hand.

However, the point of a miracle is that it happens when there's evidence against that thing happening. When a hip bone is destroyed thanks to a tumor, it doesn't suddenly without warning grow back and everything becomes "just fine". What I have, is deductive reasoning on my side. You have a holy location known for healing the sick, a person with an ailment incurable by science visits said place, he is healed without any rational cause, other then going to said holy place. Ergo, that's evidence supporting the existence of God.

You don't seem to understand what a "miracle" is. A miracle is an exception rather then the rule, it is a temporary "break" in the laws that govern the world to aid a certain, special individual. This isn't "something we can't explain" this is "something that goes against rational explanation and evidence points towards it being related to the divine". This isn't something that goes beyond our current understanding of the world, it is working against our current understanding of the world. They've tested the water at Lourdes before, there is nothing physically notable or special about it; but there is certainly something spiritually special about it.

People like you like to accuse us of making "God of the gaps" arguments, of saying "I don't know therefore God", yet you're just making a "Science of the gaps" argument. Look at you, you're saying "I don't know, this works against all rational human understanding, but clearly it's rational and based in SCIENCE!" You're being nothing but a hypocrite, your argument is pathetic and your only evidence is... Nothing.

As I said before, you insulted me at the end, I think that's proof enough that you're being way too childish, when your only response to someone providing a counter argument is "well you're STUPID!" then I don't think you're important enough to debate. This little "argument" ends here, I'm not responding to you after this point, you've proven yourself WAY too childish for my liking.

Witty Name Here:

Arakasi:

That you for that piece of anecdotal evidence.
And have you ever heard of the burden of proof? That might be a good thing to learn about also.

And a wise atheist, an agnostic atheist, would not assert there is no god. They would merely say there is no evidence for god. One could say there is no god, but only in the same way as they could say there are no faires. There is no defence for a gnostic atheist though.

In law, the Burden of Proof is on the accuser, he is accusing me of being false and his position of being "fact", with little evidence to back it up. In fact, he is placing the burden of proof on me, rather then attempting to prove his position or disprove mine, he's attempting to make me prove mine; in court such an accusation would not hold up.

Regardless, I am not interested in an argument. Arguing religion for long periods of a time just gets me angry, and that's something I've been trying to avoid lately.

You do not understand law. I do not have to prove that I am innocent. You have to prove I am guilty. The burden of proof is on the accuser, surely, but you do not seem to understand what that means. If someone is trying to prosecute you, saying that you are guilty, it's up to them to prove it. If they can't, the default assumption is your innocence.

If you assert that a god exists, it's up to you to prove it. If you can't, the default assumption is that it doesn't exist. Same as unicorns, fairies, or Santa.

Witty Name Here:
Snip

Could you please show one documented case of an amputee being healed by a miracle.

Bashfluff:

You do not understand law. I do not have to prove that I am innocent. You have to prove I am guilty. The burden of proof is on the accuser, surely, but you do not seem to understand what that means. If someone is trying to prosecute you, saying that you are guilty, it's up to them to prove it. If they can't, the default assumption is your innocence.

If you assert that a god exists, it's up to you to prove it. If you can't, the default assumption is that it doesn't exist. Same as unicorns, fairies, or Santa.

I never made any assertion that God exists, he made the assertion that he doesn't and claims it was "fact"... I was just stating that I found Atheists considering their position to be fact without any evidence to be incredibly hypocritical and annoying.

Also, you aren't a part of this debate, so would you kindly keep your nose where it belongs?

Indecipherable:

I think it's worth looking up the history of the incident and "The Medical Bureau" first:

It all started in 18587, in the town of Lourdes, France, when Bernadette Soubirous, an illiterate peasant girl, had a series of eighteen visions of the Virgin Mary, which she called "the lady"8. A shrine was established in 1876 to which some six million pilgrims and visitors flock each year, occupying around 400 hotels built for them. The number of healings reported each year amount to about 30.000, if we take into consideration the word of the public relations persons who sell Lourdes as a business. The church representatives took more caution and in 1883 a body called Bureau des Constatations Médicales was established by the Church, which, in fact, is the forerunner of the current Medical Bureau. The latter was established by Pope Pius X in 1905, who declared that the miraculous cures at Lourdes should be submitted "to a proper process". The Bureau is led by a single doctor, the current head being Dr. Alessandro de Franciscis. The medical board that meets annually to establish the occurrence of miracle(s) is not formed by the same body of doctors, but any doctors practicing in or visiting may apply to become members of the Medical Bureau.

So it's all a steaming pile of bullshit of just a single person making crap up under a body created by the Church.

I mean seriously, if it were real, I would hate God for replacing people's hips with miracles while starving to death people in Africa or killing friends with cancer. It's a bit of a dick move now isn't it?

Anyway, your story is all crap because it's one guy appointed by the church making it up.

What evidence do you have that he's making it up? After all, if he were making such a thing up wouldn't they want to say every or almost every account of someone being healed at Lourdes is true? After all, that would lend more proof to the claim.

You've not proven anything at all, in fact, you just made an accusation, I would like you to back it up with proof. Prove the man is lying, prove that somehow all those documented miracles did not happen, I'll be waiting.

Witty Name Here:
Snip

Actually, the comparison is quite sound. Yes, we understand how lightning forms now. Did the ancient Greeks? No. So they decided that since they didn't understand it, Zeus must be the reason. Just like now, we don't understand how something works, so you say it must be divine. That isn't "science of the gaps", that is an admission that we don't know everything right now. If you see an insult in the comparison, perhaps you need to review your own belief. I'm more than willing to admit that we don't have a complete understanding of how the world works. What I am not willing to admit is that anything we don't understand at this exact moment must be caused by extra-planetary forces. Just as we eventually were able to learn what causes lightning so we didn't have to blame Zeus, we can eventually learn what rules the rest of the world works under.

Witty Name Here:

Bashfluff:

You do not understand law. I do not have to prove that I am innocent. You have to prove I am guilty. The burden of proof is on the accuser, surely, but you do not seem to understand what that means. If someone is trying to prosecute you, saying that you are guilty, it's up to them to prove it. If they can't, the default assumption is your innocence.

If you assert that a god exists, it's up to you to prove it. If you can't, the default assumption is that it doesn't exist. Same as unicorns, fairies, or Santa.

I never made any assertion that God exists, he made the assertion that he doesn't and claims it was "fact"... I was just stating that I found Atheists considering their position to be fact without any evidence to be incredibly hypocritical and annoying.

Also, you aren't a part of this debate, so would you kindly keep your nose where it belongs?

Indecipherable:

I think it's worth looking up the history of the incident and "The Medical Bureau" first:

It all started in 18587, in the town of Lourdes, France, when Bernadette Soubirous, an illiterate peasant girl, had a series of eighteen visions of the Virgin Mary, which she called "the lady"8. A shrine was established in 1876 to which some six million pilgrims and visitors flock each year, occupying around 400 hotels built for them. The number of healings reported each year amount to about 30.000, if we take into consideration the word of the public relations persons who sell Lourdes as a business. The church representatives took more caution and in 1883 a body called Bureau des Constatations Médicales was established by the Church, which, in fact, is the forerunner of the current Medical Bureau. The latter was established by Pope Pius X in 1905, who declared that the miraculous cures at Lourdes should be submitted "to a proper process". The Bureau is led by a single doctor, the current head being Dr. Alessandro de Franciscis. The medical board that meets annually to establish the occurrence of miracle(s) is not formed by the same body of doctors, but any doctors practicing in or visiting may apply to become members of the Medical Bureau.

So it's all a steaming pile of bullshit of just a single person making crap up under a body created by the Church.

I mean seriously, if it were real, I would hate God for replacing people's hips with miracles while starving to death people in Africa or killing friends with cancer. It's a bit of a dick move now isn't it?

Anyway, your story is all crap because it's one guy appointed by the church making it up.

What evidence do you have that he's making it up? After all, if he were making such a thing up wouldn't they want to say every or almost every account of someone being healed at Lourdes is true? After all, that would lend more proof to the claim.

You've not proven anything at all, in fact, you just made an accusation, I would like you to back it up with proof. Prove the man is lying, prove that somehow all those documented miracles did not happen, I'll be waiting.

Me replying to you? It's almost like this is a...*gasp* public forum! Bawww. Cry more. It doesn't bode well if you try and snap at anyone giving your argument criticism. Speaks to its weakness.

Atheists considering their position to be fact...Well, it is the default! They aren't asserting that he exists. They're asserting that they haven't met THEIR burden of proof, so the default is non-belief.

Witty Name Here:

In law, the Burden of Proof is on the accuser, he is accusing me of being false and his position of being "fact", with little evidence to back it up. In fact, he is placing the burden of proof on me, rather then attempting to prove his position or disprove mine, he's attempting to make me prove mine; in court such an accusation would not hold up.

You're arguing a strawman.

He said you having no evidence for your position is a fact. You then started arguing this:

Witty Name Here:

God is real, and that's a fact.

See the problem with that? You're saying "God isn't real and that's a fact" because... Of reasons or something. I'm saying "God is real and that's a fact" because "of reasons or something".

Which is something completely different.

You having no evidence for your god is a true fact though. You shouldn't be unaware of this. It's kind of a big deal in Christianity with it's whole glorification of "faith" thing.

Bouchie Bouch:

Witty Name Here:
Snip

Could you please show one documented case of an amputee being healed by a miracle.

The Miracle of Calanda in 1640, a man's leg was amputated then restored. Now, if I could go five seconds without being shouted down by at least six different people saying "You're wrong!" or "How about proof of X?" It would be much appreciated.

Witty Name Here:

Bouchie Bouch:

Witty Name Here:
Snip

Could you please show one documented case of an amputee being healed by a miracle.

The Miracle of Calanda in 1640, a man's leg was amputated then restored. Now, if I could go five seconds without being shouted down by at least six different people saying "You're wrong!" or "How about proof of X?" It would be much appreciated.

So you have pictures of this man with no leg and a picture of him at a later date with that leg restored?

Witty Name Here:

Bouchie Bouch:

Witty Name Here:
Snip

Could you please show one documented case of an amputee being healed by a miracle.

The Miracle of Calanda in 1640, a man's leg was amputated then restored. Now, if I could go five seconds without being shouted down by at least six different people saying "You're wrong!" or "How about proof of X?" It would be much appreciated.

Wikipedia that shit; it's not as airtight as you would like us to think. We would stop saying that you're wrong/ask you for proof if you would stop being wrong/give us proof. Now you've started to give us proof, but you need to give us reliable proof, real evidence. Until then...

You're wrong.

Milk:
You're arguing a strawman.

He said you having no evidence for your position is a fact. You then started arguing this:

Actually no, I started with this:

Witty Name Here:
Personally most of the Atheists I've met have been rather arrogant; claiming that it's perfectly okay to say "There's no such thing as God" but if you claim "God is real" they'll scream to the heavens that it's "not okay" and you "have no evidence to support your position". Though there are a few notable exceptions, for example a few people on these forums are quite nice and I'd have no problem debating or just chatting pleasantly with them.

Although when Atheists "advertise", the arrogance comes out in full force. Like those atheists that "unblessed" a highway, or those ones that bought out a bunch of advertisement saying "Jesus is as much a myth as Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny" in response to the horrendous and offensive... Nativity scene that Christians formerly used the ad space for.

Honestly, most Atheist "advertisements" I see tend to be entirely attack ads. Claiming "this isn't real, this is fake, all you believe in are LIEEEEEEEEEEEES!" Generally, advertisements from other faiths are a lot more uplifting and encouraging. I don't see why Atheists don't try to "spread the word" positively. Instead of condemning old beliefs, they could just celebrate new ones. Instead of purposely trying to damage and destroy things that are considered "holy" to other groups, they can just celebrate what's important to them. For example, instead of saying "God is a myth, christians believe in fairy tales" why not just base an ad campaign around "celebrating ration and reason"?

Ah well, I rarely speak with atheists these days or talk about religious matters, so this isn't really that important to me.

I never started with the claim "God is real", when I said that, I was pointing out the problem of making random and wild claims and naming them as "fact" just because you have a separate opinion.

Which is something completely different.

You having no evidence for your god is a true fact though. You shouldn't be unaware of this. It's kind of a big deal in Christianity with it's whole glorification of "faith" thing.

Except every single miracle, every single person claiming to "ascend to heaven" during surgery or temporarily dying, and every saint claiming to have spoken to God. Honestly, the "case" for some kind of God would be rather well supported considering the sheer amount of evidence. While most Atheists arguments are "THERE IS NO EVIDENCE" and when evidence is pointed to, they claim "WELL THAT ISN'T EVIDENCE".

Bashfluff:

Witty Name Here:
[quote="Bashfluff" post="528.401935.16577319"]
You do not understand law. I do not have to prove that I am innocent. You have to prove I am guilty. The burden of proof is on the accuser, surely, but you do not seem to understand what that means. If someone is trying to prosecute you, saying that you are guilty, it's up to them to prove it. If they can't, the default assumption is your innocence.

If you assert that a god exists, it's up to you to prove it. If you can't, the default assumption is that it doesn't exist. Same as unicorns, fairies, or Santa.

I never made any assertion that God exists, he made the assertion that he doesn't and claims it was "fact"... I was just stating that I found Atheists considering their position to be fact without any evidence to be incredibly hypocritical and annoying.

Also, you aren't a part of this debate, so would you kindly keep your nose where it belongs?

[quote="Indecipherable" post="528.401935.16577278"]
Me replying to you? It's almost like this is a...*gasp* public forum! Bawww. Cry more. It doesn't bode well if you try and snap at anyone giving your argument criticism. Speaks to its weakness.

Atheists considering their position to be fact...Well, it is the default! They aren't asserting that he exists. They're asserting that they haven't met THEIR burden of proof, so the default is non-belief.

Actually no, the default would be Agnosticism, with Atheism only coming after you have significant evidence to support non-belief. You don't look at a coin being flipped, seeing it land on heads and then say the next round "Yep, it can't land on tails that is absolutely impossible", you can say "I don't know how it will land, but I think it will be heads again" or just "I don't know how it will land", but when you see a position the default isn't to take the exact opposite of that position.

Secondly, "Cry more"? If anything, you sound like the childish one around here.

Bouchie Bouch:

So you have pictures of this man with no leg and a picture of him at a later date with that leg restored?

Witnesses, a certificate, copies of the trial, minutes of the proceedings, registration of his admittance to a hospital, and a trial determining it's truth.

Also, photography wasn't invented in 1640, you might want to look into that.

Indecipherable:

Even pictures wouldn't satisfy us, let's be honest.

Oh yes, I have no doubt that if God somehow descended to earth with a choir of Angels singing his praise and performing miracles to further add proof to his claim, you'd sooner say it was Aliens then accept the proof in front of you.

Witty Name Here:

Bouchie Bouch:

So you have pictures of this man with no leg and a picture of him at a later date with that leg restored?

Witnesses, a certificate, copies of the trial, minutes of the proceedings, registration of his admittance to a hospital, and a trial determining it's truth.

Also, photography wasn't invented in 1640, you might want to look into that.

So all you have are records of people claiming to have witnessed this miricale, just like every miracle.
Trial records don't really hold up, I can show you records of people being tried for witchcraft with witness testimony determineing its truth. All you have are claims and no evedence.

Witty Name Here:

Actually no, I started with this:

snip

I never started with the claim "God is real",

Nor did I say you did. Again, you are creating a strawman.

Except every single miracle,

Anecdotal.

every single person claiming to "ascend to heaven" during surgery or temporarily dying,

What about the majority who have not?

and every saint claiming to have spoken to God.

What about all the other folk who have Claimed to have seen Elvis, Aliens, fairies etc?

Honestly, the "case" for some kind of God would be rather well supported considering the sheer amount of evidence. While most Atheists arguments are "THERE IS NO EVIDENCE" and when evidence is pointed to, they claim "WELL THAT ISN'T EVIDENCE".

Is your evidence imperical? Can it be tested an repeated again through the principals of the scientific method? Has your evidence been scrutinized and came out on top after intense statistical analysis and scientific controls?

If not, then it's probably not hard evidence.

Witty Name Here:

Milk:
You're arguing a strawman.

He said you having no evidence for your position is a fact. You then started arguing this:

Actually no, I started with this:

Witty Name Here:
Personally most of the Atheists I've met have been rather arrogant; claiming that it's perfectly okay to say "There's no such thing as God" but if you claim "God is real" they'll scream to the heavens that it's "not okay" and you "have no evidence to support your position". Though there are a few notable exceptions, for example a few people on these forums are quite nice and I'd have no problem debating or just chatting pleasantly with them.

Although when Atheists "advertise", the arrogance comes out in full force. Like those atheists that "unblessed" a highway, or those ones that bought out a bunch of advertisement saying "Jesus is as much a myth as Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny" in response to the horrendous and offensive... Nativity scene that Christians formerly used the ad space for.

Honestly, most Atheist "advertisements" I see tend to be entirely attack ads. Claiming "this isn't real, this is fake, all you believe in are LIEEEEEEEEEEEES!" Generally, advertisements from other faiths are a lot more uplifting and encouraging. I don't see why Atheists don't try to "spread the word" positively. Instead of condemning old beliefs, they could just celebrate new ones. Instead of purposely trying to damage and destroy things that are considered "holy" to other groups, they can just celebrate what's important to them. For example, instead of saying "God is a myth, christians believe in fairy tales" why not just base an ad campaign around "celebrating ration and reason"?

Ah well, I rarely speak with atheists these days or talk about religious matters, so this isn't really that important to me.

I never started with the claim "God is real", when I said that, I was pointing out the problem of making random and wild claims and naming them as "fact" just because you have a separate opinion.

Which is something completely different.

You having no evidence for your god is a true fact though. You shouldn't be unaware of this. It's kind of a big deal in Christianity with it's whole glorification of "faith" thing.

Except every single miracle, every single person claiming to "ascend to heaven" during surgery or temporarily dying, and every saint claiming to have spoken to God. Honestly, the "case" for some kind of God would be rather well supported considering the sheer amount of evidence. While most Atheists arguments are "THERE IS NO EVIDENCE" and when evidence is pointed to, they claim "WELL THAT ISN'T EVIDENCE".

Bashfluff:

Witty Name Here:
[quote="Bashfluff" post="528.401935.16577319"]
You do not understand law. I do not have to prove that I am innocent. You have to prove I am guilty. The burden of proof is on the accuser, surely, but you do not seem to understand what that means. If someone is trying to prosecute you, saying that you are guilty, it's up to them to prove it. If they can't, the default assumption is your innocence.

If you assert that a god exists, it's up to you to prove it. If you can't, the default assumption is that it doesn't exist. Same as unicorns, fairies, or Santa.

I never made any assertion that God exists, he made the assertion that he doesn't and claims it was "fact"... I was just stating that I found Atheists considering their position to be fact without any evidence to be incredibly hypocritical and annoying.

Also, you aren't a part of this debate, so would you kindly keep your nose where it belongs?

[quote="Indecipherable" post="528.401935.16577278"]
Me replying to you? It's almost like this is a...*gasp* public forum! Bawww. Cry more. It doesn't bode well if you try and snap at anyone giving your argument criticism. Speaks to its weakness.

Atheists considering their position to be fact...Well, it is the default! They aren't asserting that he exists. They're asserting that they haven't met THEIR burden of proof, so the default is non-belief.

Actually no, the default would be Agnosticism, with Atheism only coming after you have significant evidence to support non-belief. You don't look at a coin being flipped, seeing it land on heads and then say the next round "Yep, it can't land on tails that is absolutely impossible", you can say "I don't know how it will land, but I think it will be heads again" or just "I don't know how it will land", but when you see a position the default isn't to take the exact opposite of that position.

Secondly, "Cry more"? If anything, you sound like the childish one around here.

You're making an inaccurate comparison. You're not talking about probablitities, events that repeat and that have a random outcome. You're talking about facts, things that are either true or not. There is no default for a coin toss because it's random. But when it comes to how we view the existence of things, we have a clear precedence. You might want to look at what that is. It's not Agnosticism.

Dear lord, guys. (Heh. See what I did there?)

I thought there was some good discussion going on in the first page, here, but it seems to have devolved in to an entirely separate argument. Not that I don't appreciate the discussion value of the new argument, but please, take it to a place where it actually belongs, would ya?

Anyway, I'ma try and say something slightly on topic and say that, living in the American Midwest, I've noticed a bit of both sides of the issue. As a matter of fact, I have a bit of an anecdote, if I may.

I go to a relatively christian dominated school; as far as I know about eighty percent or so of the school. Recently, some student or group of students have begun putting little post-it notes on the lockers saying things like "Jesus is the truth" or different bible verses. While I wouldn't exactly call that arrogance, it is going out of one's way to, in a public school, mind you, impose a certain belief system on others.

Along those same lines, the secular students at my school (of which I am one, if it really matters, though I tend to be rather quiet about it unless someone asks) seem to be ready to burst at the thought of telling others about it. Obviously there's the group of antitheists who mock all religion, but they seem to be in the minority. For the most part it's more a derisive, "Oh, you believe in God, hmm?" This isn't to say that everyone's like that; as a matter of fact, most of the students couldn't give less of a crap what you believe in.

Like others have said, I believe it's mainly based on what the culture you're raised in believes. Those people who convert to agnosticism or atheism may feel like they need to make it known to others; maybe a sort of "unique flower" feeling or something. In my opinion, though, it doesn't seem like as big of a problem in some other places.

Anyway, that's my two cents. Hopefully the thread can get back on topic from here.

Witty Name Here:

Indecipherable:

Even pictures wouldn't satisfy us, let's be honest.

Oh yes, I have no doubt that if God somehow descended to earth with a choir of Angels singing his praise and performing miracles to further add proof to his claim, you'd sooner say it was Aliens then accept the proof in front of you.

I'd genuinely be concerned for my mental health, as should you.

I feel arguing with you is pointless because of the irrationality of your arguments, but let me just cherry pick an amusing favourite:

Witty Name Here:

Except every single miracle, every single person claiming to "ascend to heaven" during surgery or temporarily dying, and every saint claiming to have spoken to God. Honestly, the "case" for some kind of God would be rather well supported considering the sheer amount of evidence. While most Atheists arguments are "THERE IS NO EVIDENCE" and when evidence is pointed to, they claim "WELL THAT ISN'T EVIDENCE".

Simply put, if this is the standard of your evidence, then you can 'prove' a great deal of nonsensical drivel - God included. In fact, the challenge with this standard of proof is which God, because you can prove them all when they are most clearly incompatible in their teachings.

ALL of the ancient religions have the observations of people to 'support' them as equally as the Abrahamic God does, yet you would discard the beliefs of Ra, Thor and Quetzcalcoatl is rubbish. Likewise there is substantial 'evidence' of this kind for Ghosts, for the Sasquatch, for Alien abduction, for Elvis, for Dragons, and indeed just about every mythological creature that has ever existed.

The problem is that an observation of this nature is simply not verifiable nor repeatable. We have no more reason to believe stories of the Sasquatch as we do the story of your God. We only discount the story of the Flying Spaghetti Monster because it is a pun, though there is equivalent evidence (ie: none) for it as there is for your God. It's also interesting to note that in debates between sophisticated Atheists and sophisticated Theologians, it is frequently the theologians themselves who rebuke this kind of argument as nonsense. It is of such utter irrationality that it defeats itself, and they would rather stick with "Faith" than with an argument that is comically awful.

There are numerous other problems with this kind of belief (of miracles and an interventionist God) that I had given a brief acknowledgement to before. Firstly, why reveal yourself to such a remarkable few and leave the vast majority of the world (billions) unaware or at best rather unconvinced. Especially when you intend to sledgehammer them with hell for it. Secondly, why produce rather random miracles when there is such harm, just travesty and loss in the world? It defies me and my moral sensibilities that an interventionist, personal God would heal the wounded but only at a specific site, and only sporadically, but leave so much else for us to suffer in? It seems colossally petty and capricious to me.

Milk:
One group of people whole heartedly believe in something without a lick of evidence to support it.

tbh, thats opinion only.

many christians are able to relate how God has directly intervened in their lives on a personal basis.

God says hes near to us all, but from the disbelievers pov theres a chasm that the disbeliever cannot cross. so although the disbeliever can ask for definitive proof, the kind that God gives is the kind that people who are open to him can end up receiving.

it comes down to your heart condition.

why God would act this way is also explained in scripture, but that entails a much larger answer beyond the topic of this thread.

Paflick:
Like others have said, I believe it's mainly based on what the culture you're raised in believes. Those people who convert to agnosticism or atheism may feel like they need to make it known to others; maybe a sort of "unique flower" feeling or something. In my opinion, though, it doesn't seem like as big of a problem in some other places.

God is shoved into our faces more than daily. Why are we the outspoken "unique flowers" when we express our belief but God-folk have a licence to not just advertise prolifically but also intrude on us through means of Political and Regulatory forces? What a terribly hypocritical condescension.

G_Wright:

Milk:
One group of people whole heartedly believe in something without a lick of evidence to support it.

tbh, thats opinion only.

many christians are able to relate how God has directly intervened in their lives on a personal basis.

Anecdotal evidence is not proper evidence.

The thread has already been through this.

Indecipherable:

Paflick:
Like others have said, I believe it's mainly based on what the culture you're raised in believes. Those people who convert to agnosticism or atheism may feel like they need to make it known to others; maybe a sort of "unique flower" feeling or something. In my opinion, though, it doesn't seem like as big of a problem in some other places.

Simply put, God is shoved into our faces more than daily. Why are we the outspoken "unique flowers" when we express our belief but God-folk have a licence to not just advertise prolifically but also intrude on us through means of Political and Regulatory forces? What a terribly hypocritical condescension.

You misunderstand my sentiment, friend.

I've said nothing about advertising prolifically. Honestly, if anyone wants to advertise their agenda, they're more than welcome to, it's simply a matter of whether others approve. I've got no problem with the "Jesus saves" bulletin boards, because the organization that posts it up honestly believes that doing so will help save others. The same thing for the "Don't believe in God? You aren't alone." ads.

Now, a word of warning, I'm still not entirely sure how I feel about it, but going back to my previous example of the sticky notes on the lockers, I consider that perhaps less acceptable, simply because of the fact that the setting is a public school meant for learning and not proselytizing.

As to the question of why we are the outspoken "unique flowers," I don't believe that "we" are. When I said that, I was referring to those who shoot a derisive glance to those they know are religious, or speak about them behind their back, that sort of thing. (And, once again, I'm not saying that either side is innocent of this.)

Getting in to the actual statement of yours, I can't really disagree with most of what you've said. I do agree that God is pushed in to our minds more than it should be, and I can hardly defend the political aspect. All I can say to that is that I hope it changes in the future as perceptions shift.

(I'm looking back over what I wrote now, and I apologize ahead of time if it doesn't make a great deal of sense. It's almost 12:30 AM here, and I'm a bit beat. I'll come back tomorrow and edit what I can for clarity. As a flame shield: no offense is meant to anyone, and if anyone has any questions as to what I meant, feel free to ask.)

I kinda feel like my anti-theistic stance is justified, sometimes, since pretty much every religious person I've met has found a way to impose their religion on me. Whether it's because of my radical ideological views, the fact that I'm LGBT or the mere fact that I'm not religious, it seems my thoughts and behaviours are errors that must be corrected. I know that the "quietly religious" types must exist somewhere, but I've never met them.

I wouldn't call myself "arrogant" about my anti-theism, I know that my way is no better or worse than religion, agnosticism or any other form of spirituality (or the absence of it), but I am automatically wary and even abrasive towards religious people pretty much by default.

I've already been called "high and mighty" once today. I really don't try to come off that way but it just happens. Obviously, I responded by asking him if he meant supercilious. Heh.

I'm a little arrogant. I get that. But then I don't necessarily think arrogance is a bad thing; if you've worked hard to develop your opinions, you're legitimately proud of yourself, and you've got the wherewithal to back it up, I say celebrate yourself. If the opposing party doesn't like it they can always endeavour to dethrone you. If they win, good for them; if they fail, well, don't be such a sore loser, mmkay?

I'm a firm believer in the idea that respect is something that's earned, not something that everyone is automatically entitled to. If you've studied your religion, and have faith despite testing it to its limits, I'll applaud that. I'll still think you're wrong, but I'll applaud the effort and thought you put into it. The same is true of philosophy, or opinions about video games, or how you like to prepare a steak. Don't be lazy, don't be intellectually lazy, don't contradict yourself, and we'll get on famously. Regurgitate party lines without thinking about them or attempting to add something of your own? Eh, notsomuch.

I've mentioned this before, but fellow atheists don't get a free pass with me, either. There are plenty of bad ones out there and I won't hesitate to turn on them just as soon as I've finished using them to oppose any nearby theists. Man's gotta eat.

Witty Name Here:
Stuff about Lourdes

I have a question: are being serious when you use Lourdes as evidence for God or is this an elaborate troll? Seriously, is this for real?

Anyway:

If we took hearsay and debunked claims as evidence we should definitely accept the ancient gods of europe, the americas, africa and asia - there are endless stories of all these gods and spirits intervening and helping us mortals.

If you believe in Lourdes why not Sathya Sai Baba who performed great miracles (including rasing the dead) in front of millions of people had followers all around the world (some even described him as a master of time and space) - he kicks the Lourdes miracles ass and only died recently in 2011! So we have photos, videos and eye-witness accounts! Amazing. If you believe in Lourdes for the reasons you gave but not this guy you are, in short, a hypocrite.

Images:
I'm a Taoist and I find any type of fanaticism insufferable.

I agree that Dawkins style atheists are themselves fanatical and have just as much arrogance as any person telling me I'm gonna burn in hell. I find them equally annoying.

My best example of what I would call arrogance from the Atheist camp was this famous campaign...

image

Now come on, that's just trolling. Of course the Christians took the bait and did their own bus.

Everyone's opinion is just that, their opinion. People, atheist or religious should be a little more classy and stop shitting on eachother.

That seems rather inoffensive to me. It's not even flat-out saying there is no god. It's saying there's probably no god, and encouraging people to enjoy their life.

If people are going to call that arrogance, then the amount of effort it would take to not offend them during honest conversation is probably impractical.

Curious that you would call that the best example of arrogance you were able to find. I suspect you are in for some nasty shocks then.

Witty Name Here:

Aris Khandr:

You don't prove things don't exist. You prove that they do. Any god has precisely as much evidence as to their existence as Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, and unicorns. You can find that offensive if you like, but that doesn't change the fact that it is the truth. If you disagree, offer proof. That's how science works. Attempting to defend your position by claiming that atheists have no proof may make you feel better, but it isn't a defense. Because, again, you do not prove that something doesn't exist.

Every miracle, many of which are well documented, could count as proof of God.

For example, there are over 67 miracles associated with Lourdes. Medical examiners have noted each miracle, and could provide no logical explanation for the miraculous healing.

Here's just a sample of one:

Vittorio MICHELI

Born on 6.2.1940, in the Province of Trento (Italie)

Cured on 1.6.1963, in his 23rd. year. Miracle on 26.5.1976, by Mgr Alessandro Gottardi, Archbishop of Trento.

On 16th. April 1962, Vittorio MICHELI, a soldier in the Alpine Corps, was admitted into a hospital in Verona for the diagnosis and treatment of an obscure condition of his left hip. After various tests, ineffective treatment and also a biopsy, the dreaded diagnosis of a malignant tumour, a sarcoma, was made on 4th. June.

For a whole year he remained under the care of the Military Hospital and Centres, although no anti-mitotic, surgical, medical or physiotherapeutic treatment was applied.

Deterioration, both locally and generally went on relentlessly, with total destruction of his hip joint. But he still undertook a pilgrimage to Lourdes with his Diocese in June 1963.

During the pilgrimage, nothing notable happened, except that he bathed, encased from pelvis to foot in a plaster cast.

On his return he appeared to be in better shape, but because he was doing his military service, he was obliged to go back to his starting-point, i.e. the Military Hospital of Trento.

More X-rays were taken there, and in a way difficult to comprehend, they were incorrectly interpreted, being considered identical to his former ones. This accounts for why it was 6 months after the pilgrimage before proper notice was taken of his excellent health, absence of pain, ability to walk and finally "the remarkable reconstruction of his hip" the first signs of which had already been present 5 months before!

Each year since 1963, Vittorio has visited Lourdes. In 1967, the Medical Bureau saw no reason to delay admitting that "it was impossible to give any medical explanation for this cure ".

In 1968, the International Medical Committee postponed its decision, after hearing Prof. Salmon's report. It was only in 1971, a lapse of 8 years, that this Committee confirmed the verdict of the Medical Bureau of Lourdes.

On 26.5.1976,13 years after the cure, Mgr Alessandro Gottardi, after taking into account the favourable advice of his Canonical Commission, declared that this cure contained "sufficient evidence for the recognition of a special intervention by the Power of God, Father and Creator".

Naturally, Vittorio MICHELI keeps on coming to Lourdes, working as a brancardier in his diocesan Hospitalite.

http://www.miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/approved_apparitions/lourdes/miracles4.html

So, after taking a visit to a sacred site associated with healing of the sick, a man's hip bone is miraculously reconstructed with no medical explanation give towards why he would make such a miraculous recovery. This is evidence for the existence of God.

Atheists, on the other hand, have had zero, absolutely zero evidence to prove God does not exist. By your own logic, would that not mean that Atheism is false, and that the existence of God is a fact. After all, there's more evidence pointing towards God's existence, then his lack of existence. Your position, it seems, holds no ground in fact or reason.

You misunderstand how evidence works, because you took that as proof without addressing other causes. If I let a glass fall, I can say that it was because God made it fall, but that's not legitimate evidence because I haven't addressed other possible causes, nor have I suggested a mechanism. I would be simply cherrypicking a cause that I preferred out of ignorance, as is anyone who attributes the healed bone to divine intervention.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 20 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked