Burden Of Proof

[Mauihund]

It seems when someone disputes the beliefs of a religion they get labeled an Atheist, there are not many true atheists out there who are the ones claiming there is no god.

I find most fit in to one of the agnostic brackets and there are many different levels of agnostic. What I feel as an agnostic is that I don't know if there is a god or not but I believe all religions are falsehoods created as a means to control man.

So with this there is no burden of proof about a 'god', but I will add it does leave me with a burden of proving religions wrong, not very hard with the self contradictions that the faiths believers promote.

Dispute the claims of religion all you want. And if you run out of complaints with one religion, theres an endless supply of them somewhere else for you to look at. Just know you aren't talking about God.

Maybe if you didn't equivocate between God and religion you might have an easer time with the subject.

Agnosticism is the cowards coward for a belief system. At least an atheist is clear about their agenda, the removal of all references to the spiritual throughout the world. The agnostic waffles on the edge of meaning. Should I make a stand for what I believe, or tell everyone I'm not sure, yet. I need more proof first.

You ask for proof, but that's just how you play the game. As long as your searching, no one can really say anything bad.


There will be no proof of God's existence. The burden is rejected. And therefore laid to rest. I'm sure you'll continue to think about it.

 

[SmokeyMcChokey]

The bible's story and all religious text portray a cognitive Meaning of truth from human observation and experience...You didn't need a microscope to see an atom, when you saw a body decompose ashes to ashes and dust to dust...we just evolved enough to produce equipment to watch the atom decompose into quantum physics and then into nothing... Santa Claus isn't real, but prove to me how lil boys and girls get gifts all around the world if he doesn't exist, this is the idiocracy of your approach to understanding the meaning of God.., and Science is proof of your still inherent incompetence...

My statement for the week, I really saw no reason to even make this one..Its not like any of you are competent to overstand it anyway...Silly Monkeys

thats assuning that all accounts in the bible were recorded as fact. which we all know is simply not true. Some books were written hundreds of years after said events took place. the bible is a collection of stories that attempt to reform behavior more than anything else. Religion only began because of ignorance. Ancients didnt know why a volcano errupted so it must have been God. all im saying is for someone to take the bible as fact is in itself madness.

 

[CrackerJax]

[youtube]H9t2pUn0xvs[/youtube]

 

[Brazko]

thats assuning that all accounts in the bible were recorded as fact. which we all know is simply not true. Some books were written hundreds of years after said events took place. the bible is a collection of stories that attempt to reform behavior more than anything else. Religion only began because of ignorance. Ancients didnt know why a volcano errupted so it must have been God. all im saying is for someone to take the bible as fact is in itself madness.

Smokey, Santa Claus is not A Fact.., You get it, I get it..., What santa Claus stands for is REal..

The bible (which I did not state a literal fact) is a proponet of truth..., To say Religion began because of ignorance is Valid to the Point that Science began because of Ignorance..., All I'm saying is to only dispute the Bible as literal FActual is in itself madness..., ie as seen through the SAme light as the believer..,

 

[CrackerJax]

the bible is most definitely NOT a proponent of truth. One of the reasons why everyone has to cherry pick what THEY WANT from the bible. There's bunches of bigotry and racism and slavery and rape and pillaging and justification for killing those not like you.

Hardly a proponent of truth.... more like primitive thinking.

 

[Brazko]

the bible is most definitely NOT a proponent of truth. One of the reasons why everyone has to cherry pick what THEY WANT from the bible. There's bunches of bigotry and racism and slavery and rape and pillaging and justification for killing those not like you.

Hardly a proponent of truth.... more like primitive thinking.

So, by truth, You mean it should be lived by.., By Truth, I mean it is truth in likeness of Primitive Man.. and Yes, Man today... To know your history, is to prevent you from doing it again....,

However, we still do what primitive Man done.. exploit, kill, Sheer Sheep...

No change in primitive thinking vs modern day thinking.. just the implemented technology in doing it.. More civilized We are..huh,

but the Bible explains much more than that as well, you remember it is full of Stories.., not the STory.. just as all historical texts Are.. Voices of Truth..

 

[morgentaler]

Dispute the claims of religion all you want. And if you run out of complaints with one religion, theres an endless supply of them somewhere else for you to look at. Just know you aren't talking about God.

As long as you use the capitalized "God" you get lumped in with the Christians, as the word was subverted to monopolize the very concept and dismiss all others.

A rather sneaky, yet effective, ploy.

Deists need a word that hasn't been co-opted yet. Of course as soon as they come up with one, Christianity will claim that one too, and you're back to square one.

 

[morgentaler]

Santa Claus was based on the actions of a dutch philanthropist who was good to children.

Santa Claus today is a corporate icon intended to make you spend money. It is not a force for good, but for indulgence.

 

[Brazko]

so the implements denies the Truth of the Basis.., That is the arguementive Philosophy at it's root..

this can be said about all Things.. Goverment, REligion, Food, Corporate Business..,etc., etc., none of these things are a force of Good,, They are all indulgence for Evil..., You see, This Approach is Flawed!!

 

[Woodstock.Hippie]

I once blessed A Friend of mine who was more learned in the philosophy of science than I with the title of scientist.
Alas, he claimed, "There is no paper" and he was right, no scientist.

 

[CrackerJax]

Santa Claus was based on the actions of a dutch philanthropist who was good to children.

Santa Claus today is a corporate icon intended to make you spend money. It is not a force for good, but for indulgence.

I have had the pleasure of spending a few Xmas's in Adamtown. The first time I saw the original Sinterklaas and Zwarte Pieten ... it was very very kewl. A great place to spend Xmas.

 

[Mauihund]

As long as you use the capitalized "God" you get lumped in with the Christians, as the word was subverted to monopolize the very concept and dismiss all others.

A rather sneaky, yet effective, ploy.

Deists need a word that hasn't been co-opted yet. Of course as soon as they come up with one, Christianity will claim that one too, and you're back to square one.

Bahahahaha! You think I'm playing the "Prove God Exists" game. Stupid monkey. That is one HUGE wast of time.

 

[morgentaler]

No. But you're reading comprehension is only slightly better than Babs.
You just know how to use the editor.

But you're right. Attempting to prove any god is a HUGE waste of time.
But there's an even bigger waste of time. Worship of something you can't possibly know exists.

 

[PadawanBater]

Bahahahaha! You think I'm playing the "Prove God Exists" game. Stupid monkey. That is one HUGE wast of time.

Might wanna check the title of the thread there buddy, that's the game your side has been playing the entire time...

lmfao...

 

[DJBoxhouse]

I love how all my thread did was gather people who wanted proof, and then gather people who, in retort argued that there balls were left in there other pants and, rather, instead continued to argue the semantics of the thread in relation to there own wan-tan unsupported beliefs.


Your beliefs either filter through the trickling system of proof in logical deduction, or you lose your place in the line of potential considerations of outcome.

I can't keep maybes circling in thought if I have no way to prove them just because some of them sound pretty and had good intentions.

I really like earl gray, but that tea pot orbiting Jupiter I mention in threads past couulld have another type of tea in it. It will never really give me any solid conclusion for me to base a decision on. *siiigh* C'est la vie, such is life, and then I move on.

 

[krustofskie]

Dispute the claims of religion all you want. And if you run out of complaints with one religion, theres an endless supply of them somewhere else for you to look at. Just know you aren't talking about God.

Maybe if you didn't equivocate between God and religion you might have an easer time with the subject.

Agnosticism is the cowards coward for a belief system. At least an atheist is clear about their agenda, the removal of all references to the spiritual throughout the world. The agnostic waffles on the edge of meaning. Should I make a stand for what I believe, or tell everyone I'm not sure, yet. I need more proof first.

You ask for proof, but that's just how you play the game. As long as your searching, no one can really say anything bad.


There will be no proof of God's existence. The burden is rejected. And therefore laid to rest. I'm sure you'll continue to think about it.

I can and do separate the 'idea' of god away from religions. Religions are man made 100%, and if there is a god I don't think he would have anything to do with them either. If you have read any of my posts you would notice I never attack the concept of god, only the organisations that claim to be of a god. This is why I think the burden lays with the religions as they claim there to be a god and the same stands for the real atheist's who claim there is none. I'm not asking god to prove anything, I don't talk to people I don't think are there.

To say agnostics are cowards, hows that, I can admit I don't know about god but will call 'religions' bluff, I just call that being true to myself for admitting my own inadequacies but will stand up to bullies.

I don't believe there is a god but I have no way of proving it, so with no proof I have no answers, quite simply don't know. I try to use logic in my reasoning and for me to claim or deny a deity without any facts defies my logic.

 

[anhedonia]

Great thread. Hilarious that somone would rate such a good thread with 1 star.

 

[Mauihund]

No. But you're reading comprehension is only slightly better than Babs.
You just know how to use the editor.

But you're right. Attempting to prove any god is a HUGE waste of time.
But there's an even bigger waste of time. Worship of something you can't possibly know exists.

You've finally reduced your argument to its basic element. I'm a stupid poo-poo ca-ca. I get it. I get it.

 

[Mauihund]

Might wanna check the title of the thread there buddy, that's the game your side has been playing the entire time...

lmfao...

You're not the boss of me!

 

[Woodstock.Hippie]

Must you define something before you prove it?