Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10
71
Religion & Society / Re: Hello, atheists who did you vote for?
« Last post by The Gawd on December 05, 2016, 10:17:58 AM »
Does putting a Klan sympathizer at AG put Americans in harms way? Slightly?
72
Religion & Society / Re: Hello, atheists who did you vote for?
« Last post by John 3 16 on December 05, 2016, 10:17:38 AM »
...and how about your fellow humans who are not Americans?  Do they count for a little less than humans who are Americans?  Are you fine supporting an agenda that removes the chance of your fellow American being in harms way in exchange for adding the chance of your fellow non-American being in harms way?
What is wrong with providing food and protection in other countries? 
73
Religion & Society / Re: Hello, atheists who did you vote for?
« Last post by Backspace on December 05, 2016, 10:17:29 AM »
I don't know how much truth is in real danger of Syrian refugee crisis, some say they are dangerous people by showing us examples in Europe and Germany.  Maybe it's true or maybe not.

You admit not knowing what the truth is, yet you seem to have taken a fervent stand on one side of the immigration issue. Perhaps you should find the truth before you take a stand... 

John 8:31-32: “If you continue in My word, you are truly My disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

74
Religion & Society / Re: Hello, atheists who did you vote for?
« Last post by jdawg70 on December 05, 2016, 10:08:27 AM »
If I know there is a slightest chance that my fellow American could be in harms way, I am not going to support that agenda.
(Red = me)

How do you define "slight"?

I mean, 'allowing for foreign travel anywhere' poses a slight chance of one of your fellow Americans being in harms way.  'Allowing vehicles that can exceed 2MPH' poses a slight chance of one of your fellow Americans being in harms way.

...and how about your fellow humans who are not Americans?  Do they count for a little less than humans who are Americans?  Are you fine supporting an agenda that removes the chance of your fellow American being in harms way in exchange for adding the chance of your fellow non-American being in harms way?

Quote
That is not "loving your neighbor".
Who qualifies as a 'neighbor', John 3 16?
75
Religion & Society / Re: Hello, atheists who did you vote for?
« Last post by John 3 16 on December 05, 2016, 09:59:36 AM »
Do you support Sanctuary cities?
Talk to the family of victims who were murdered by illegals who deported many times and still managed to comeback and successfully find cover in sanctuary cities with the help of liberal governors.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qeghj26vCsw
What will you tell the families of victims? What's your excuse?
76
Religion & Society / Re: Hello, atheists who did you vote for?
« Last post by John 3 16 on December 05, 2016, 09:39:11 AM »
I also remember watching a TV show (I will provide source when it dawns on me)

There is a Middle Eastern American guy complaining that his son cried on the election day over Trump's victory.  "Daddy, Trump won! will we get kicked out of the country? can't we fly to India to visit our grandparents anymore because of the wall?"

The level of dishonesty of this guy almost made me puke, thinking about this poor little boy having been brainwashed by his daddy's hateful rhetorics and shady political points of view.

Anyone wants to confess? confess now and fix your mistakes.  Show some decency to your children and tell them the truth.
77
Religion & Society / Re: Hello, atheists who did you vote for?
« Last post by John 3 16 on December 05, 2016, 09:10:53 AM »
Here are liars who lied and not ashamed of themselves for not keeping their promises publicly.
Just curious, how come none of them said they would move to Mexico or Iraq or even Syria?
What racists in a hypocritical way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSeTuEydHRU

78
Chatter / Re: How Atheists Shift the Burden of Proof
« Last post by jetson on December 05, 2016, 08:45:23 AM »
Failing to find evidence for something, where one reasonably expects to find evidence for it, is itself a form of evidence.  For example, when they were testing the Higgs field, they had to perform tests to attempt to produce a Higgs boson, and every time they failed to do so, they were able to exclude certain mass ranges from future consideration.  To put it another way, failing to find the Higgs boson at certain mass ranges was evidence that it did not fall within those mass ranges.  If they had failed to find it within all expected mass ranges, that would have been pretty solid evidence against its existence (and by extension, the Higgs field).

I suspect the reasoning that strong atheists use regarding gods is something like, "we've looked for gods and failed to find them, which itself is evidence against them existing, therefore I don't believe they exist".  I am not a strong atheist, so I don't know for sure, but that stands to reason.  So it's not so much a positive claim as it is a stronger negative conclusion.

I agree evidence of absence is evidence to us atheists but it is not evidence to a theist.  No amount of science out there is evidence to a theist their gods don't exist.  They just tweek it or deny the science.

When a theist says you have no evidence that god does not exist they are asking for objective proof.  This is not possible for a negative or default position.  They literally want a picture of gods not existing.

I'm glad that you recognize this, and you put it into words very well. "They literally want a picture of gods not existing."

As ridiculous as that sounds, it is as close to what some Christians seem to expect when they attempt to shift the burden. In my mind, when a thing is posited, a reasonably educated person can make a fairly quick assessment on accepting or rejecting the claim. This is obviously more difficult when things are complex, like the precise calculations needed to shoot a rocket off of earth and to the moon. However, history shows it is reasonable because we did it, so something went very right. Most people have seen images of earth or they've seen globes, or both. So the claim that the earth is a sphere is obvious, and easily acceptable (although there are flat-earthers out there, sigh.)

When it comes to god claims, the challenge is in the emotional attachment and inability to separate myth from reality for many humans. Parents passed their beliefs onto their children with enough conviction and authority, along with heaps of fear, guilt, and shame to completely embed the delusion into the minds of their young, impressionable children. This is not something that can be easily shed by many. The comfort of a loving god that is taking care of their grandparents, and will reunite them is too strong. The fear of hell is too strong.

I have also done some reading on the topic of "levels of atheism", including all of the nuanced versions of agnostic and gnostic, etc. Those labels don't appeal to my inner atheist, I guess. To me, you either accept there is a god, or you reject the claims. The inbetweeners are basically undecided in my book. If you reject claims that gods actually exist, you are atheist. If you think there may be a higher power, that is something altogether different than the claims of named gods from holy books and ancient myth. Those are specific. Higher powers, or Deism, is about as close as I could get to considering an intelligence that perhaps created stuff. I don't have a good reason to consider that possibility though, so it's another rejection for me at the moment.

I have argued many times on this site that when I reject god claims, I am not making a positive assertion that a god does not exist, I am making a strong assertion that no god has ever been shown to exist. No one seems to want me to prove that no god has ever been shown to exist. I wonder why that is? Perhaps it is because most theists realize they will never be able to show me a god. They know their god is invisible, they know it works in "mysterious ways", and they know that the problem with accepting the premise lies with my refusal to just believe. Sorry, Jet don't play that game!

If the statement "no god has ever been show to exist" is a positive assertion, then we are back where we started. We are at the place where anything can be asserted, and the burden of proof is on the person who rejects the assertion - which is patently ridiculous, and gets us nowhere.

TL;DR - I have ZERO burden of proof on god's not existing. I will never say anything more than "show me your god." I leave the tiniest crack of possibility that there is a god involved in our universe and planet - about as much room as I give for the existence of Thor - pure mythology.
79
I lack belief that Yahweh exists.  You can't be a prick if you don't exist. 

The golden rule has been around since before the bible.  Not everybody wants to be treated like I do.  Maybe we should treat people the way they want to be treated unless they like violence. 

You are [absolutely] using the bible. 
80
General Religious Discussion / Re: velkyn, strong atheism
« Last post by junebug72 on December 05, 2016, 05:04:31 AM »
Just because I don't agree with you does not make me confused.

True enough. I totally agree with this.

A new thread has been started.
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10