What are you non-believers trying to prove?

Discussion in 'The Sanctuary' started by Hope., Jul 30, 2013.

  1. Twamp

    Twamp proper weaponry

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2011
    Messages:
    13,856

    same reasoning with the belief of extraterrestrials, heh?

    i understand your statement and it does make sense but at the same time, "believers" don't really have to prove anything due to the fact it's a belief of that individual, no?

    maybe what i said sounds stupid but i can't really try to explain it better at the moment.
    test
  2. antilluminati

    antilluminati Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,481
    Proof is proof. I mean, if you told me there was a five headed giraffe and I believed you. Then you proved to me there is no such thing, why the hell would I continue believing in it... I'm not that hardheaded or in denial. There are possibilities I might be wrong about anything so I won't be so adamant about things unless they were proven anyway.
    test
  3. antilluminati

    antilluminati Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,481
    Believers don't have to prove anything as long as they don't engage in an argument. If there is an argument/discussion between believers and non-believers, then the burden of proof lies with the believers. Proof of "something being" is needed, not the proof of there "not being". They are manmade concepts until solid proof is involved. Usually these things become a tirade of cicumstantial evidence and subjective conclusions.
    test
  4. Saru Beats

    Saru Beats R.I.P. Point Game

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Messages:
    4,716
    Actually, there are believers that do debate by using deductive reasoning that make decently compelling arguments. William Lane Craig for example, (one of the only people who I think really 'showed up' to a debate with Christopher Hitchens.) I do hate how all of the talks about religion do seem to always fall back to 'burden of proof' though given the subject matter. I still have yet to be convinced of any reasoning for there being a God personally, and for all of the outrageous claims, moral rules, imposing on others of the world that religion does, I think it definitely should be upon them to make a case, which can't be done imho.
    • +Rep +Rep x 1
    test
  5. GaLaTeA

    GaLaTeA GymArt

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    31,424
    Pretty much same can be applied to that as well.

    In that case there really shouldn't be a problem with the implied premise of "god" not existing.
    test
  6. antilluminati

    antilluminati Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,481
    I do not doubt compelling arguments. Anyone who believes in something SHOULD have or be able to produce compelling arguments for what they believe in. They cannot however produce proof.

    I could make a really good argument for many of my theories, I always refrain from saying that's how it is tho. I had a discussion with someone on this site about intelligent extraterrestrial life and how there is no evidence for its existence whatsoever. And I was attacked as a non-believer. In fact I do believe in it existing just by the enourmous mathematical possibility in the scope of the universe, and even more so if infinity of space is taken into consideration. However, I can not prove it, so it isn't a fact. I also believe in a higher and all encompassing intelligence/accumulation of all life, which to me is God, but I can not define it and prove it's existence. However I can believe, but I have to be humble in discussions, if I am to argue these things as being anything more than constructs of human imaginations, I am with the burden of proof.

    It is true that lack of proof is not proof of it's non-existence. But the fact that there are no proof is a fact that the burden of proof lies with whoever believes in the theory of whatever proof is needed to support. If I say there are no ghosts in the room where I'm having a conversation, then the person who says there is has to prove it. It's a schroedingers cat situation, even if there was a ghost in the room there kind of isn't, until it comes to our awareness.
    test
  7. Nu'maaN

    Nu'maaN Anu'naki, Nuqqa.

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    25,669
    yeah, but that's one religion.

    do you even know the islamic stance on evolution? one of the names of Allah is The Evolver. we are not creationists.

    :numaan:
    • +Rep +Rep x 1
    test
  8. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    it's not one religion. it can be any religion that presents itself as an ultimate and unquestionable truth. i.e. a lot of them.

    i don't, but i'm under the impression that just like christianity there is no one 'islamic stance' on evolution. there are some who take issue with it and others who don't. i think that in the islamic world evolution is probably just as controversial as it is in christian america, but i'm not really sure.
    test
  9. Nu'maaN

    Nu'maaN Anu'naki, Nuqqa.

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    25,669
    not really, not at all actually.

    if (in our beliefs), jesus was born miraculously, then evolving from primates into what we are now isn't that far fetched.

    :numaan:
    • +Rep +Rep x 1
    test
  10. AliceHouse

    AliceHouse The House Always Wins

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2012
    Messages:
    3,275
    Yusef Ali translated it that way.

    The Islamic stance is that it grugingly accepted evolution after the fact, but still maintains that man was created as is. (From dirt. Or clay. Or water. Depends on the verse.)
    test
  11. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    that's fine for you to say, but i don't think i was that far off with my remarks.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_evolution
    • +Rep +Rep x 1
    test
  12. lyricalpriest

    lyricalpriest Rap Games Dawson Creek

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2000
    Messages:
    24,093
    you can't spell beLIEve with out LIE
    • +Rep +Rep x 1
    test
  13. AliceHouse

    AliceHouse The House Always Wins

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2012
    Messages:
    3,275
    Nor can you spell Slaughter without Laughter.
    • +Rep +Rep x 2
    test
  14. Sir Bustalot

    Sir Bustalot I am Jesus

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    55,612
    you cant spell Pants without ants

    this is fun!
    • +Rep +Rep x 1
    test
  15. Hope.

    Hope. ambition

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2013
    Messages:
    78
    You can't spell bitch without itch.
    • +Rep +Rep x 2
    test
  16. SKY

    SKY See & Know 4 Yourself

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 1999
    Messages:
    2,571
    Fact of the matter is, if you saw a robot that was build complex and very sophisticated thaen you would automatically assume that there was some sort of wealthy genius behind it's design and construction, some sort of government agency probably.

    Now imagine, you step outside and see another human being. You don't think to figure out what/who designed it, but simply the idea that it is another human born of a Mother and Father. You don't think of how complex and sophisticated it's structure is. You don't think of how all these atomic elements combine together, aligned some sort of nuclear energy which is electromagnetically connected to nature while experiencing 'consciousness' and awareness with infinite capabilities.

    You don't think of all of that, and when you do you think... damn, it had to have been something/someone extraordinarily genius to design man/woman alone, let alone the planet and all other nature/life which exist on it. How it all balances out and has purpose, and order yet freewill in it's being.

    To deny that there is a greater intelligence, is pure denial and arrogance. These are just the elements HERE on this planet which design you and I, imagine what elements exist on other planets that produce more advanced species of man, let alone the Master designer.

    To deny that there is a greater intelligence, is to admit that you are ignorant and rebel in it. You can't leave the biggest mysteries of mankind to "coincidences" and "theories". At some point we need to apply our Natural logic, and common sense. Spirituality may not really exist the way religion and the occult portray it, however it exist in it's purest form. Naturally.

    Deuteronomy.8:3 So He humbled you, allowed you to hunger, and fed you with manna which you did not know nor did your fathers know, that He might make you know that man shall not live by bread alone; but man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of YAH.

    *you can't spell 'righteous' without 'Us'.
    • +Rep +Rep x 1
    test
  17. AliceHouse

    AliceHouse The House Always Wins

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2012
    Messages:
    3,275
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy#Criticism


    Dawkins argues that watch analogy conflates the difference between the complexity that arises from living organisms that are able to reproduce themselves (and as such may change to become more complex over time) and the complexity of inanimate objects, unable to pass on any reproductive changes (such as the multitude of parts manufactured in a watch). The comparison breaks down because of this important distinction.[11]

    In a Horizon episode also entitled The Blind Watchmaker (after his book by the same name), Dawkins described Paley's argument as being "as mistaken as it is elegant". In both contexts he saw Paley as having made an incorrect proposal as to a certain problem's solution, but did not disrespect him for this. In his essay The big bang,Steven Pinker discussed Dawkins' coverage of Paley's argument, adding: "Biologists today do not disagree with Paley's laying out of the problem. They disagree only with his solution."

    In his book, The God Delusion, Dawkins argues that life was the result of complex biological processes. Dawkins makes the argument that the comparison to the lucky construction of a watch is fallacious because proponents of evolution do not consider evolution "lucky"; rather than luck, the evolution of human life is the result of billions of years of natural selection. He therefore concludes that evolution is a fair contestant to replace God in the role of watchmaker.

    In response to these claims, Nathan Schneider writes that "Paley died decades before The Origin of Species was published, and ever since his views have been so repeatedly set in opposition to Darwin's that Richard Dawkins titled one of his books on evolution The Blind Watchmaker. A closer look at Paley's own thinking reveals, however, a God who works through the laws of nature, not beyond them like the modern ID theorists' designer. Paley had no objection to species changing over time. It's only in today's highly polarized culture-war climate that we don't bother to notice that one of the forefathers of intelligent design theory might have been perfectly comfortable with evolution."[12]


    In conclusion: Please be up to date and do not recycle old and tired, worn out, and used up arguments. It only makes you look like an uneducated bum.
    • +Rep +Rep x 1
    test
  18. Sir Bustalot

    Sir Bustalot I am Jesus

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    55,612
    Its not a fact. Its a fact for you, or for people who you think also think like you. But its definately not a fact for everyone


    You guys forget that this forum is mostly either religious folk or people who believe in a god or higher consciousness but just dont follow a religion. The number of actual atheists that regularily come in here is low. Most people in here argue about religion and not the actual existence of a god or something similar....
    test
  19. antilluminati

    antilluminati Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,481
    I think it is pretty pompous of a human to think something complex would be made by something it can identify with like "oh, that's so wonderfully designed, it's like a human that built a robot". Actually, a sky is amazing to look at BECAUSE it has no structure, design or organized pattern. It is organically random but still beautiful, and it isn't designed. Randomness and chaos is beautiful when it creates it's own aesthetics, which we can't mimic by designing as we by designing it fall into patterns and structures. By the scope of infinity and the constant flowing and everchanging movement of life and it's adaptation I am not amazed at our design as we are here, which means it DID happen although after a long process and I therefore also believe even more wonderful things can happen, without intervention even. Even more wonderful things than man can dream of.
    • +Rep +Rep x 1
    test
  20. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    It very well may be a fact . or the truth
    more accurately, because facts change. a fact is only as accurate as the truth it facilitates.

    And theres only two possibilities. Its true, God is real, and the bible is true.

    or its not.

    Difference is

    if im wrong and its not, God doesnt exist the only thing that will change is my world view.
    my faith, my dilligence, my works, and my life-i can still be proud of

    but if it is and God does
    Everything for you will need to change,
    Forget about just the psycological mind fuck that will ensue.

    and thats on a Good day, what if u find this out to be true, once you die.
    then there is no hope for you at all.
    changing, just wont be in the cards.

    That isnt a reasonable risk, to the logical mind, and its the arrogance of your own pride that in the end will prevail, and you can blame IT for not allowing you the sense to make a sebsible decision in regaurds to a subject that involves the destiny of your eternal soul.
    test

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)