My religious philosophy, based completely on logic:

I don't see how hard this can possibly be, but tons of people at the Smashing Pumpkins Philo board get pissed at it, so I wonder how it'll do over here:

Why the hell is there a 39598694898395 page topic debating the existence of God?

My theory is this simple: ALL RELIGIONS ARE BELIEFS!!!!! God is a belief. Allah is a belief. Hindu's god is a belief. The ancient Greek, Romans, Egyptians, and all other cultures are beliefs.

If they are beliefs, they cannot be proved to exist. If they cannnot be proved, then they cannnot be dissproved either.

Agree? Disagree? Think I'm full of shit?

I'm ready for the onslaught

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

good post youngwriter!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

'My theory is this simple: ALL RELIGIONS ARE BELIEFS!!!!! God is a belief. Allah is a belief. Hindu's god is a belief. The ancient Greek, Romans, Egyptians, and all other cultures are beliefs.

If they are beliefs, they cannot be proved to exist. If they cannnot be proved, then they cannnot be dissproved either.'
--------------------------------------------------------

Excellent topic.

All religions are beliefs? You call it a theory, I call it opinion. I cannot speak for other religions. However, Christianity is based on evidence that is historically, archaeologically and prophetically accurate. We have eyewitness accounts, corroborated by New Testament writers and there is no contradictory evidence left by Romans and Jews of that time period. I 'believe' in the evidence.

><>

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

To me, theories are opinons you present to a group and back them up.

The Bible is not always historically accurate, although it is a fact that Jesus was born and lived in the same time period that the Bible refers to.

His Miracles, etc...are up for debate, but that is a completely different topic for a different thread.

Thank you for your feedback.

 

'To me, theories are opinons you present to a group and back them up.'
-----------------------------------------------------

Follow the logic. Opinions are subjective and based on emotions. However, I have presented evidence. This evidence 'backs up' the validity of Christianity. I am instructed in the Bible to teach the truth and expose error in 1 Peter 3:15.

“.......but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence.”

><>

 

Most of us at sciforums have accepted this fact already YoungWriter, except for the Xian Fundies. It's really nothing new, but I'm glad that you recognize the true nature of religion

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

Some people love killing neurons debating God until their brain melts. Its a pleasure like any other.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Er, no. There are numerous unfulfilled prophecies, given how vague most of the prophecies are the bible is quite unspectacular.

 

You are correct about one thing.............many biblical prophecies have YET to be fulfilled.

><>

 

youngwriter,

The basis of your argument seems to revolve around what is meant by ‘belief’, unfortunately I don’t think you understand what that means.

To believe something is to hold a conviction of the truth about that object or phenomenon. There are many reasons why someone will hold a particular belief.

I suspect you believe that there is a sun in the sky. According to your argument, just because this is a belief then it can’t be proved. Clearly this is nonsense since it is not difficult to prove the existence of the sun.

The issue should not be that someone holds a belief but what is the basis for his or her belief.

One should more correctly state – I believe x BECAUSE of y. The validity of the belief then revolves around the BECAUSE clause.

The validation process usually involves logical reasoning where facts and proofs are considered. Where a proof is available then we can claim a fact of knowledge. Reasoned arguments rest on the presence of facts.

If a proof is available for a given belief then the belief is rational (based on reason).

If facts are missing (i.e. no proofs) then the belief is irrational (fails the test of reasoned argument).

The atheist position is that theism cannot produce any proofs and therefore all theist beliefs are irrational.

Unenlightened theists claim there are proofs for gods, but have difficulty showing anything.

The more experienced theists recognize there are no proofs for gods and argue more along the lines of the basis for reasoning and that faith is a valid method for the determination of knowledge. This inevitably leads to a debate about how knowledge is derived, i.e. a discussion on epistemology.

I hope that helps resolve your apparent dilemma.

 

"The atheist position is that theism cannot produce any proofs and therefore all theist beliefs are irrational."
----------------------------------------------------------

Thank you. This is a fine example of how atheism is illogical. Let me explain. First, you cannot know all proofs regarding Christianity because this would require that you know all proofs from past, present and future. Therefore, your statement is illogical. Second, Christianity has many evidences supporting the existence of God. You simply dismiss these evidences because you do not like them and to satisfy your presuppostions.



"The more experienced theists recognize there are no proofs for gods and argue more along the lines of the basis for reasoning and that faith is a valid method for the determination of knowledge."
-----------------------------------------------------------

I have never claimed to have proof supporting the existence of God, only evidences. Similar to you not having proof contradicting the existence of God, only theories and guesses. Also, faith alone is not neccessarily evidence of God, but alone is the basis of soteriology.



"Unenlightened theists claim there are proofs for gods, but have difficulty showing anything."
-----------------------------------------------------------

The same can be said about atheists and their claims against God. This is simply your opinion and has no logical worth.



"If facts are missing (i.e. no proofs) then the belief is irrational (fails the test of reasoned argument)."
--------------------------------------------------------------

If this is true, then atheism is irrational because facts are missing and it is based on subjective evidence, not proof. Logic is a very slippery slope for an atheist to rest on.

><>

 

Scientists, and many humans, will not believe in something to exist unless there is physical proof. Therefore, to proof a purple pooka dotted elephant exists, you'd have to find the carcass of one (since skin tone can't be determined by just the bones).

So with God (or any god for that matter), many would have to see him/her/it for theirselfs before believeing in it.

Good point, bad metaphor. In fact, you answered my argument. I believe that there is a sun. If I need to prove it to someone, then I walk outside during the daytime.

Great summary of theists, atheists, etc...Cris.

 

YoungWriter

i can aswer that question about why the fans get so anal in the philo forum on the Pumpkins board..the thing is, each and every person that posts there feels they are entitled to a piece, if not all, of Billy Corgan. therefore, it makes sense that the athiests want billy to be like them, and, not believe..and, the more "religious" posters want billy in their corner. so, an all out battle is drawn ...either to save billy's soul or damn it to hell. hee hee.....that board is great!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The burden of proof rest on those making the claims. In this case, theists make a claim god exists. Therefore, it is their burden to offer a proof that god exists.

It has to be this way or else you get all the silly arguments about not being able to 'prove' the non-existance of anything. The burden must lie on the ones making the claim.

Please do not try and say atheists are the ones making the claims...think it through first.

-fc

 

I don't see how hard this can possibly be, but tons of people at the Smashing Pumpkins Philo board get pissed at it, so I wonder how it'll do over here:

Why the hell is there a 39598694898395 page topic debating the existence of God?

My theory is this simple: ALL OF HISTORY AND ALL SCIENTIFIC THEORIES ARE BELIEFS!!!!! Evolution is a belief. Big Bang is a belief. Black Hole is a belief. The ancient history, French war, Egyptians, and all other historical events are beliefs.

If they are beliefs, they cannot be proved to exist and/or took place. If they cannnot be proved, then they cannnot be dissproved either.

Agree? Disagree?

I'm ready for the onslaught

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

note: so much kids, so much ignorance, the harvest is many, but the workers are few...

 

The burden of proof rest on those making the claims. In this case, atheists make a claim God dont exists. Therefore, it is their burden to offer a proof that God dont exist. Otherwise if u say there is no reason to believe in Him, then be agnostic...

It has to be this way or else you get all the silly arguments about not being able to 'prove' the non-existance of anything. The burden must lie on the ones making the claim.

Please do not try and say theists are the only ones making the claims, you do as wwell for saying "God is made up and a myth"...think it through first CHILD.

 

Most atheist do not believe that God does not exist but that there is no reason to believe in it's existence because there is no valid evidence or proof to warrent that belief.

The atheists reasoning for rejecting YHVH is the same reasoning you use in your disbelief of Zeus or Ra. As the saying goes 'We're both atheists, I just believe in one less God than you do.'

~Raithere

 

The burden of proof rest on those making the claims. In this case, atheists make a claim God dont exists.

Sorry, thats not the way it works. If theists did not claim gods existed, there would be no need for anyone to say otherwise. On the other hand however, if atheists did not make any claims that gods did not exist, theists would continue to make claims that gods existed. Big difference.

Therefore the burden of proof is on those making the claims that gods exist.

 

Sorry Q, you're wrong again......The burden of proof rests with those wanting proof.....atheists.

Bigger difference!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Vienna,

A beautiful example of theist muddle thinking.

Suppose a scientist says that if you drink an untested and probably deadly potion of drugs it will protect you from ever developing cancer. Based on your reasoning the scientist does not have to prove his claim. The result will be that millions of gullible people, those who don’t want proof, will drink the potion and will probably die. Those that do want proof (the more intelligent (atheists in your case)) will be forced to conduct their own research, and will probably not drink the deadly cocktail.

The world simply doesn’t work that way.

As Q says the burden of proof is always on the person making the claim.

The issue is generally that most theistic religions try to convince others to follow their faith. Christianity is specifically evangelical with rules that its participants should attempt to convert non-believers. It is theists who want to convince others of their cause. The atheist simply says that if you want to convince me of the truth of your claim then show some proof. Otherwise the atheist is not interested.

If you want to convince others you have something you want them to believe or you want them to buy, then you had better prove your case, otherwise you will be ignored, at least by those who have active brains.

So dream on.