21 Oct 2019, 11:34 am
21 Oct 2019, 11:36 am
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,202
Location: Right over your left shoulder
21 Oct 2019, 1:39 pm
And no, it’s not double talk. It’s addressing a problem from multiple angles. If an unbeliever rejects God because of circumstance, it’s a response to pain rather than a logical response. “How can there be a God if this happened to me?” If an unbeliever rejects God because they see a logical argument as sufficient for disproving God, that’s a completely different situation. Neither, of course, is rational. But it makes no sense to argue with someone who is suffering. It’s the suffering that must be addressed FIRST in order to heal the sufferer. Once that is out of the way, that person MIGHT be reasoned with. The second case requires a different, appropriate response.
What you find is that it is impossible to argue burden-of-proof because, like other arguments, this carries an assumption that the opponent is arguing from a rational mind. You cannot make an atheist argument without the assumption that there is no God. Yet it is this very thing you must prove if you intend to show the Christian he is wrong. The atheist argument is inherently circular and, therefore, irrational.
You're still missing how burden of evidence works. Only positive claims can be proven, so if any evidence for gods exists, it can be used to support that argument, but since no evidence exists the most reasonable conclusion is that they don't. Conclusively proving gods don't exist isn't possible, due to the nature and attributes gods often have ascribed to them - maybe it's using it's magic to hide from us... or maybe it's just not there, I can't say for absolute certain, but I can say what I believe is most likely.
I'm not sure why so many non-believers feel the need to be evangelical about their non-belief. If someone really needs their imaginary friend, why should atheists feel compelled to be the bad guy and take it away? Everyone has doubts at times and in the long run, people who acknowledge there is no god do so through their own experiences and thoughts, not because people have picked apart their belief.
Don't fret, maybe he really is just hiding.
21 Oct 2019, 2:54 pm
And no, it’s not double talk. It’s addressing a problem from multiple angles. If an unbeliever rejects God because of circumstance, it’s a response to pain rather than a logical response. “How can there be a God if this happened to me?” If an unbeliever rejects God because they see a logical argument as sufficient for disproving God, that’s a completely different situation. Neither, of course, is rational. But it makes no sense to argue with someone who is suffering. It’s the suffering that must be addressed FIRST in order to heal the sufferer. Once that is out of the way, that person MIGHT be reasoned with. The second case requires a different, appropriate response.
What you find is that it is impossible to argue burden-of-proof because, like other arguments, this carries an assumption that the opponent is arguing from a rational mind. You cannot make an atheist argument without the assumption that there is no God. Yet it is this very thing you must prove if you intend to show the Christian he is wrong. The atheist argument is inherently circular and, therefore, irrational.
You're still missing how burden of evidence works. Only positive claims can be proven, so if any evidence for gods exists, it can be used to support that argument, but since no evidence exists the most reasonable conclusion is that they don't. Conclusively proving gods don't exist isn't possible, due to the nature and attributes gods often have ascribed to them - maybe it's using it's magic to hide from us... or maybe it's just not there, I can't say for absolute certain, but I can say what I believe is most likely.
I'm not sure why so many non-believers feel the need to be evangelical about their non-belief. If someone really needs their imaginary friend, why should atheists feel compelled to be the bad guy and take it away? Everyone has doubts at times and in the long run, people who acknowledge there is no god do so through their own experiences and thoughts, not because people have picked apart their belief.
Don't fret, maybe he really is just hiding.
I stopped caring a long time ago. As long as a theist isn't pushing their beliefs on me, or demanding I live in accordance with their religion, I live and let live.
21 Oct 2019, 4:00 pm
Interesting. A rational debate assumes the parties debating are rational people to begin with. Atheism is inherently irrational. I’ve met some who became atheists because of negative experiences in church, etc., when they really have no clue what Jesus was up to. When this appears not to have been the case, I try to show that the atheist worldview is built on assumptions and circular reasoning. I have yet, as far as I’m aware, to sway anyone towards my own faith, but the least I can do is try to make people think a little bit more than they did.
No wonder you fail to persuade. Using transparent lying double talk like this doesn't persuade.
IF you're gonna lie at least use a less transparent lie.
What you're saying is equivalent to saying (a) "non belief in unicorns is inherently irrational", but at the same time being (b) too cowardly to assert that "belief IN unicorns is rational".
Atheism is not a creed or ideology in the same way a religion is. Its the absence of a belief. A belief in God. Belief in god is irrational (because you cant prove it). Atheism is like non belief in unicorns.
The failure to believe in something that is an irrational belief is neither (a) a belief, nor is it (b) irrational.
Now its true that believing there is no god is also unprovable. But the burdern of proof on the believer. Not on the nonbeliever. Its on you prove your assertion that there IS a God. Not on Atheists to prove their failure to assert that there is a god. Just like its not up to a "unicorn denier" to prove the non existence of unicorns, and that it is on the unicorn believer to provide evidence for the existence of unicorns.
Um...if you expect me to believe there is no God, it’s YOUR job to prove that to me. It’s not my job to prove something to myself that I already know is untrue. One HUGE problem atheists have is their refusal to accept the premise of God existing while at the same time expecting Christians to accept the premise that God doesn’t. Classical arguments always start from the position that God does NOT exist and proceed to prove the opposite. If you already know something to exist or to be true, why would you ever assume the opposite even for the sake of argument? What you find is those kinds of arguments are a waste of time.
And no, it’s not double talk. It’s addressing a problem from multiple angles. If an unbeliever rejects God because of circumstance, it’s a response to pain rather than a logical response. “How can there be a God if this happened to me?” If an unbeliever rejects God because they see a logical argument as sufficient for disproving God, that’s a completely different situation. Neither, of course, is rational. But it makes no sense to argue with someone who is suffering. It’s the suffering that must be addressed FIRST in order to heal the sufferer. Once that is out of the way, that person MIGHT be reasoned with. The second case requires a different, appropriate response.
What you find is that it is impossible to argue burden-of-proof because, like other arguments, this carries an assumption that the opponent is arguing from a rational mind. You cannot make an atheist argument without the assumption that there is no God. Yet it is this very thing you must prove if you intend to show the Christian he is wrong. The atheist argument is inherently circular and, therefore, irrational.
That was the second case I was referring to. The first case was that rejecting God in the first place often has to do with negative experiences within a religious community. I’ve known ex-Mormons whose experience was too painful for them to even consider going to any church, much less a non-LDS one or even having any faith at all. There are also those who experience loss or pain who blame God to the point they give up on the idea of God at all. Sometimes people like that latch onto classical counter arguments as a means of finding comfort.
There are two problems with that: First, it’s a conclusion reached from bias, therefore it’s emotional rather than rational. Second, they’re coming from a position where they already know God exists, which means they are in denial.
My failure to convince anyone has nothing to do with any supposed lie. It has to do with an unbeliever’s blind reluctance to accept truth. Rational arguments cannot succeed when the opponent doesn’t have a rational mind to argue with.
When it comes down to burden of proof, again, the assumption is that if I made a logical proof or gave you evidence, your rational mind is capable of understanding the evidence and making the only rational conclusion that there is. When such arguments fail, many Christians assume they’ve done something wrong, and sometimes even doubt their own faith. They don’t see that the problem is the unbelieving mind. They might even see the evidence as working in favor of the skeptic.
Those Christians should ask the atheist a very important question, something all Christians should ask: As an atheist demanding evidence that God exists, if God Himself came down right now, revealed Himself to you in such a way you couldn’t possibly deny, would you worship Him? Often, the answer is “no,” that given mankind’s history with God, He’s not worthy. While that’s still not a very good answer, at least it’s an honest one. It also shows, barring God personally showing up, no amount of evidence would ever be sufficient.
And no amount of burden of proof will work, either. The reason for that is if evidence alone tips the scale in favor of belief or non-belief, then any time I present evidence or logical proof that God exists, you are COMPELLED to believe it and become a Christian. But what about me? Well, I’m compelled to become an atheist, same reason. The problem here is only one of us is right. So how do we know from evidence which one of us is right? And that’s when you have to admit that your assertion that God doesn’t exist has nothing to do with evidence, nor will any amount of evidence change your mind. For me, knowing that God exists, it’s irrational to assume otherwise, and the only evidence there is only points to revealing that God does exist. Dependency on evidence ultimately results in “we cannot know for sure,” and neither Christians nor atheists will ever accept that. I don’t believe “maybe God exists.” I believe “God DOES exist.” For the atheist, there is no such certainty. If God doesn’t exist, how can you be so sure?
Heck, leave God out of it. How can you be so sure of anything at all? What you find there is you can’t leave faith or God out of the equation, metaphorically speaking, for very long. Faith in God, after all, requires fewer assumptions than disbelief.
You know full that all of this is irrelevant.
We are not talking about me disproving your private thoughts.
We are talking about either one of us speaking in the public forum.
If I assert that, contrary to what the tabloids say, Elvis is NOT still alive and living as the head of a voodoo cult in South America then I don't have to provide evidence for that claim of Elvis's non demise.
If you disagreed with me, and asserted that Elvis IS still alive and is the head of a voodoo jungle cult then it would be up to you to provide evidence for that assertion. And then we could debate about it.
You may feel it in your heart that Elvis lives, just like you are convinced in the inner sanctum of your soul that God exists, but that doesn't change the fact that in a public debate if you are making the positive assertion (that god exists, or that Elvis lives) then its up to you to prove it. Not the other person to disprove it.
21 Oct 2019, 4:09 pm
21 Oct 2019, 5:21 pm
21 Oct 2019, 6:26 pm
21 Oct 2019, 7:47 pm
21 Oct 2019, 10:27 pm
22 Oct 2019, 3:06 am
22 Oct 2019, 10:37 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOkQ4T5WO9E
This Comment is going to Be Long and come in Three
replies due to limitations of the Cloud Flare Software;
Bear with me Please; if you can and will..
"Is Atheist doesn’t believe in stuff or just God?"
The Op Has Been Defined as Described by Creating a 'Drunk Discussion'; by Speaking this
Way; surely she has seen the Lack of Human Compassion in this Particular Forum and Shied Away.
Let me Interpret it for you as it is simple Human Language THAT makes TOTAL SENSE.
The Op is Just Curious; Do Atheists Believe in Anything?
She Already Realizes that Atheists do Not Believe
in
God that is Clear in Her Simple Statement.
Let's Not make this any more complicated than it needs to be; but Let's Make it
Complicated too, if you want to Evolve And Expand Your Human Potential In Both Reason and Art of Life;
Metaphor of Left Brain Thinking Versus Right Brain Thinking; in other words Mechanical Cognition Versus
Social/Empathic/Artistic/Spiritual Intelligence WHere 'Spiritual' is Literally the Emotions and Mirror Neurons and
Overall Empathy that Allows us to Truly Connect to other Human Beings; and yes the Rest of Nature Fully
With Feelings and Senses that Act together as the Synergy of An Emotional Life that in Yoga Unison
Flow of Balance With Mind and Body Flesh and Blood creates a reality of Cognitive
Executive Functioning that is the Dharma of Laser Focus and Concentration
Where Both Short Term Working Memory And Longer Term Memory For
Story Telling In River Flow becomes a Finely Tuned 12 Cylinder
Model and Make of a Human Being Ferrari come to spread
a bit of Art and Reason in Poetry that Flows more
in Spirals than just standard Black and White Block Language reaching all the way from one side of the page to the other
like the British Soldiers who Fell in line in Rigid Structure and were Decimated by American Indians who played by no such
Left Brain Systemizing Rules of Black and White. They Fought Like Original Artists And Won the Battles; The tools of Guns
were the equalizing 'Amazing Joker' Force that Made Smaller Men more Like Bigger Men Who Fought More Like Wild Lions.
See What i just Did; i Humanifested Left
And Right Brain in Balance Articulating
Language in a Unique and New way
that requires a bit more Brain
Juice to Navigate and perhaps
Stimulating a Few more connections
in the Brain; but remember in Life no Pain
NO Gain; Instant Gratification Breaks down Greater Potentials of Humanity, Yet Realized;
Comment Continues Below..
22 Oct 2019, 10:39 am
22 Oct 2019, 10:40 am
22 Oct 2019, 10:43 am
22 Oct 2019, 10:45 am
Hopefully the Last Part of the Comment at Number 5 passing through Cloud Flare Jail; hehe....
Moving From 'The Story' Back to Science Again; Fowler's Stages of Faith Where His Capstone of the Pyramid Level
6 is the Similar Capstone that Maslow Developed as His Number 7 of the Development of the Human Soul to Agape Love...
Note: Fowler is a Methodist Minister; but you won't find the Term God Below; Nor will you find it in the original 2nd '10 Commandment' Intended Definition of not Using i am's Name in Vain in something as small as a 3 Letter Word. It is what i am is make the Best of it or do not; Life is kinda simple and complex like that and this.
It's Safe to Dance and Sing i live and am and do as that Capstone too; you'll find that Wise eye on a Dollar Bill too;
That Art of the Dollar Bill only has meaning to me; i find it holy and sacred; it's everywhere but rarely do folks 'see it' these days past buying 'STUFF'..
"Stage 0 – "Primal or Undifferentiated" faith (birth to 2 years), is characterized by an early learning of the safety of their environment (i.e. warm, safe and secure vs. hurt, neglect and abuse). If consistent nurture is experienced, one will develop a sense of trust and safety about the universe and the divine. Conversely, negative experiences will cause one to develop distrust with the universe and the divine. Transition to the next stage begins with integration of thought and language which facilitates the use of symbols in speech and play.
Stage 1 – "Intuitive-Projective" faith (ages of three to seven), is characterized by the psyche's unprotected exposure to the Unconscious, and marked by a relative fluidity of thought patterns.[4] Religion is learned mainly through experiences, stories, images, and the people that one comes in contact with.
Stage 2 – "Mythic-Literal" faith (mostly in school children), stage two persons have a strong belief in the justice and reciprocity of the universe, and their deities are almost always anthropomorphic. During this time metaphors and symbolic language are often misunderstood and are taken literally.
Stage 3 – "Synthetic-Conventional" faith (arising in adolescence; aged 12 to adulthood) characterized by conformity to authority and the religious development of a personal identity. Any conflicts with one's beliefs are ignored at this stage due to the fear of threat from inconsistencies.
Stage 4 – "Individuative-Reflective" faith (usually mid-twenties to late thirties) a stage of angst and struggle. The individual takes personal responsibility for his or her beliefs and feelings. As one is able to reflect on one's own beliefs, there is an openness to a new complexity of faith, but this also increases the awareness of conflicts in one's belief.
Stage 5 – "Conjunctive" faith (mid-life crisis) acknowledges paradox and transcendence relating reality behind the symbols of inherited systems. The individual resolves conflicts from previous stages by a complex understanding of a multidimensional, interdependent "truth" that cannot be explained by any particular statement.
Stage 6 – "Universalizing" faith, or what some might call "enlightenment". The individual would treat any person with compassion as he or she views people as from a universal community, and should be treated with universal principles of love and justice."
Note: i am no Twitter Kindergarten Teacher and i am too.
i use many TheMe And MeMe Dances And Songs in Life for Now; 'This Is What You came For' Will Do For This
And 'That' If You Don't Believe That Other Part of My 'Shadow Story' Over 2000 Selfies With Beautiful Female Smiles
in Photos included in my Personal 7.4 Million Words of Bible Song; and 12,122 Miles of Public Dance That come From
The Art of Human Dance also in 74 Months now that Verily And Surely Shows That Song is True for me too; Spiritual Energy The Dance And Song oF LiGHT; ENliGHTeNiNG iN Deed too; Special Thanks Goes out to Calvin Harris Featuring Rhianna too; true, give Thanks to those You Do Not Even know but Feel and Sense as Real. Every Bit of Gratitude You
Feel About Existence Brings a Rise in Serotonin; Free Mental Pill that Works For THANKS; all in just my opinion of
Course i will never be the one who tells another Person what they have to do in life; i'll try to help but Science
Shows that Moving Meditative Dance is Regenerative in Effect of a Real Human Fountain of Youth; and
Regenerative again Like Writing a Free Personal Bible Poem that Fully Describes a Personal Journey
to Heaven Within that stays that helps Regeneration in others increases a Person's Chances
6 times living past age 80 as a Recent Harvard Study, Surely indicates too;
LEarn about Life and ReAlly Live; Never Afraid to Die as the Gift of Life is worth Dying;
Look Within Do more; or Waste away in Oblivion; i use choices 1 and 2 for my Religion of Life;
i did Door Number 3 and found Hell not to my Liking as a Taste and Choice for Life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_W._Fowler
