Wilber Posted June 22, 2011 Report Posted June 22, 2011 I would say, 9 times out of 10, a belt is abuse. I agree, a swat on the ass to get an out of control kid's attention is not the same as beating them with an object. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Wilber Posted June 22, 2011 Report Posted June 22, 2011 I believe they do have the right to market their beliefs however they choose. I am, hwoever, opposed to them pushing their beliefs on children, telling them for most of their lives that these mythologies are uncontestable facts. Athiesm has to be taken on faith as well. It is also a belief that can't be proved. I tend toward it based on my own logic which is based on my own experience, but that doesn't prove anything. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
M.Dancer Posted June 22, 2011 Report Posted June 22, 2011 Athiesm has to be taken on faith as well. No it doesn't. Belief, without the need for evidence, requires faith. Since that there can by no evidence to prove "god", no belief is required therefore no faith is needed. It is as if I said that there is a planet called Buu where live a race of 5 legged love slaves... You do not require an iota of faith not to believe me. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Oleg Bach Posted June 22, 2011 Report Posted June 22, 2011 I believe everybody has a right to believe as they wish, but I think they should not push those beliefs on others. Worship as you wish, but stop bothering people about it! Religious people in my opinion do not have any "faith" If they had faith they would not desperately embrace some sort of mumbo jumbo dogmatic silly thing as orgainized religion. Those that "push" dogma on others are those that seek to control others - I thought that the all mighty was in control? Quote
Shady Posted June 22, 2011 Report Posted June 22, 2011 So now were going to get the state involved in what parents can discuss with their children? Seriously? Are you gonna put secret microphones in peoples homes? Many of you are clearly insane. Quote
Wilber Posted June 22, 2011 Report Posted June 22, 2011 (edited) No it doesn't. Belief, without the need for evidence, requires faith. Since that there can by no evidence to prove "god", no belief is required therefore no faith is needed. It is as if I said that there is a planet called Buu where live a race of 5 legged love slaves... You do not require an iota of faith not to believe me. It's not that I don't believe you, it's that I don't believe you are privy to the answer to the greatest mystery of all. Demand proof from others but provide none yourself. Pretty presumptuous IMO. The absence if something isn't proof it doesn't exist. We are learning things about our planet and universe almost on a daily basis that we didn't know existed. Edited June 22, 2011 by Wilber Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
M.Dancer Posted June 22, 2011 Report Posted June 22, 2011 Demand proof from others but provide none yourself. It is a fundamental given in debate that those who make the positive claim provide the proof...it is not a requirement of the non-believer to disprove. This is why the prosecution has the onus to prove their claim, not the defence to prove otherwise. An atheist needs no proof to not believe..although reason not to believe may be many or few, it is irrelevant to their non belief. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Pliny Posted June 22, 2011 Report Posted June 22, 2011 I believe everybody has a right to believe as they wish, but I think they should not push those beliefs on others. Worship as you wish, but stop bothering people about it! I think you are saying you are too nice a guy to tell them to shove off. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
GostHacked Posted June 22, 2011 Report Posted June 22, 2011 So now were going to get the state involved in what parents can discuss with their children? Seriously? Are you gonna put secret microphones in peoples homes? Many of you are clearly insane. A little off topic and I apologize, but the gov already listens in on your cell phone and internet conversations. It's not much of a secret to me anyways. Quote
Oleg Bach Posted June 22, 2011 Report Posted June 22, 2011 So now were going to get the state involved in what parents can discuss with their children? Seriously? Are you gonna put secret microphones in peoples homes? Many of you are clearly insane. I agree with you - my brother and I took a case all the way to the Supreme Court Of Canada - in order to have the right to teach his infant sons what HE wanted them to learn. To instil his values - his morals...it was a tough fight - All the experts and those dependant on woman and children to earn a living gave us a hard time - we did not win - but we let them know that if you bother us again - we will certainly cause you great expense and personal emotional stress. Sometimes you have to stand up and be fearless....ONCE they sense you are fearless they are 90% disarmed. Quote
Wilber Posted June 22, 2011 Report Posted June 22, 2011 (edited) It is a fundamental given in debate that those who make the positive claim provide the proof...it is not a requirement of the non-believer to disprove. This is why the prosecution has the onus to prove their claim, not the defence to prove otherwise. An atheist needs no proof to not believe..although reason not to believe may be many or few, it is irrelevant to their non belief. I agree, an atheist does need no proof to believe, that is why his belief is a matter of faith as well. I tend toward the belief that there is no god in the religious sense, I just don't claim that my belief is fact. Athiests do and in that respect they are they are the same as religions. Many of them don't like to hear that but it is true. It is a requirement of a non believer to provide proof if he claims his belief is the truth. Added: As much as it is any religion. Edited June 22, 2011 by Wilber Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
GostHacked Posted June 22, 2011 Report Posted June 22, 2011 I agree, an atheist does need no proof to believe, that is why his belief is a matter of faith as well. I tend toward the belief that there is no god in the religious sense, I just don't claim that my belief is fact. Athiests do and in that respect they are they are the same as religions. Many of them don't like to hear that but it is true. It is a requirement of a non believer to provide proof if he claims his belief is the truth. Added: As much as it is any religion. So tell me how does one go about proving something does not exist? Scientifically you cannot even begin to devise a set of tests to prove or disprove god. Science does NOT deal with the divine. Science deals with the real physical world. There is also theoretical science, to deal with wormholes and the like, but that is based on other real known science and other real known tested scientific findings. Quote
Pliny Posted June 22, 2011 Report Posted June 22, 2011 If you believe in the Easter bunny, it's easy to convince you that Jesus exists. What does the easter bunny have to do with the zombie jesus coming back to life anyways? One fake story to uphold another fake story? What happens to that person when they realize that they have been fed lies all their life? Religion is part of that lie. So, I could say that religion is a form of mental and emotional abuse. I would say water boarding is a form of mental and emotional abuse. There is simply no other way to explain how those Easter Eggs get where they are. There has to be an Easter Bunny or someone is lying. Probably the guy saying there is an Easter Bunny is lying but the eggs are still there. In this case he is pretending he knows nothing. There is simply no other way to explain how the physical universe got here. There has to be a God or someone is lying? Probably the guy saying there is a God is lying but the physical universe is still there. In this case he is pretending he knows nothing. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
M.Dancer Posted June 22, 2011 Report Posted June 22, 2011 I agree, an atheist does need no proof to believe, Not exactly, an athiest does not need proof not to believe... Atheists do not believe, not believe...there is no requirement of faith for non belief. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Wilber Posted June 22, 2011 Report Posted June 22, 2011 So tell me how does one go about proving something does not exist? Scientifically you cannot even begin to devise a set of tests to prove or disprove god. Science does NOT deal with the divine. Science deals with the real physical world. There is also theoretical science, to deal with wormholes and the like, but that is based on other real known science and other real known tested scientific findings. No scientist would claim that something doesn't exist just because he hasn't found it. How do you go about proving something doesn't exist. Until you can, you can't scientifically say it doesn't. Celestial spheres was the accepted truth as the form of the universe until Copernicus. The concept was originated by ancient Greek mathematicians, not priests of any religion. There have been as many debunked scientific "truths" in history as religious "truths". Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Pliny Posted June 22, 2011 Report Posted June 22, 2011 This is why the prosecution has the onus to prove their claim, not the defence to prove otherwise. Unless you are in France where the onus is on the defense to prove innocence. Ahhh....Vive La France! Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
Wilber Posted June 22, 2011 Report Posted June 22, 2011 (edited) Not exactly, an atheist does not need proof not to believe... Atheists do not believe, not believe...there is no requirement of faith for non belief. Exactly, they believe and that's fine but that is not the same as knowing. When you claim your "belief" is fact, is the point it becomes faith. In that respect Atheism is no different from any other religion. Edited June 22, 2011 by Wilber Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
M.Dancer Posted June 22, 2011 Report Posted June 22, 2011 No scientist would claim that something doesn't exist just because he hasn't found it. I think many scientists would beg to differ. Hobgoblins, elves, unicorns et al.... For there has to be a reason to think something might exist in the first place...Scientists are searching for dark matter and smaller and smaller particles..they haven't found them (at least all of them) but they think they might be there... On the other hand, they don't bother to look for things that they don't believe exist....like green cheese on the moon...and there has been the opportunity to find it... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
M.Dancer Posted June 22, 2011 Report Posted June 22, 2011 Exactly, they believe and that's fine but that is not the same as knowing. When you claim your "belief" is fact, is the point it becomes faith. In that respect Atheism is no different from any other religion. You seem to be missing the point... they believe No they don't... Belief doesn't even enter the argument. Theists believe, atheists do not. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Oleg Bach Posted June 22, 2011 Report Posted June 22, 2011 You seem to be missing the point... No they don't... Belief doesn't even enter the argument. Theists believe, atheists do not. Both are the same. The hard core believer will have moments of doubt. The atheist will also ponder momentarily and think "maybe I am wrong?" Quote
M.Dancer Posted June 22, 2011 Report Posted June 22, 2011 Unless you are in France where the onus is on the defense to prove innocence. Ahhh....Vive La France! I believe that is either outdated or an urban legend. In France, article 9 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, of constitutional value, says "Everyone is supposed innocent until having been declared guilty." and the preliminary article of the code of criminal procedure says "any suspected or prosecuted person is presumed to be innocent until their guilt has been established". The jurors' oath reiterates this assertion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence There are catches however...such like it is the onus of the defence to prove the defendant is insane... But again, there it is: Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Oleg Bach Posted June 22, 2011 Report Posted June 22, 2011 Not exactly, an athiest does not need proof not to believe... Atheists do not believe, not believe...there is no requirement of faith for non belief. The term "faith" literally means to believe in what you do not fully understand. Atheists are a product of faith also. They do not fully understand the secrets of the universe...or the non-existance of a god. They just as blindly adhere to a dogma that is based on blind faith - Let the atheist explain to me where everything came from? He does not know anymore than the believer. Quote
Wilber Posted June 22, 2011 Report Posted June 22, 2011 You seem to be missing the point... No they don't... Belief doesn't even enter the argument. Theists believe, atheists do not. Depends on your definition of atheist. If it just an absence of belief in a God, I would agree. If it is an insistence there is no God, I would strongly disagree. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Oleg Bach Posted June 22, 2011 Report Posted June 22, 2011 Depends on your definition of atheist. If it just an absence of belief in a God, I would agree. If it is an insistence there is no God, I would strongly disagree. I was called an atheist by a young person because I was not up on formal religion. Even though I believe in God...he still insisted that I was an atheist. Could it be that the new definition might be someone who is not dogmatic or religious? Quote
Wilber Posted June 22, 2011 Report Posted June 22, 2011 I think many scientists would beg to differ. Hobgoblins, elves, unicorns et al.... You can't make the assumption that because some things are myth, anything else that hasn't been proved is myth. If so, there would be no science. Many of the things we know now or things we are researching are only possible because of the tools that have developed over time. Black holes didn't exist until we developed the equipment which allowed us to find them. Who is to say we will never find a way of answering this question as well. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.