Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

What takes more faith: Theism or Atheism?

86 posts in this topic

Posted

.

.

.

.

<-------proof :D

God created fat thighs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I happen to be an agnostic, not an atheist. But if you are telling me you have real verifiable evidence of a god, then really you should be prepping for your appearances every TV show worldwide next week.

the nature of the debate denies the ability to know for sure either way. because it cannot be empirically proved that this IS a god, or that there ISN'T, it takes at least some ammount of faith to chose whichever side you're on.

therefore, we have to go with the next best thing - and that's evidence.

there's quite a bit of evidence, zod.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

yes, and M&Ms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

because it cannot be empirically proved there ISN'T

Can you prove to me there is no easter bunny or santa claus? how about proving to me that the hindu gods don't exist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Even ya boy Richie Dawkins said he's not a 7 on the belief scale, for he cannot absolutely be certain there is no God/god/intelligent being/creation force thingy.

On a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is certitude that God exists and 7 is certitude that God does not exist, Dawkins rates himself a 6: "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I agree with him, pretty smart guy huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Can you prove to me there is no easter bunny or santa claus? how about proving to me that the hindu gods don't exist?

i'm aware of the laws of the burden of proof, but if evidence were hoisted to the contrary of what you already believe, would you be willing to review it objectively, and abandon the personal philosophical desires that would hold you back from an unbiased review of said evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I agree with him, pretty smart guy huh?

Well then can we agree that he has some level of "faith" to "believe" without "empirical evidence" that there is no type of creation being/force?

He does state the it is not absolute, so he must think that what he believes is the correct assumption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

i'm aware of the laws of the burden of proof, but if evidence were hoisted to the contrary of what you already believe, would you be willing to review it objectively, and abandon the personal philosophical desires that would hold you back from an unbiased review of said evidence?

I certainly keep an open mind to any evidence produced in terms of paranormal or supernatural. Just so happens that up to this point in human history, it has all been bunk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I certainly keep an open mind to any evidence produced in terms of paranormal or supernatural. Just so happens that up to this point in human history, it has all been bunk.

may i ask what you've heard that you consider bunk? not each separate arguement, of course, but perhaps classifications... scientific arguments? arguments made directly from biblical texts? arguments made from philosophy and logic?

(i don't propose to type up an entire thesis on the existence of a deity here, but i've found a few interesting bits that might pique your interest... it'd be good to get a general idea of what you've already heard before typing prolifically and redundantly.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

may i ask what you've heard that you consider bunk? not each separate arguement, of course, but perhaps classifications... scientific arguments? arguments made directly from biblical texts? arguments made from philosophy and logic?

(i don't propose to type up an entire thesis on the existence of a deity here, but i've found a few interesting bits that might pique your interest... it'd be good to get a general idea of what you've already heard before typing prolifically and redundantly.)

The first would be the only thing I would be interested in. The other two are worthless in somehow proving the existence of a god.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The first would be the only thing I would be interested in. The other two are worthless in somehow proving the existence of a god.

i partially agree with you... nothing pisses me off like some nimrod trying to prove the existence of god with biblical evidence. it makes theists look like a bunch of idiots.

logical evidence? now here i'm not so sure we see eye to eye. there's quite a number of philosophical arguments for the existence of a god or gods based on logic that serves as the very foundation of the way we think. (the logical processes themselves, not the conclusions drawn from them.)

do you categorically reject all logical deductions of god hypotheses, or are there specific ones you ignore? (i admit some of them can be pretty obscure)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites