Soooooooooo.....no rapture...again.

[jdgregory84]

Prove that going to heaven is fake, dick. Please prove it.

There's flawed logic. How do you prove something doesn't exist? Proof is generally something that can be experienced through ones senses. If it doesn't exist, no proof is needed. Now claiming that something exists without any evidence is completely different. That's where faith comes into play. But, let's face it. Faith isn't going to hold up in any court as legitimate evidence.

[Avery'sDad]

Exactly why both of our reasons are nothing more than beliefs. So why are you dogging people that have a different belief and holding their belief to a different standard by asking for proof when, in fact, you don't require proof for you not to believe what I believe?

See the hypocracy there, bro?

My beliefs are based on facts yours is on faith and the fear of what if there was no god. Once you take yourself away and look at it from an outside looking in perspective, you start to realize that you are being brainwashed and that life really is good without a god.

[mustangguy289]

My beliefs are based on facts yours is on faith and the fear of what if there was no god. Once you take yourself away and look at it from an outside looking in perspective, you start to realize that you are being brainwashed and that life really is good without a god.

He did ask you for facts that make you believe there is no god or heaven. You told him he was irrationale.

My life is great with God.

[bcoop]

My beliefs are based on facts yours is on faith and the fear of what if there was no god. Once you take yourself away and look at it from an outside looking in perspective, you start to realize that you are being brainwashed and that life really is good without a god.

Speaking of otherwise intelligent people being irrational.....


And again, I'm agnostic, and even I can see you don't have an answer, so you're just trying to spin to get the focus off you.

[The King]

There's flawed logic. How do you prove something doesn't exist? Proof is generally something that can be experienced through ones senses. If it doesn't exist, no proof is needed. Now claiming that something exists without any evidence is completely different. That's where faith comes into play. But, let's face it. Faith isn't going to hold up in any court as legitimate evidence.

If one is satisfied with believing our world is limited to what can be experienced through ones senses, more power to them but that notion is exceptionally close-minded and simplistic.

Limiting ones self to that which holds up in court as legitimate evidence is equally close-minded and simplistic. Jesus' claim to be the Messiah didn't hold up to Pontius Pilate's court' as legitimate evidence either, but look at the impact this "unproven" (to Roman standards) evidence has had on the world ever since.

[V8tt]

Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church members are pretty devout in their beliefs, and their God Hates Fags rhetoric. That doesn't make them right. David Koresh was pretty devout in his beliefs. This could go on all day. As someone else mentioned, there are nuts on BOTH sides of the fence.

http://bible.cc/matthew/24-36.htm

I'm agnostic, and it seems pretty simple to me. Don't try so hard to discredit Christians, that you're ignoring common sense.

Going off of the verse above....how does this relate without contradicting the Holy Trinity? It is my understanding that The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost were one in the same. If "the Son" himself doesn't even know the time of the Rapture then....

Looking for discussions, not arguments on proof vs. faith. That has been well wrung out here...but my take on it is that Science is EVER evolving and changing as we learn more whereas Religion pretty much sticks to its core beliefs from the start. Unlike some of the devout here...I still have my doubts and questions. I am not an unbeliever (if that is even a word), I simply have tons of questions and some doubts of validity about parts of the Bible. I HOPE the Bible is true, because what it promises is much better than what we have going here. I have a lady that works for me who is devout and is truly wrapped up in the Lord. I try to have playful theological discussions with her and she simply smiles and tells me that the Lord's design is not one which we are fully meant to understand. She KNOWS in her heart that what the Bible says is true and it makes her happy. She doesn't need to argue or try to drive her point home to anyone else.

I figure anything the puts a smile on so many people's faces and isn't morally wrong (but in fact leads to a moral life) can't be bad. I just wish (if it is all true) that whatever came into her heart (most probably the Lord) would come into everyone's heart so there wouldn't be the questions, doubt, wars, deaths, etc etc. That is one of my bigger questions...if He is real...give us ALL the desire and capacity to believe (i.e. prove it).

[The King]

There's an adversary working against the Lord in our world, and it's been that way since before Adam and Eve. In many cases he succeeds in breeding a skepticism in some individuals that if left to grow becomes full disbelief.

[racrguy]

Like what was stated over and over and over again... our BELIEFS are faith-based, which do not require proof. There are non-believers that seem to use every bit of effort to demean these beliefs because of its lack of proof. Every time I switch it around and ask for proof that it isn't true, I never get a response. So that is telling me that they don't believe based on their BELIEFS, in the absence of proof that none of what the Bible says is true.

Now that we have established that both sides take their sides based on their BELIEFS, the only ones that don't have a problem defending their faith seem to be the ones who believe in God.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. If it is not, then we would be forced to believe every claim ever put forward until it could be proven to be false. People have been looking for god for millennia only to find nothing.

Exactly why both of our reasons are nothing more than beliefs. So why are you dogging people that have a different belief and holding their belief to a different standard by asking for proof when, in fact, you don't require proof for you not to believe what I believe?

See the hypocracy there, bro?

Asking for evidence to support the god claim, and needing no evidence to dismiss said claim is not hypocritical in the least. The burden of proof has always been on the one making the claim. You claim your god is real and your bible is fact. Since you can provide no proof to demonstrate your claims, your claim can be dismissed with no further thought.

When it comes to claims, we do require proof. There is insufficient evidence FOR the belief of god, therefore we do not believe. Instead of giving us logical reasons for believing in god, you give us all these reasons not to:

Abortion Rates:

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/US-Abortion-Patients.pdf

82.7% of women aged 15-44 are religious in some way, versus 17.3% marked as "None"

Prison Rates

http://www.adherents.com/misc/adh_prison.html

78% are religious, vs 22% as "Unknown" meaning they either didn't want to say, or were nonreligious, so the 22% number is likely smaller.

Divorce Rates

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/baptist_divorce.html

66% are religious, vs. 34% non-denominational

There's an adversary working against the Lord in our world, and it's been that way since before Adam and Eve. In many cases he succeeds in breeding a skepticism in some individuals that if left to grow becomes full disbelief.

It seems that your "adversary" is called science, and it's winning.

[Denny]

There's flawed logic. How do you prove something doesn't exist? Proof is generally something that can be experienced through ones senses. If it doesn't exist, no proof is needed. Now claiming that something exists without any evidence is completely different. That's where faith comes into play. But, let's face it. Faith isn't going to hold up in any court as legitimate evidence.

My beliefs are based on facts yours is on faith and the fear of what if there was no god. Once you take yourself away and look at it from an outside looking in perspective, you start to realize that you are being brainwashed and that life really is good without a god.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. If it is not, then we would be forced to believe every claim ever put forward until it could be proven to be false. People have been looking for god for millennia only to find nothing.


Asking for evidence to support the god claim, and needing no evidence to dismiss said claim is not hypocritical in the least. The burden of proof has always been on the one making the claim. You claim your god is real and your bible is fact. Since you can provide no proof to demonstrate your claims, your claim can be dismissed with no further thought.

When it comes to claims, we do require proof. There is insufficient evidence FOR the belief of god, therefore we do not believe. Instead of giving us logical reasons for believing in god, you give us all these reasons not to:

Abortion Rates:

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/US-Abortion-Patients.pdf

82.7% of women aged 15-44 are religious in some way, versus 17.3% marked as "None"

Prison Rates

http://www.adherents.com/misc/adh_prison.html

78% are religious, vs 22% as "Unknown" meaning they either didn't want to say, or were nonreligious, so the 22% number is likely smaller.

Divorce Rates

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/baptist_divorce.html

66% are religious, vs. 34% non-denominational

See, you guys aren't getting it. You and I are exercising our free wills to believe what we choose to in the absence of this evidence (for or against). That is the beauty of the free will that God gave us. We're both in the same game, playing the same rules. I've just come to a different conclusion.

By trying to throw out those examples and percentages of religious vs. "unknown" people, you are just adding elements into the equation to cloud your decision, since that has nothing to do with God's existance.

[jdgregory84]

If one is satisfied with believing our world is limited to what can be experienced through ones senses, more power to them but that notion is exceptionally close-minded and simplistic.

Limiting ones self to that which holds up in court as legitimate evidence is equally close-minded and simplistic. Jesus' claim to be the Messiah didn't hold up to Pontius Pilate's court' as legitimate evidence either, but look at the impact this "unproven" (to Roman standards) evidence has had on the world ever since.

How is that closed minded? Should I open my mind now to firebreathing dragons, and other folklore that has no evidence back up claims of their existence?

Your right, if the story of a man named Jesus is somewhat true, his claim didn't hold up in court. Look at the impact that other religions have had on the world. Look at the polytheistic religions and the impact they had on the world. Religion and the fear of eternal damnation is a powerful tool to people that choose to believe in it despite the absence of proof from people that claim it actually exists.

The fear that I wouldn't get any presents come christmas scared the shit out of me, and I can tell you I was probably a lot less prone to disobeying my parents during November and December.

[The King]

It seems that your "adversary" is called science, and it's winning.

Science is not the adversary, it is simply a tool used by man to further understand Creation.

How is that closed minded? Should I open my mind now to firebreathing dragons, and other folklore that has no evidence back up claims of their existence?

It is closed minded because it presumes that only what your senses reveal to you is all that can currently exist. Human perception is not the be-all and end-all of the universe.

Your right, if the story of a man named Jesus is somewhat true, his claim didn't hold up in court. Look at the impact that other religions have had on the world. Look at the polytheistic religions and the impact they had on the world. Religion and the fear of eternal damnation is a powerful tool to people that choose to believe in it despite the absence of proof from people that claim it actually exists.

The polytheistic religions were doomed to fail since they were a construct of man. Also, though religious I personally don't subscribe to any fear of eternal damnation beliefs.

The fear that I wouldn't get any presents come christmas scared the shit out of me, and I can tell you I was probably a lot less prone to disobeying my parents during November and December.

Your fear and behavioral change preceeding Christmas simply reflected the success of commercial marketers and advertisers who convinced you that you just had to have some shiny new doodad or else.

[Maddhattter]

See, you guys aren't getting it. You and I are exercising our free wills to believe what we choose to in the absence of this evidence (for or against). That is the beauty of the free will that God gave us. We're both in the same game, playing the same rules. I've just come to a different conclusion.

This statement, along with a few others, demonstrates that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the burden of proof works. You seem to think the only way to show an idea is not true is to prove the opposite.

The burden of proof always lies with the one who is making a claim. Christians claim that God, Heaven, and, in many cases, Hell exists. To state that I do not believe in God, Heaven, Hell, Zeus, Bigfoot, Pixies, the Loch Ness Monster, etc., is not making the claim that they do not exist. It is merely a rejection of your claim, based on your lack of evidential support. There does not have to be a counter claim to show that one claim is not supported.

You also don't seem to understand the concept of lex parsimoniae, colloquially known as Occam's Razor. It is a simple scientific principal that states that if two hypotheses both sufficiently describe the data available, the simpler answer, the one that makes the fewest assumptions, is the more likely and logical one.

Assuming that the God hypothesis and the big bang hypothesis were equal in describing the data at hand, the God hypothesis would fail the test. You have to make an infinitely large assumption, i.e. an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being, for the God hypothesis to work, making it the least likely and illogical choice of the two.

So, it’s not a matter of just “exercising our free wills to believe what we choose to in the absence of this evidence (for or against)”. It’s about accepting that science is the best and most reliable tool we have to find out about the world around us, and since science cannot demonstrate, nor indicate the existence of any supernatural being or force, there is no reasonable way to conclude that it does exist.

By trying to throw out those examples and percentages of religious vs. "unknown" people, you are just adding elements into the equation to cloud your decision, since that has nothing to do with God's existance.

Agreed. The data does not directly have to do with God’s existence. What it does indicate is that being associated with religion has absolutely no correlation to behaving morally.

Now if God’s wrath were truly something to be concerned about, it would stand to reason that people without the “moral guidance” of the bible would have a disproportionally large population within these polls.

Again, it’s not proof against a god or gods. It is however, a proof against the ability of the religion to make people “better”.

Science is not the adversary, it is simply a tool used by man to further understand Creation.

It’s the most reliable tool that we have to demonstrate and understand reality. I’ve never seen you put forth anything other than circular reasoning for why you consistently claim that reality is a creation, so I’m not going to touch on that.

It is closed minded because it presumes that only what your senses reveal to you is all that can currently exist. Human perception is not the be-all and end-all of the universe.

It’s not close minded to believe only what is indicated. It truly seems that, by your reasoning, we should never be concerned with evidence. After all, we cannot perceive everything; pixies must be just beyond that. Bigfoot hides where we can’t see him. The teapot orbiting mars is too small to see from earth. All claims are equally valid when you stop using science and begin assuming that any claim has merit because it can’t be proven wrong. It is close-minded to stand against all logic and reason to hold a position just because you believe it to be true, when nothing beyond your belief backs it up. I wouldn’t even rely on an individual’s senses. As people, we are poor data storage devices. That is why science has documented procedure to allow for hypotheses to be falsifiable. It never has to rely on one person. Anyone can run these tests. If science indicates your particular deity, it should be easily found in published peer-reviewed documentation.

The polytheistic religions were doomed to fail since they were a construct of man.

At least in your statement, you fail to indicate that any monotheistic religion is anything but more of the same.

Also, though religious I personally don't subscribe to any fear of eternal damnation beliefs.

Irrelevant. jdgregory84 was not referencing your beliefs, just indicating that Christianity’s achievements are not unique among religions. All religions have had the same basic premise of "Believe in this god or gods and do it’s bidding. If you do, there will be great rewards. If you don’t, you’ll pay for your transgression in horribly terrifyingly ambiguous ways." Your disassociation with "any fear of eternal damnation beliefs" doesn't change the fact that every documented religion, that I know of, has done this. In one form or another.

[jdgregory84]

It is closed minded because it presumes that only what your senses reveal to you is all that can currently exist. Human perception is not the be-all and end-all of the universe.

So anytime anybody says anything is true, we should just believe it without question? I guess that would make life a little easier.

The polytheistic religions were doomed to fail since they were a construct of man.

That's probably what they would say about modern religions.

Your fear and behavioral change preceeding Christmas simply reflected the success of commercial marketers and advertisers who convinced you that you just had to have some shiny new doodad or else.

..and confessing your sins and asking forgiveness from God on your deathbed is different?

[Denny]

This statement, along with a few others, demonstrates that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the burden of proof works. You seem to think the only way to show an idea is not true is to prove the opposite.

Negative. I'm showing that it can go either way in the absence of proof and whichever way one goes is based on a belief.

[Maddhattter]

Negative. I'm showing that it can go either way in the absence of proof and whichever way one goes is based on a belief.

But your not demonstrating that. I don't care to use overly used cliche's, but it's far too apt in this case.

Atheism is a belief like bald is a hair color or not collecting stamps is a hobby.

It doesn't work the way you claim. Regardless as to what anyone wants to believe. To believe in what is not indicated nor evidenced, is faith. To not believe in something that is not indicated nor evidenced, is lacking belief, not holding a separate belief.