First  Prev  101  102  103  104  105  106  107  108  109  110  111  112  113  Next  Last
Post Reply are you religious? if so, why?
16073 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Lake Elsinore, CA
Offline
Posted 8/25/13
Yes, I'm also pretty much an atheist, religion is just crap...
It's only there to give weak minded people some morals cuz they're too stupid to make up their own minds when it comes to morals. I normal person should e able to distinguish good and bad without any need for fairy tales. When I was a kid I was fascinated by dinosaurs and prehistoric creatures, how the f**k you gonna tell me they don't exist! If I was a kid again on a Sunday morning and you have me a choice, I'd stay home and watch Jurassic Park! Hell Yes!

23561 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / Northern California
Offline
Posted 8/25/13 , edited 8/25/13

uncletim wrote:


Tatuzka wrote:

Religion starts wars.. Religion is bad for humans srsly .. Think about it how many wars has RELIGION start? >:(


very few really most said to be for religion are mostly started for greed



NOTE: With religion used as a surface justification, of course. The two are interrelated more than most religious leaders would care to admit.

It is true that greed was a primary factor, in many cases...but it is historically dishonest to downplay the role of religion in the perpetuation of war. The many Crusades are but one example, and while religion got many the troops (primarily of the peasantry) motivated to go to war, greed was what motivated the leadership, with glory trailing close behind.

The players may have changed, but for many, the song and dance of waging a holy war is still invoked to this day, and even harkening back to the (tragic) Children's Crusade, children are once again being manipulated into invoking the same propaganda.

Here's just one example, followed by one of the better responses to it, which also debunks the many falsehoods therein. i think there's a Ten Commandment about bearing false witness, but the people who wrote this probably think it's perfectly okay to lie, if you're "lying for Jesus." (And of course, it seems to be much easier for them to ask for forgiveness afterward, rather than be honest in the first place...)

The Thaw: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYaJjiHr4rs

My favorite response to it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWeV98JIXko
19017 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 8/25/13
I don't have proof. The burden of proof is on the religions. There is no way to disprove "god" but there is also no way to disprove that right now there is a flying banana that fights monsters in the sky and keeps us safe. Just saying "you can't disprove it" isn't good enough
23561 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / Northern California
Offline
Posted 8/25/13

racerxion wrote:

@humansizedcats and how you have proof of a lack of godly influence? You don't lol There is no way to disprove something like that lol


As skeptics, we are not required to "disprove" that there is or isn't a god, or gods. All we have to do is state that we don't have enough evidence to prove that any god exists. However, by your making the positive claim that god exists, the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence to substantiate your case. Otherwise, our default conclusion remains, that there is not enough evidence. By stating that we have to "disprove" it for you, you are trying to shift the burden of proof onto us...but the burden of proof is yours, because the positive claim is yours.

This will explain it for you, in case you or others don't understand it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KayBys8gaJY
51115 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 8/25/13

Spazticus wrote:


racerxion wrote:

@humansizedcats and how you have proof of a lack of godly influence? You don't lol There is no way to disprove something like that lol


As skeptics, we are not required to "disprove" that there is or isn't a god, or gods. All we have to do is state that we don't have enough evidence to prove that any god exists. However, by your making the positive claim that god exists, the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence to substantiate your case. Otherwise, our default conclusion remains, that there is not enough evidence. By stating that we have to "disprove" it for you, you are trying to shift the burden of proof onto us...but the burden of proof is yours, because the positive claim is yours.

This will explain it for you, in case you or others don't understand it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KayBys8gaJY



The fact of the matter is it is not anyone's responsibility to prove anything to anyone. Who am I to have to prove it to you or you to prove it to me when what one is willing to accept as actual "evidence" or "proof" is based on perspective. I am simply pointing out that simply because one chooses not to believe in something does not mean that is does not exist. Long ago peoples believed the earth was flat and even killed people who said otherwise when the fact of the matter is later it was revealed to be round just as those they killed believed it to be. At the end of the day you can't prove or disprove god's existence all I know is this..if I am wrong and atheists are right nothing happens however, if I am right and atheists wrong then they will burn in hell lol It is what it is...also, as for the burden of proof, you are going off of the perspective that the one who has a positive claim within a proving disposition has to prove why their disposition is correct thereby saying your disbelief or in this case the negative perspective is the correct one to begin basing the arguments logic from. Wouldn't it be more effective if both sides display the evidence to support their claims and whoever's evidence is more logically sound wins? So wouldn't the burden of proof be on both sides to each prove their perspective? I'm just saying lol
16073 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Lake Elsinore, CA
Offline
Posted 8/25/13
12378 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / M / In
Offline
Posted 8/25/13 , edited 8/25/13
I think Religion is hard wired into our DNA
23561 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / Northern California
Offline
Posted 8/25/13

racerxion wrote:


Spazticus wrote:


racerxion wrote:

@humansizedcats and how you have proof of a lack of godly influence? You don't lol There is no way to disprove something like that lol


As skeptics, we are not required to "disprove" that there is or isn't a god, or gods. All we have to do is state that we don't have enough evidence to prove that any god exists. However, by your making the positive claim that god exists, the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence to substantiate your case. Otherwise, our default conclusion remains, that there is not enough evidence. By stating that we have to "disprove" it for you, you are trying to shift the burden of proof onto us...but the burden of proof is yours, because the positive claim is yours.

This will explain it for you, in case you or others don't understand it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KayBys8gaJY



The fact of the matter is it is not anyone's responsibility to prove anything to anyone. Who am I to have to prove it to you or you to prove it to me when what one is willing to accept as actual "evidence" or "proof" is based on perspective. I am simply pointing out that simply because one chooses not to believe in something does not mean that is does not exist. Long ago peoples believed the earth was flat and even killed people who said otherwise when the fact of the matter is later it was revealed to be round just as those they killed believed it to be. At the end of the day you can't prove or disprove god's existence all I know is this..if I am wrong and atheists are right nothing happens however, if I am right and atheists wrong then they will burn in hell lol It is what it is...also, as for the burden of proof, you are going off of the perspective that the one who has a positive claim within a proving disposition has to prove why their disposition is correct thereby saying your disbelief or in this case the negative perspective is the correct one to begin basing the arguments logic from. Wouldn't it be more effective if both sides display the evidence to support their claims and whoever's evidence is more logically sound wins? So wouldn't the burden of proof be on both sides to each prove their perspective? I'm just saying lol


So now you're invoking Pascal's Wager, too? That argument is all too easy to refute: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager

It is not a fact of the matter that the burden of proof may be ignored. If someone makes an outlandish claim, and refuses to provide evidence, or provides insufficient evidence...then there is exactly zero reason to believe that their claim holds water, until it can be proven!

As I stated, as skeptics, we don't have to "prove" the existence or non-existence of your deity. We don't have enough evidence to accept it as fact, and we will not be convinced without the evidence that you lack. We only have to shoulder a burden of proof if we make a positive claim of our own, which in this case, we are not. Further, since your evidence (and lack thereof) doesn't hold water, our default position, that there is not enough evidence, remains unchanged. However, if you are not able to provide sufficient evidence, then you are always free to withdraw your positive claim.
10 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / F / Philippines
Offline
Posted 8/25/13
Being religious shows that we have something and someone (God) to believe in when we're in times of need, when we're down, when something bad has happened in life and when we just want someone to talk to - even though he isn't there physically with us, we can still feel his presence spiritually, emotionally and mentally.
19017 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 8/25/13 , edited 8/25/13
Do you really have someone/something to believe in? God ignores the plea of "his" followers and let's kids and families die of starvation, dehydration, and all sorts of diseases. This is the person you claim to enjoy having a loving connection with?

The fact of the matter is that religion plays a role throughout the world. It has an influence and guiding hand that affects social policies, education, and the manner in which fellow humans interact. I am extremely saddened to hear of anyone who's mind succumbs to these false securities..and I despise that these ideas force their way into everyday life.
51115 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 8/25/13 , edited 8/25/13



lol you missed the entire point I am not trying to prove anything to you simply stating my perspective. You perceive that I am trying to change your thoughts or your position...believe whatever you want...I am simply stating my opinion. You want for me to prove to you that god exists because your the skeptic of the existence of god..well I am a skeptic of the inexistence of god...so show me your proof that he does not exist? lol It works both ways. I am skeptic of the inexistence of god therefore under your logic you now have to undertaken the burden of proof correct? lol
23561 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / Northern California
Offline
Posted 8/25/13

racerxion wrote:




lol you missed the entire point I am not trying to prove anything to you simply stating my perspective. You perceive that I am trying to change your thoughts or your position...believe whatever you want...I am simply stating my opinion. You want for me to prove to you that god exists because your the skeptic of the existence of god..well I am a skeptic of the inexistence of god...so show me your proof that he does not exist? lol It works both ways. I am skeptic of the inexistence of god therefore under your logic you now have to undertaken the burden of proof correct? lol


It doesn't work both ways, and I'm inclined to believe that you never learned this distinction in a debate class.

I'm not claiming the specific statement of, "There is no god". I am stating that "I do not have enough evidence to believe that there is a god." I am also not claiming that I can "disprove your god". I am stating that when you state the positive claim, "There is a god", then the burden of proof is on you to substantiate your claim. If you can't substantiate your claim, then I have no reason to believe your claim.

Likewise, if I walked up to you and told you that "I can converse with snakes on an intellectual level", the burden of proof would be on me to substantiate that claim. Otherwise your default opinion, which logically is that humans cannot converse intellectually with snakes, would remain unchanged. If I could provide sufficient evidence that proves my claim, then my claim would have merit. The same rules apply to anyone that claims anything new in the realm of science. If they cannot provide substantiation, then the claim holds no merit, and their claim is usually discredited. If there is sufficient evidence, then it is accepted, because the burden of proof has been met.

In this case: You are asserting that there is a god. I am asserting that I do not have enough evidence, which is not the same as stating, "there is no god." I'm not suggesting that I can prove there IS, or is NOT, any god or gods. I am saying, "I will not be convinced that a god exists without sufficient evidence." That is my default opinion. For my opinion to change, someone must provide sufficient evidence. So if you wish for me to believe you, therefore you must provide evidence, because YOU are the one making the positive claim. That is how the burden of proof works...I am not making a positive claim, and you are.
16073 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Lake Elsinore, CA
Offline
Posted 8/25/13


31068 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Florida
Offline
Posted 8/25/13 , edited 8/25/13

Dspokes wrote:

I am religious, why? I don't want to go to hell.

Enjoy your stay atheists.


This is the worst reason to believe in religion, solely for fear, that's not faith man.

I am not religious, though I believe there is a god, I also believe he's an asshole, based on how the world works this simply makes more sense.

Also, as science goes, it's been long excepted that probability dramatically supports creationism, science just continues to try to find another better answer, and I fully support doing this lol but anyone who is an atheist simply because science makes more sense, doesn't understand statistics.

Presently, the statistically most probable explanation, would be something, alien, god, magic lamp, and so on, created existence with the intent of it looking very ancient, but with many intentional flaws to fuck with people exploring it, why? Who knows, but it makes sense than literally everything that has ever happened working out perfectly for life to be as complex as it is presently, but that is also possible, so could be.
16073 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Lake Elsinore, CA
Offline
Posted 8/25/13

Dspokes wrote:

I am religious, why? I don't want to go to hell.

Enjoy your stay atheists.


FEAR IS YOUR ONLY GOD
First  Prev  101  102  103  104  105  106  107  108  109  110  111  112  113  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.