• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What is your religion?

What is your religion?

  • Total voters
    132
phattonez said:
Where is the evidence that God does not exist?
Click to expand...
IMO, there is no definite, irrefutable evidence either way.

"What we have", or Life, or Nature, must have some guidance, some "master plan"...so we have assigned this incomprehensible task to "God"...
 
I believe in God. I believe that every religious organization is just mans way of trying to control humans.
 
phattonez said:
Oh, but you don't need evidence to prove that there is no God? How convenient.
Click to expand...

No, I don't claim there is no God, I simply find no evidence for God's factual existence. By the same token, I don't have to prove Bigfoot isn't real either. You're the one proposing that God is real, it rests entirely on your shoulders to demonstrate it. If you cannot, and you have not, then your claim can be discarded as unproven, pending further evidence somewhere down the road.

Welcome to science.
 
phattonez said:
Where is the evidence that God does not exist?
Click to expand...

The burden of proof lies with the one making a claim. Most atheists do not make a claim to God(s) existence or non-existence. They are simply in the default position of non-belief. Atheists do not have to prove God doesn't exist anymore than atheists or theists have to prove unicorns do not exist in order to have a non-belief in them. However, if you claim God does exist the burden of proof is on you to prove it, either to yourself or to others. Note: some atheists do claim God does not exist and therefore the burden of proof is on them. Most, however, do not.


Theists should prove it to themselves because it demonstrates their claim is both rationale and reasonable. The difference in proving a claim to oneself as opposed to proving it to another is that personal experiences are a valid form of proof in proving something to one's self. The weakness of proving it to one's self is that people are biased and often err in their reason unless checked by another.

If theists wish others to believe their claim then they need to prove it to them. Its at this point that testimony is unreliable as evidence due to known flaws in humans.
 
Last edited:
Cephus said:
No, I don't claim there is no God, I simply find no evidence for God's factual existence. By the same token, I don't have to prove Bigfoot isn't real either. You're the one proposing that God is real, it rests entirely on your shoulders to demonstrate it. If you cannot, and you have not, then your claim can be discarded as unproven, pending further evidence somewhere down the road.

Welcome to science.
Click to expand...

Its not just science though. This is basic critical thinking skills yet I find that most people wholly lack a basic understanding of it.

If someone has a better form of reasoning then present the reason or a demonstration of why and how this newer/other method is better.
 
Atheism and Agnosticism are two very different things and shouldn't have been clumped together in the poll.
 
scourge99 said:
The burden of proof lies with the one making a claim. Most atheists do not make a claim to God(s) existence or non-existence.
Click to expand...


Are you saying that atheists arrive at their positions that there is no God without knowledge? No evidence? The atheist position is a claim that they believe there is no God. But they themselves are not required to provide any evidence to support that claim?

Moe
 
scourge99 said:
Most atheists do not make a claim to God(s) existence or non-existence. They are simply in the default position of non-belief.
Click to expand...

I hope you're old enough to realize that contradiction.
 
moe said:
Are you saying that atheists arrive at their positions that there is no God without knowledge? No evidence?
Click to expand...

No one is born with any knowledge or belief in any deity. No one arrives at atheism, everyone starts there.

We're born ignorant of the theological claims, and agnostic. IMO everyone is an agnostic because I have seen no reason to believe in any of the people who claim to "know."

moe said:
The atheist position is a claim that they believe there is no God.

Moe
Click to expand...

Wrong, I don't claim that there is no god, when people ask if I believe in god(s), a god or their god the answer is no, because I am skeptical of their claims; The burden of proof is on them.

When confronted with a new god that I haven't heard of, that up until that moment I had no belief in, and I find the claim logically fallacious, I continue in the same form of non-belief.

But they themselves are not required to provide any evidence to support that claim?
Click to expand...

There are atheists who claim that they know that there is no god, that is a faith based claim, but we are not the same; for that is not what "a-theism" means, it means without belief.
 
Last edited:
phattonez said:
I hope you're old enough to realize that contradiction.
Click to expand...

What contradiction, explain the two claims that cannot both be logically true?

One can not believe in a god whilst not claiming to know that said god does not exist.
 
moe said:
Are you saying that atheists arrive at their positions that there is no God without knowledge?
Click to expand...
It depends on what God you are discussing and depends on the atheist. Some concepts of God I have yet to consider and thus I am in the default position of non-belief in them. Others I have considered and have found no compelling reason to believe in their claims but cannot disprove their claims. Therefore, I still do not believe in such a God but I cannot disprove/prove his existence in any reasonable manner.

Russell's teapot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

moe said:
For example, No evidence? The atheist position is a claim that they believe there is no God. But they themselves are not required to provide any evidence to support that claim?
Click to expand...
No one is required any evidence to make a claim to belief or disbelief. One can believe in anything they want for whatever reason or non-reason they want. However, if someone wishes for others to take their beliefs seriously then they do need to show why or why not its reasonable or unreasonable to believe. I have done this.
 
If you do not believe in God, can you simultaneously believe that he might exist?
 
phattonez said:
I hope you're old enough to realize that contradiction.
Click to expand...

If the contradiction is so obvious then you should have no problem describing exactly what the contradiction is. Please do.
 
Last edited:
scourge99 said:
If the contradiction is so obvious then why is it that you cannot elaborate on exactly what the contradiction is?
Click to expand...
I think the contradiction lies in the definition of words. If you never heard of God (as an infant) that constitutes ignorance, however if you were told of God and yet did not believe in his existence, that is non-belief.

The difference is that the former is not a decision, and the latter is.
 
scourge99 said:
If the contradiction is so obvious then you should have no problem describing exactly what the contradiction is. Please do.
Click to expand...

You said: "Most atheists do not make a claim to God(s) existence or non-existence. They are simply in the default position of non-belief."

How can you make no claim and then take the claim of non-belief? They can't both simultaneously be true.
 
American said:
I think the contradiction lies in the definition of words. If you never heard of God (as an infant) that constitutes ignorance, however if you were told of God and yet did not believe in his existence, that is non-belief.

The difference is that the former is not a decision, and the latter is.
Click to expand...

Theism and Atheism is a tautology. There is no third option. You are either a theist or you are not a theist (atheist).
 
phattonez said:
You said: "Most atheists do not make a claim to God(s) existence or non-existence. They are simply in the default position of non-belief."

How can you make no claim and then take the claim of non-belief? They can't both simultaneously be true.
Click to expand...

Because theists by definition have a belief in God(s). If one does not have a belief in God(s), no matter what the reason for not having that belief is, they are not a theist. They are an atheist.
 
Belief in nothing is different than having no opinion.
 
Somehow it is important to atheists to have this appearance of no-belief as something that exists without action on their part.
 
phattonez said:
Belief in nothing is different than having no opinion.
Click to expand...
Correct, but as usual you fail to explain why.

If someone has no opinion on a belief in God(s) then they still do not have a belief in God(s) therefore they are not a theist (atheist).

If someone believes there is no God(s) then they are also not a theist (atheist).

The fact that these two people are both defined as atheists has nothing to do with how they arrived at the conclusions. It only matter that they both do NOT have a belief in God(s). They are both not theists (atheists)
 
Last edited:
American said:
Somehow it is important to atheists to have this appearance of no-belief as something that exists without action on their part.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry you cannot accept what has been clearly shown as true. You've stooped to trolling with unsubstantiated claims that this is some atheist agenda to have some special appearance. If your claim has merit then please present the evidence for it. Otherwise quit trolling and retract your claim as nothing but your snide opinion.

----
There's only 4 options:
1) you believe in God(s).
2) you don't believe in God(s).
3) you haven't considered God(s).
4) you've considered God(s) but haven't decided what you believe.

#1 is a belief in God(s); theism.
#2, #3, #4 is not a belief in God(s); non-theism a.k.a, atheism.
 
Last edited:
American said:
Somehow it is important to atheists to have this appearance of no-belief as something that exists without action on their part.
Click to expand...

I don't really care. I don't think a god exists, it's highly improbable and I'm not going to put any stock into it at this point. I don't care if people see that as something existing without my action or not. People will point out however, that atheism is the starting point as no one is born with ideals of specific gods or afterlife or souls or any of that, but rather it is all taught later on. I don't care about these things, whether it's innate or learned is inconsequential to me. But I think the reason why some push it a little harder is to highlight atheism not as some strange and malignant mutation of people of faith, but rather a natural and logical position which exists by itself. Maybe. I don't know in the end cause I think people put too much stock in theism and atheism as qualifiers for people and how good an individual is.
 
I believe in science, nature, karma, knowledge, humanity, life, introspection, history (that it repeats itself), and the human mind.
 
American said:
Somehow it is important to atheists to have this appearance of no-belief as something that exists without action on their part.
Click to expand...

Its important because there is a difference between "no I don't believe in any god, I haven't heard a good case made for one yet but am open to new evidence" and "I know there are no gods." The latter is a belief, the former is not, its non-belief; based on a healthy level of skepticism, being unconvinced by illogical arguments.

This is important because atheism is without content, its like being a non-astrologer. I don't even like the term because I don't define label myself based on what I don't believe. I also don't feel compelled to label myself an a-unicornist.
 
Last edited:
Lachean said:
No one is born with any knowledge or belief in any deity. No one arrives at atheism, everyone starts there.

We're born ignorant of the theological claims, and agnostic. IMO everyone is an agnostic because I have seen no reason to believe in any of the people who claim to "know."
Click to expand...

David Ramsay Steele? (Author of Atheisism explained)

Moe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom