Burden of Proof - Does it ever lie with Atheists?

[Retro Rob]

I am saying that there is no need for a "god" to do that.

Well, ok -- I won't pry you any further.

 

[randomrogue]

Why do you care about what happened before the big bang? Because we don't know what happened before does not mean that god did it. We just don't know. Until evidence presents itself we will simply not have the answers you are looking for Rob but we aren't going to make up an answer and say that god did it.

 

[Retro Rob]

Why do you care about what happened before the big bang? Because we don't know what happened before does not mean that god did it. We just don't know. Until evidence presents itself we will simply not have the answers you are looking for Rob but we aren't going to make up an answer and say that god did it.

I care becasue it's important.

... and you're right, once we have the evidence, we will find out who is of the disillusioned group... Athesim, Theism, etc..

I think we'd arrive at this sooner than later....

 

[ivwshane]

Why do you care about what happened before the big bang? Because we don't know what happened before does not mean that god did it. We just don't know. Until evidence presents itself we will simply not have the answers you are looking for Rob but we aren't going to make up an answer and say that god did it.

That's why I'm agnostic, I believe in god only because humans can't explain everything. The moment humans can explain everything (or at least the "big" questions) my belief will cease.

My belief in god is only to explain what man can't, no more, no less. I don't believe in a religious god, just a creator of matter.

 

[ivwshane]

I care becasue it's important.

... and you're right, once we have the evidence, we will find out who is of the disillusioned group... Athesim, Theism, etc..

I think we'd arrive at this sooner than later....

And let's say you find evidence that there is a god, then what? You cast all non believers aside? You judge others for not believing what you knew but could not prove to be true? I thought only god was worthy of judging people?

And if you don't cast the non believers aside or you don't judge them, then what's the point of having evidence? Your actions shouldn't change, will your thoughts change? Will you now look down upon those that didnt believe? No? Then why does it matter what evidence you have? Why does it matter what others think?

You believe in a religion and yet you don't even practice it.

 

[Retro Rob]

And let's say you find evidence that there is a god, then what? You cast all non believers aside? You judge others for not believing what you knew but could not prove to be true? I thought only god was worthy of judging people?

And if you don't cast the non believers aside or you don't judge them, then what's the point of having evidence? Your actions shouldn't change, will your thoughts change? Will you now look down upon those that didnt believe? No? Then why does it matter what evidence you have? Why does it matter what others think?

You believe in a religion and yet you don't even practice it.

???

What if I'm wrong? Perhaps you'd do the same?

 

[ivwshane]

???

What if I'm wrong? Perhaps you'd do the same?

If I'm wrong? Then I embrace the truth. I don't push my beliefs on others but I will tell them what they are if they ask. I don't belong to an organization that wants to spread its message, so me knowing the truth will not impact me negatively or positively and me knowing the truth will not affect you.

Now, did you not answer the question because you are afraid of the truth? Or did you not answer the question because you know the truth?


That's two questions I have asked of you in two separate posts and I still haven't received an answer.

 

[Atreus21]

Obviously, this is a continuation from the Bible Movies thread.

I obviously know that if we're saying that God exists, we have to prove it.. this I understand totally.

However, is there every any burden on those who claim the Bible is a work of fiction or God doesn't exist? As far as I know, they unfaily keep the burden on the believer, but they tend to make claims. When asked for evidence (speaking about those I've encountered on this fourm), I hardly see any outside of clams.

I ask because I can't being to recount how many Youtube vids I've watched of Dawkins and other Militant Atheists scream and shout to the top of their voices about we're all delusioned and the Bible is nothing more than a work of fiction. I have also looked to seek out the evidence they have to back this claim. Honestly, for a goup of people who base their whole careers off of whether or not they have something "observable and testable", they surely base all these claims with hardly anything observable and testable.

I don't think the burden is on agnostics because they cleverly, and rightly, hold the default position until they've seen sufficient evidence. However, you have strong Atheists who never really provide any proof for their claims against the Bible, yet it seems ok that they can actually make claims and not prove them.

Any thoughts? I am just curious and if I am wrong, I can take rational correction.

To me, I don't see how it can't rest with atheists. The theistic claim that something created the universe requires far less a leap of faith than the atheistic claim that nothing did.

A theist looks at a watch and presupposes a watchmaker. An atheist does the same and claims there is no watchmaker. On which party does the burden of proof rest?

 

[ivwshane]

To me, I don't see how it can't rest with atheists. The theistic claim that something created the universe requires far less a leap of faith than the atheistic claim that nothing did.

A theist looks at a watch and presupposes a watchmaker. An atheist does the same and claims there is no watchmaker. On which party does the burden of proof rest?

You say watchmaker I say no. It's up to you to prove it was a watchmaker. Now if I said it wasn't a watchmaker but a machine then the burden of proof would be on me.

You say god, we say no. Now provide proof of your claim.

 

[shadow9d9]

To me, I don't see how it can't rest with atheists. The theistic claim that something created the universe requires far less a leap of faith than the atheistic claim that nothing did.

A theist looks at a watch and presupposes a watchmaker. An atheist does the same and claims there is no watchmaker. On which party does the burden of proof rest?

Haha... so, your idea of a magic supercreature(and only one, no more...) requires less of a leap of faith than admitting you don't know the answer? Insanity...

 

[stormkroe]

First off you are being utterly dishonest and moving the goalposts on this claim, moreover by doing so your bias is laid bare and it further weakens your claim because now you are twisting the words to fit the prophecy.
snip
For further reading on moving the goalposts...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalpost

I don't think the fact that you don't agree with me makes me dishonest. I think a more appropriate definition of 'moving the goal posts' in this instance would be: "The opponent label currently popular in the ATPN revolving list that posters are so excited to use that it's often incorrect. See also 'Straw Man', 'Non-Sequitur', Reductio ad Hitlerum, etc'.
When in Rome, amirite?

Charles,
I apologize, again, for being so far behind in this conversation. You brought up a concern regarding the Ezekiel Tyre prophecy that is the mother of all prophecy concerns: dating.
Much of the book of Ezekiel was uncovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls find, and C14 dating (even in the extreme young-date) places that copy of the manuscript to several hundred years before Alexander the Great. What I don't know without further digging (which I will do) is if the Tyre prophesy is in the parts uncovered.

 

[stormkroe]

Of course I am all I can do is form opinions based on my own experience and research, but Baptist are not the only Christians I have encountered in my life that hold the view if you dont accept Christ as lord and savior your not saved and therefore will spend eternity in hell.

What I see is everyone skirting around the actual question.

Christian belief system - is it true or false that to be accepted into heaven one has to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior?

and if the answer to that question is Yes, then what happens to those that don't? Do they go to hell?

Its simply yes or no

Based on the words in scripture, this is a true statement.
The Bible teaches a resurrection of ALL creation, not just Christians (Romans 8:22) When there will be a new heaven and a new earth. Followers of Christ will be raised imperishable. This is reference to the Glorified Body, which we see modeled in Christ's resurrection. He is the same in form (recognizable) but not in material (outside of entropy, i.e. 'he will not see decay')
So, EVERYone lives forever, believers to eternal life, un-believers to eternal punishment (Matt 25:46 "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
The nature of this 'punishment' is a matter for debate, it's symbolically labeled as burning sometimes, described as wailing and gnashing of teeth, just generally unpleasant at one end, excruciating at the other.
It could be that it will just be a place of lament for those that now know the truth, but did not answer when Christ called.
Again, this is just what the Bible says, I only have an opinion on if it's right or wrong.
But look at it this way: Lot's of people hate the idea of a God that can let all these terrible things happen to children and innocent people here on earth or for any number of other reasons. I know they are ALL legitimate concerns and I won't list my own here. How fair would it be, if He is real and heaven is real, to force those people to go to place designed to worship Him forever and ever?

 

[TraumaRN]

I don't think the fact that you don't agree with me makes me dishonest. I think a more appropriate definition of 'moving the goal posts' in this instance would be: "The opponent label currently popular in the ATPN revolving list that posters are so excited to use that it's often incorrect. See also 'Straw Man', 'Non-Sequitur', Reductio ad Hitlerum, etc'.
When in Rome, amirite?

No this is beyond disagreement you clearly moved the claim goalposts by making a distinction between "Old Tyre" and "Mainland Tyre" Despite it being sacked numerous times, Tyre has been rebuilt over and over and over again. Most importantly Tyre still exists to this day. And yes it makes you intellectually dishonest because you chose to move the goalposts instead of trying to honestly refute my claim. Add to that instead of admitting that you moved the goalposts you are being purposely obtuse and mocking me for pointing out the logical fallacy you have committed. If you won't admit you moved the goalposts then you can just stop talking, and then we can get back to an honest rational discussion of the prophecy, but for you to not address my assertion and mock me shows that you aren't interested in being a conscientious truth seeker.

Moreover, be prepared to defend yourself if you link to a Christian apologetic website and site that as a valid source. Myself and others on this forum will call you out on it. I'm sure a few things on their website are valid and based on fact, however the vast majority of their claims are defended from one viewpoint, Christianity. They are not neutral, and quite biased in their viewpoints and therefore not a good source of reference for factual evidence of the prophecy you originally posted.

 

[jackstar7]

A theist looks at a watch and presupposes a watchmaker. An atheist does the same and claims there is no watchmaker. On which party does the burden of proof rest?

One group is far more comfortable admitting and accepting ignorance. (Answer: Atheists)

The reason is that with science, we always know it's just a matter of time and ingenuity, which seem rather boundless from this vantage.

Theists NEED an answer, even though evidence of a given answer does not exist, so one is invented based upon nothing more than imagination.

 

[stormkroe]

No this is beyond disagreement you clearly moved the claim goalposts by making a distinction between "Old Tyre" and "Mainland Tyre" Despite it being sacked numerous times, Tyre has been rebuilt over and over and over again. Most importantly Tyre still exists to this day.

Snip
Moreover, be prepared to defend yourself if you link to a Christian apologetic website and site that as a valid source. Myself and others on this forum will call you out on it. I'm sure a few things on their website are valid and based on fact, however the vast majority of their claims are defended from one viewpoint, Christianity. They are not neutral, and quite biased in their viewpoints and therefore not a good source of reference for factual evidence of the prophecy you originally posted.

Boy oh boy. First off, have you ever stepped outside your self-righteous mindset to think that maybe you were wrong on what you thought the goal posts actually are? The FACT that some archeologists believe that original tyre (the one razed in the prophecy) is either fully or partially underwater, and the above-water locations are barren rock, as can be seen on google maps. So there's a newer city with the same name? Does that make it the same place? I think the people of Georgia, Caledonia(s), Philadelphia, etc. might disagree with you.

Point 2. Oh no, you and 'other poster's are going to call me out? For what? The site I linked to contained EXACTLY what I wanted to post. Should I get a list of approved sites from you and only get material from them? I tell you what, you show me 1 (one) neutral and unbiased website and ill pay off your car. *note: we all have to agree its neutral, mmkay?
Why is it that guys I hardly ever agree with, like charles and sandorsky (who I've come to respect quite a bit) are contributing and posting multiple, solid views here but you've started some kind of crusade?
I'm trying to address individual issues, it just takes a while. Especially while answering calls of 'liar liar'. If we're not all 'puppies and rainbows' now, then I give up, I'm a liar, ill just keep lying to the other posters. One look at my history shows thats my MO anyway :/

 

[randomrogue]

The Prophecy in Ezekiel is interesting.

1. They don't know the dates of certain portions of the book which makes the timing of the prophecies a problem.

2. It calls for the permanent destruction of Tyre. “never be rebuilt” (26:14) and “be no more forever” (28:19). It was sacked and invaded by just about every tom, dick, and harry but it still exists today. It has never been completely destroyed. It was reduced at it's lowest point to a fishing village. Today it is the 4th largest city in Lebanon and one of its largest ports.

3. Now any bible thumper will of course move the goal posts at this point and say "Hey, we weren't talking about the island of Tyre but we were talking about mainland Tyre". Yes but Alexander the great actually linked the two when he attacked by creating a land bridge. There hasn't been an island since 332BC.

Relying on this prophecy is really reaching for straws.

 

[randomrogue]

Here is an interesting video from Nova about where the bible came from, who wrote it and other stuff.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/181082#i0,p20,d0

Pulled this from the other thread. I had to download it elsewhere since I'm overseas, and I haven't finished watching it, but it's interesting so far.

 

[Retro Rob]

The reason is that with science, we always know it's just a matter of time and ingenuity, which seem rather boundless from this vantage.

This isn't necessarily true. Science, while not a "faith based" system, is indeed a belief system. The word "seem" infers uncertainty.

In fact, without this belief, there would be no point in studying anything and building telescopes, etc, studying evolution, looking for answers...

They haven't found aliens, but they believe that Aliens "could" exists based on the number of planets and Solar Systems out there. They don't know how life originated, but they believe that they will find the answer... none of this is absolutely certain, so they HAVE to believe that they will find aliens and discover the origin of life, for instance, or they defeat their own purpose for looking.

...or you find me a scientists who knows for a certain that they will find aliens and that they will discover the origin of life and go on record as saying that they are certain of this, so they KNOW and no longer just believe. At any rate, any uncertainty is a strong belief.

I will say I am as certain of the existence of God as I am of the fact that the Earth rotates around the Sun.

...and look at yourself. You have all of your faith in the opinion that science will be able to solve all of our issues, it seems, though you probably can't show me for a fact that science can or have so far. You operate using a system of belief, yet yours, lies in science. The future of science is unseen, yet you have full confidence. You simply believe. There is nothing wrong with this, IMHO.

 

[jackstar7]

This isn't necessarily true. Science, while not a "faith based" system, is indeed a belief system. The word "seem" infers uncertainty.

In fact, without this belief, there would be no point in studying anything and building telescopes, etc, studying evolution, looking for answers...

They haven't found aliens, but they believe that Aliens "could" exists based on the number of planets and Solar Systems out there. They don't know how life originated, but they believe that they will find the answer... none of this is absolutely certain, so they HAVE to believe that they will find aliens and discover the origin of life, for instance, or they defeat their own purpose for looking.

...or you find me a scientists who knows for a certain that they will find aliens and that they will discover the origin of life and go on record as saying that they are certain of this, so they KNOW and no longer just believe. At any rate, any uncertainty is a strong belief.

I will say I am as certain of the existence of God as I am of the fact that the Earth rotates around the Sun.

...and look at yourself. You have all of your faith in the opinion that science will be able to solve all of our issues, it seems, though you probably can't show me for a fact that science can or have so far. You operate using a system of belief, yet yours, lies in science. The future of science is unseen, yet you have full confidence. You simply believe. There is nothing wrong with this, IMHO.

Sorry, it is not faith. It is belief based on perception, the roots of science. It is those perceptions coupled with our reason and logic that propel us towards new guesses, which lead to more experiments, which lead to electron microscopes, a space station, and the internet itself.

The reason science trumps any faith is that science proves itself over and over again with results AND without the hubris of certainty. Science works to answer questions with demonstrable and provable reality, while religion relies upon the unprovable and even requires the idea of the unknowable. Why must we be so limited? Our progress as a species demonstrates we are not.

To suggest that belief is equivalent to faith is at best a stretch and at worst disingenuous.

EDIT: If anything faith is a subset of belief.

 

[Retro Rob]

Sorry, it is not faith. It is belief based on perception, the roots of science. It is those perceptions coupled with our reason and logic that propel us towards new guesses, which lead to more experiments, which lead to electron microscopes, a space station, and the internet itself.

The reason science trumps any faith is that science proves itself over and over again with results AND without the hubris of certainty. Science works to answer questions with demonstrable and provable reality, while religion relies upon the unprovable and even requires the idea of the unknowable. Why must we be so limited? Our progress as a species demonstrates we are not.

To suggest that belief is equivalent to faith is at best a stretch and at worst disingenuous.

EDIT: If anything faith is a subset of belief.

Re-read, please. I said science isn't "faith-based"... first sentence, sir.

 

[jackstar7]

Re-read, please. I said science isn't "faith-based"... first sentence, sir.

Yes, but as my last point tried to summarize, you seemed to be trying to equate belief and faith, and that doesn't work.

I don't have faith in science. I have a belief in the processes that make up science.

 

[Retro Rob]

Yes, but as my last point tried to summarize, you seemed to be trying to equate belief and faith, and that doesn't work.

I don't have faith in science. I have a belief in the processes that make up science.

My bad... I see where I misspoke..

 

[SMOGZINN]

I will say I am as certain of the existence of God as I am of the fact that the Earth rotates around the Sun.

But those two are quantitatively different.

You and I have measurable and repeatable knowledge of the reason that the sun rises, we can use that knowledge to predict the future rising of the sun. If you make a prediction of when and where the sun will rise, I can check it and, assuming your calculations are correct, we will agree (and if your calculations are wrong I can show you where they are wrong, and prove why). Then we can go and sit under a tree and observe the sun rise at that time in that place. This is real knowledge.

If on the other hand you tell me something you 'know' about god, you and I will disagree. You can tell me all your reasons why you believe that, and I can tell you all my reasons why I don't believe that, and we will still disagree. There is no where to go and no one we can ask to find the correct answer. There is no knowledge, only belief. Your belief in God is different then your belief in the sun rising.

This is why we say that what religion and science are doing is not at all similar, even if we use the same words to describe it.

...and look at yourself. You have all of your faith in the opinion that science will be able to solve all of our issues, it seems, though you probably can't show me for a fact that science can or have so far. You operate using a system of belief, yet yours, lies in science. The future of science is unseen, yet you have full confidence. You simply believe. There is nothing wrong with this, IMHO.

Similar to my reasons for believing that the sun will rise, I believe that science can solve problems because I have good reasons to believe that will do so. My belief is based in knowledge not just faith. If science didn't regularly solve problems I would not believe in it.

 

[Retro Rob]

But those two are quantitatively different.

You and I have measurable and repeatable knowledge of the reason that the sun rises, we can use that knowledge to predict the future rising of the sun. If you make a prediction of when and where the sun will rise, I can check it and, assuming your calculations are correct, we will agree (and if your calculations are wrong I can show you where they are wrong, and prove why). Then we can go and sit under a tree and observe the sun rise at that time in that place. This is real knowledge.

True, no doubt about that.

If on the other hand you tell me something you 'know' about god, you and I will disagree. You can tell me all your reasons why you believe that, and I can tell you all my reasons why I don't believe that, and we will still disagree. There is no where to go and no one we can ask to find the correct answer. There is no knowledge, only belief. Your belief in God is different then your belief in the sun rising.

Actually, it's really no different. You can simply reject the evidence... many have and still do, especially creationists.

Science actually enhances my belief in God. I am not talking about evolution here, but the details science discovers about the natural world, the complexity and diversity of life helps me to explain, in laymans terms, my beliefs. As I stated during the last page, creators brings forth creations (complex or less complex) and we readily see this and and have tangible proof. So... why can't a creator bring forth the Universe, (creation because it has a beginning) which brought forth us (creation), which jump started the Origin of life (creation)?

I don't see any reasonable explanation why the Universe can't or doesn't have a Creator when every subsequent event has a Creator... doesn't add up to me. We can spout off "there's no need for a Creator"... but that doesn't make it true. I think it's really dishonest to say that creation doesn't need a creator. The simple fact that the Universe had a beginning means it didn't always exist, and if something didn't always exist, something sprung it forward...and what brought if forward, has to exist prior to it.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Moreover, be prepared to defend yourself if you link to a Christian apologetic website and site that as a valid source. Myself and others on this forum will call you out on it.

I don`t see any reason to care if you call somebody out on a site they use as a link to back up what they believe.

Most Christians are set in what they believe and if it comes down to science or their religious beliefs..well the religious beliefs trump your science.....why?

The reason is there is noway you can prove or disprove something like say faith.....
you may question all you wish you may call the scriptures a fairy tale ...etc...etc....

Yet in the final analysis nobody is going to change what they believe because you say science disproves what they believe...I say oh, really?

It`s their belief not yours....religion is a tricky subject.....