Creationists hijack lessons

[ninwa]

I usually am pretty pro-athiest, but seriously enwiabe aren't you taking it a bit too far =/

I don't see how.

Nobody has conceded the debate yet, so it goes on.

[Yitzi_K]

I never said you can't question the Bible. I just said that if you do question the Bible, then you have to accept that the answers will come from there. You can't say 'why does the Bible say x' and then when I answer 'because elsewhere it says y' you then say, 'but you can't prove that'. It says x because it says y, and either both are true or neither are, so you can't attack saying x and then ignore saying y.

I do admit that I've capitulated in this argument, quite possibly I've completely lost it. However, I don't believe I lost it because I'm wrong, it's because I'm fighting 8 versus 1 against some very intelligent people, and in all honesty I simply don't know enough about either side of the argument to continue. If someone else far more intelligent, and with far more knowledge, than me were to take up my side of the debate, I am confident it would and could be won.

If you could find such a person, I would relish the opportunity.

I can think of a few. Not sure how I could get them onto VCENotes though lol.

[kamil9876]

Guess he is just a devout athiest.

[enwiabe]

Guess he is just a devout athiest.

Interesting that you should form that opinion of me (no really, it is )

I am actually agnostic.

[/0]

Ya know, everyone should be free to believe whatever the hell they want... but really, sometimes I am dumbfounded by how far that can go.

If you want to be close-minded and believe only what you have been brought up to believe, then... uh that makes me so angry. Why would you willingly choose ignorance over evidence?

Didn't your G-d create us with the ability to reason and think critically? If your G-d had wanted us to blindly follow, he/she would have made it so.

If your beliefs can withstand the scrutiny of an open mind then they are worthy of your believing.

[10weid]

Guess he is just a devout athiest.

Interesting that you should form that opinion of me (no really, it is )

I am actually agnostic.

Firstly, the onus is equally on an individual attempting to disprove the existence of g-d as it is on an individual attempting to prove His existence.
Secondly, a religion, otherwise known as a faith, requries exactly that - faith. The purest thing about religion is the acknowledgement its practitioners make - that they DO NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND that which transcends human comprehension. A deity is not something that can be proven or disproven - to not be able ot see that leap of faith that more than half of the world takes on a daily basis is to be an ignoramus, and thus to try and make a jew/christian/muslim/the world's majority prove unequivocally that g-d exists is essentially ridiculous, as it is the faith we have in the existence of an omnipotent g-d that renders us human, and Him G-d.
Thridly, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ghIU_tlX0k

[enwiabe]

Guess he is just a devout athiest.

Interesting that you should form that opinion of me (no really, it is )

I am actually agnostic.

Firstly, the onus is equally on an individual attempting to disprove the existence of g-d as it is on an individual attempting to prove His existence.
Secondly, a religion, otherwise known as a faith, requries exactly that - faith. The purest thing about religion is the acknowledgement its practitioners make - that they DO NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND that which transcends human comprehension. A deity is not something that can be proven or disproven - to not be able ot see that leap of faith that more than half of the world takes on a daily basis is to be an ignoramus, and thus to try and make a jew/christian/muslim/the world's majority prove unequivocally that g-d exists is essentially ridiculous, as it is the faith we have in the existence of an omnipotent g-d that renders us human, and Him G-d.
Thridly, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ghIU_tlX0k

1) No, it isn't. You have made the claim, the burden of proof is on you. You make the claim, you prove it.

2) You call it 'pure', I call it sheer ignorance and irrationality couched in insecurity. You call it a leap of faith, but it is actually a misguided leap of logic which bypasses all reason and rationality. Also, most of the world used to think that Africans were sub-human (some still do!), does that make it correct? Fuck no. Argument by numbers holds no water.

Under the magnifying glass of reason, the 'leap of faith' that you have in god does not render him god and you human. It renders you gullible, certainly, but has zero implication as to whether or not a deity exists.

3) There is a hilarious irony to your use of John Safran as a vehicle for your message. John Safran is about as anti-religion as you can get, in case you were unaware. Not to mention, look who's talking. You're not yet finished VCE and you think you grasp in any meaningful detail the theory behind the Big Bang? Granted, this is unsurprising - hypocrisy is not uncommon among zealots.

[/0]

Guess he is just a devout athiest.

Interesting that you should form that opinion of me (no really, it is )

I am actually agnostic.

Firstly, the onus is equally on an individual attempting to disprove the existence of g-d as it is on an individual attempting to prove His existence.

I believe there is an invisible chinese teapot in an elliptical orbit about the sun. Oh, and it created the universe and also happens to be omnipotent and omniscient.

Prove me wrong, or accept it as the truth.

[ninwa]

Firstly, the onus is equally on an individual attempting to disprove the existence of g-d as it is on an individual attempting to prove His existence.

Wow, you'd get laughed out of court if you tried to claim that. Please do some basic research before making ridiculous claims.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

Secondly, a religion, otherwise known as a faith, requries exactly that - faith. The purest thing about religion is the acknowledgement its practitioners make - that they DO NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND that which transcends human comprehension. A deity is not something that can be proven or disproven - to not be able ot see that leap of faith that more than half of the world takes on a daily basis is to be an ignoramus, and thus to try and make a jew/christian/muslim/the world's majority prove unequivocally that g-d exists is essentially ridiculous, as it is the faith we have in the existence of an omnipotent g-d that renders us human, and Him G-d.

Lol so why did one of the most religious people on this forum just spend about 5 pages of this thread trying to prove it?

That's such a copout "argument", btw.

I believe there is an invisible chinese teapot in an elliptical orbit about the sun. Oh, and it created the universe and also happens to be omnipotent and omniscient.

Prove me wrong, or accept it as the truth.

I can't prove you wrong but I know that you are going straight to flying spaghetti monster hell.

[Cthulhu]

I'm a god (seriously check out my wikipedia page) and I say you're all wrong.

Edit: also I'm surprised this thread hasn't followed Godwin's Law yet.

[Russ]

Wow, you'd get laughed out of court if you tried to claim that. Please do some basic research before making ridiculous claims.

I don't know, asserting that God doesn't exist also entails a burden of proof. You could maintain that you don't need to accept the existence of/acknowledge God until proof is presented, but to flat out deny the existence of any deity is (to me) an assertion that requires proving rather than disproving.

Edit: also I'm surprised this thread hasn't followed Godwin's Law yet.

Hitler didn't believe in God and look what happened in Nazi Germany. Therefore, we should believe in God. Also, Pascal's wager and the ontological proof.

[ninwa]

I don't know, asserting that God doesn't exist also entails a burden of proof. You could maintain that you don't need to accept the existence of/acknowledge God until proof is presented, but to flat out deny the existence of any deity is (to me) an assertion that requires proving rather than disproving.

I know it does, but it is a lesser burden. The person making the claim must substantiate their claim. Yitzi claimed that all knowledge comes from the Torah, therefore the onus is upon him to provide evidence.

Edit: also I'm surprised this thread hasn't followed Godwin's Law yet.

Why be such a thread Nazi for?

... nah, Russ' was better

[Russ]

Oh I missed the equally. True that, then.

[/0]

Edit: also I'm surprised this thread hasn't followed Godwin's Law yet.

Hitler didn't believe in God and look what happened in Nazi Germany. Therefore, we should believe in God. Also, Pascal's wager and the ontological proof.

Oh please... there is no logic to that. Tyrants do not kill people in the name of atheism! Atheism has no dogma, no prejudices against other kinds of people or other kinds of religions. Atheism cannot be used to motivate anything. These people commit these crimes because they are twisted and evil.

Besides, Hitler used religion as justification for his many crimes. According to Hitler, "[The National Government] regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality", and in Mein Kampf he wrote: "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
Hitler would not have been able to 'justify' his actions to the rest of the nation without appealing to a "higher" moral authority, namely God. Sadly, this appeal to a 'higher morality' to justify cruelty is all too familiar.

Edit: also I'm surprised this thread hasn't followed Godwin's Law yet.

LOOK WHAT YOU'VE DONE!!!!!!!!!!!
:p

[Russ]

I'm going to hope that you didn't take me seriously there. If you did, watch me disprove evolution by asking "what use is half an eye?"

Okay, now I'm threadshitting and I'll stop.