Douchebag Thread for Politics & Religion Spill Over
- Thread starter Danny Bateman
- Start date
Landlord
Banned
Much in the same way Making Chimichangas defeats his own desire to convince people and change their minds with his rhetoric, your language such as quoted does the same thing.
Because factually, you don't know your way is right. Because it is not testable, it's not falsifiable, and it's not measurable. There's no way to prove your claim, and if there was, then it wouldn't be belief or faith. Plenty of people have known something was true as much as you do and have been very wrong.
JJ Husker
Donor
I think on this issue it is important to consider where the person is coming from. When NUance says he knows his way is right and atheists are wrong, I don't perceive that to be holier than thou because I am well aware of his experiences with the Holy Spirit. So I take it as him trying to share and help rather than sitting in judgement of others. Likewise, when knapp says my god is fake or make believe, I've read enough of his posts to know that is what he really believes, so I take it based on what I know he believes. It's the same thing either way. So, I can see how a person that is not aware of the other person's basis may take either of those things as being holier than thou. Faith and belief cannot be approached from a factual/proof basis without things getting contentious but it helps a bunch if you try to understand where the other person is coming from before you start calling them names and making accusations.
Landlord
Banned
I don't think knapp makes a factual claim that God doesn't exist. I could be wrong, and let me know if I am, but I seem to always encounter him talking about God not existing only within his own personal conclusion. Not saying anything along the lines of, "I know this is true, and that people who don't believe it are wrong."
JJ Husker
Donor
But, he'll also say it is required to provide proof (facts) of any claims that God does exist while at the same time saying it is not required to provide proof that he does not exist. It may be his own personal conclusion but he sure does treat it like fact. And how would that be any different than a believer approaching and presenting his viewpoint as fact based on their personal conclusion?
I understand the logical fallacy of asking someone to provide proof that something does not exist but I would hope people have the ability to think far enough outside the box that they realize it is equally as impossible to provide evidence of a supernatural being such as God.
Last edited by a moderator:
Landlord
Banned
I agree. That's why, despite 'God' (whatever people want to attribute to that label) being the most fundamental idea and inspiration in my life, I make zero effort to provide evidence for it. Because it's not a scientific or rational kind of thing to believe in.
Mierin
Donor
Yes.
Although... the super radical athiests are probably a lot less likely to kill people for their belief in God than the super radical Christians are to kill people for their unbelief in God. Or make laws to restrict unbelievers like those pesky Gays.
Athiests do and have done a lot less damage to society than devout Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc., imo.
However I've said it before and I'll say it again, if religion didn't exist people would find another reason to kill people at the same rate.
Last edited by a moderator:
knapplc
Active member
The difference is that only one of those is based off of rational evidence.
My stance is that the god of the Bible is not dissimilar to the gods of that region and time when it was created. A good analogy to this is the Israelites' desire to have a king because all of their neighbors had a king, so they made a king (Saul). All their neighbors had gods, so they came up with a god.
The Christian god hasn't been seen in 2,000 years or so, there is no factual evidence of said god actually existing, and many, many portions of the god's origin story can be seen in the origin stories of other gods.
Based on that, I reasonably conclude that "god," as he is referred to in this conversation, is no more real than Zeus or Odin. I'm open to evidence to the contrary, but until that is provided, there's no reason to believe any of this story is true.
It should NOT be impossible to provide evidence of a god who describes himself as a loving father engaged in the lives of his children. It should be exceedingly easy, as easy as proving to a new acquaintance that your father exists - take him over to your dad's house and introduce them in person.
Redux
Donor
Mierin
Donor
I get what you're saying, and I'm Christian.
But the problem is you could say the same thing about Santa Clause. We can't prove Santa Clause doesn't exist. We can't prove ghosts don't exist.
I think there is a difference between the 2. NUance is saying something exists even though it can't be seen. knapp is saying he can't see it with his eyes or with any scientific means, so it doesn't exist. NUance is asking people to believe in something that he is sure exists, but he can't show it to them other than to say "trust me I'm right." knapp is saying "I can't see it, you can't see it, science can't see it, so it doesn't exist." That's what makes them different. knapp is telling people to use their own eyes, not to just trust him.
That doesn't mean either of them is more convincing than the other, but knapp has something tangible, NUance is telling people to trust him.
RedDenver
New member
This is where you come off as holier-than-thou. I have just as many experiences as you do showing me god either doesn't exist or is an absentee creator who cares nothing for his creation. Can I now claim I "know" you're wrong? You see how that's the same as your claims, right?