Theists don't ask questions

[Blastcat]

Hi

I ask a lot of questions.. and SOMETIMES ( but not always ) get answers.

One of the reasons that I do ask a lot of questions, is that I don't actually learn anything new by proselytizing atheism. I do that a bit, of course, I think it's important that people get to know an atheist and what he thinks about the "big questions" and so on, but I am ALSO here to learn what OTHER people think.

So, the questions.

It just occurred to me that I RARELY get any questions from the theists.
Isn't that odd?

____________

Question for debate:

• 
  
  Why is it that theists don't seem very curious as to what outsiders to their beliefs think?
  
  

____________

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 70 by Hector Barbosa]

I wish you very much luck in that quest. Wouldn't a time machine be useful?

Thank you, and yes it sure would
I would love to know the truth of how to invent one

Yeah.
You could be a billionaire genius.

So, have you come any closer deciding if you believe in gods or not?

[Hector Barbosa]

[Replying to post 71 by Blastcat]

haha...yep

And no I have not come any closer in deciding if I believe in god/gods or not.

I think its a very hard question, and there are people who debate both sides of the argument very well here, but none of them with "empirical" evidence for their claim.

Knowing if there is a God or not, might be as valuable as knowing how to build a time machine, perhaps even more so.

It's exiting, but also a bit frustrating. For I really would love to know, but finding a objective source of truth in this world seems like trying to find a needle in a haystack or a diamond in a coal mine.

I think the theist has the theoretical, logical and moral advantage.
But the atheist has the practical, physical and emotional advantage.

But if either argument is true, it would have to fit and take advantage in ALL of the areas, and I am not convinced either of them do, both seems to have vital information missing.


If you find out and have evidence either way, you would tell me right?

[Youkilledkenny]

[Replying to post 15 by Hector Barbosa]

I wonder if it's more they don't care or just aren't 'with it' enough to understand it.
Either way I'm sure you're right, unfortunately.

[Hector Barbosa]

[Replying to post 73 by Youkilledkenny]

Yeah good question mate! It may be a combination of both.

In fairness these are tough questions to understand, but they are so important questions since they deal with both who we are, and what we can hope to be that if there is anything worth caring about or taking serious. This question is it!

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 72 by Hector Barbosa]

And no I have not come any closer in deciding if I believe in god/gods or not.

What an odd position to be in!

I couldn't tolerate pretending to not know my own mind like that.
I believe something, or I don't.

It's really quite simple.

And if you change your mind later, fine.
Changing your mind is allowed, you know.

I used to think that I really wasn't an atheist, that I was just an agnostic. Turns out that I was wrong. I've changed my mind since. Now, I understand that I can be both. Cool, huh?

I think its a very hard question, and there are people who debate both sides of the argument very well here, but none of them with "empirical" evidence for their claim.

I've asked you this before:

How can anyone give you empirical evidence of God's NON-existence?



What kind of evidence are you hoping from the atheist side?

I think you would agree that the person making the claim has the burden of the proof.

So, two questions:

Who do you think is making the claim?
The theist or the atheist?

What's the default position at to the existence of God?
That there IS a god or not a god?

Knowing if there is a God or not, might be as valuable as knowing how to build a time machine, perhaps even more so.

Not to everyone. I was brought up to think the idea of a god was VITAL... turns out not to be the case. I have no need for that hypothesis. Why do you think the belief is so very important?

Can I ask if you ever believed in a god or goddess before your were in this bind?

It's exiting, but also a bit frustrating. For I really would love to know, but finding a objective source of truth in this world seems like trying to find a needle in a haystack or a diamond in a coal mine.

Some people just "throw" themselves into a belief, then with a little confirmation bias, it's as if the belief is true. And it gets truer and truer the more these people keep confirming the belief. You can decide to do that.. A lot of Christians in here advocate that you do.


I think the idea is "Fake it till you make it".

Wishing will make it so.
You just gotta have faith, you see.

Do you think that it's at all possible to have an instance of truth?
Some people are "truth agnostics"... They don't believe that there is such a thing.

I wonder how you manage to know if ANYTHING is true?
Do you have a mechanism for that?

I think the theist has the theoretical, logical and moral advantage.

I'd really like to explore that with you.. you have stated that before. I disagree with your assessment, of course. I think religious people have a plain DISADVANTAGE theoretically, logically AND morally.


Isn't it thrilling to find someone with opinions so diametrically opposed?

But the atheist has the practical, physical and emotional advantage.

Hmmm

It's as if you are saying that as an atheist, I must not be as good with theories, logic or morality BUT I must be more practically, "physicaly ?" and emotionally advantaged.

Double hmmmm.

Let's just say that I am "skeptical" of all of that.

But if either argument is true, it would have to fit and take advantage in ALL of the areas, and I am not convinced either of them do, both seems to have vital information missing.

Can you describe what you think each positions is missing?

It can't be "handsomeness".. I'm not missing any of THAT.
Right?

If you find out and have evidence either way, you would tell me right?

I can only HOPE to have evidence FOR something. A lack of X isn't an instance of X

If I show you an absence of an apple.. what does that prove to you?
Empty hands, maybe. Not more than that.

I think that maybe you have been paying attention to the apologists a bit too much. Maybe it's time you listen to the counter-apologetics for a change.. THEN make up your mind.

You don't at all seem familiar with the atheist point of view.

Take morality as an example. You say that theist have an "advantage" there?
I wonder what you think about atheist morality and why my "morality" would be suffering some disadvantage?

Methinks you are spending too much time on the theist side.. they ARE known to use clever propaganda at times, you know.

They HAD over two thousand years, after all

[Hector Barbosa]

[Replying to post 75 by Blastcat]

What an odd position to be in!

I couldn't tolerate pretending to not know my own mind like that.
I believe something, or I don't.

I DO know my own mind, but you asked about what I believe or am convinced by.
If you can not tolerate not being convinced by something then you are no scientist

This could even suggest that you are not really sincerely trying to be truthful.

For as you say. You can not prove there is no God. You can also not prove there is.

So to be CONVINCED that one or the other is the case is really not a very open-minded position. Its quite the irony that atheists so often attack theists on having faith in something they can not prove, when this is exactly what you have just stated you do.

"Changing your mind is allowed, you know."

hehe..thanks mate. I don't need your or anyones permission on what I am allow to believe or change my mind about. I seek the truth, I love the truth, when I find enough evidence to convince me of the truth my mind will be changed immediately.

Wouldn't your mind be changed about God if you suddenly saw God?

"How can anyone give you empirical evidence of God's NON-existence?

What kind of evidence are you hoping from the atheist side?

I think you would agree that the person making the claim has the burden of the proof.

So, two questions:

Who do you think is making the claim?
The theist or the atheist? "

Good questions. From the atheist side the evidence I am hoping for is consistent evidence of honesty and truth, and consistent evidence of good or sincere desire for good.

And yes I agree that the person making a claim has the burden of proof. But as stated before believing in God is a claim, and so is not believing in God.

So as far as I am concerned BOTH theists and atheists have burden of proof, and they have as far as I am concerned both failed to provide it.

A claim is defined as "to state or assert something is the case, typically without proof"

and that is exactly what BOTH theists and atheist do.

Theists claim there is a God and make a case for that, but have no proof
Atheist claim there is no God and make a case for that, but have no proof

The default position to the existence of God would be Gnosticism or Agnosticism NOT theism or atheism.

For if you DO know, then there is no need for belief. But if you don't then there is no honest purpose to be convinced by and so the default position should be "i don't know"

"Not to everyone. I was brought up to think the idea of a god was VITAL... turns out not to be the case. I have no need for that hypothesis. Why do you think the belief is so very important?

Can I ask if you ever believed in a god or goddess before your were in this bind?"

No I am not answering for everyone. I am answering for me. It is MY position you asked about isn't it? Even here you ask what do I THINK is very important. You cant expect the answer to that question to be one which applies to everyone, that in itself is contradiction.

Why do I think belief is important? Because belief influences what we do, hope and desire and what we do, hope and desire influences what we become and achieve.

You are concluding I am blind which actually says more about your blindness than mine.
I have never claimed to be blind in fact you have repeatedly stated "you do not know" and "you can not prove" would that make you blind then?

I don't know how to answer your question about if I have ever believed in a God or not, for since we have not come to a understanding of what the world "belief" actually means, you could not understand my answer.

My mom was a christian school teacher and my dad as atheist psychiatrist. I have been taught about God and have as a child gone to church. But was I ever convinced that this was the truth? No not really, but I did not see a reason to question it until I found out that my parents were not a reliable source of truth.

When i discovered this, I first pushed religion completely away and abandoned everything connected with it, seeking atheism. But when I found proof that I could not rely on atheists either I abandoned atheism and went back to investigate religion and science, which brought me to where I am today.

"Some people just "throw" themselves into a belief, then with a little confirmation bias, it's as if the belief is true. And it gets truer and truer the more these people keep confirming the belief. You can decide to do that.. A lot of Christians in here advocate that you do.

"

Yeah I don't doubt that, and earlier in this very post it sounded like that you advocate that I do the same thing about your "religion"

You say Christians believe
"Wishing will make it so" I don't think this is true. Faith and wishing is not the same, nor is faith and believing. Faith is a action word of power, belief and wish is not. Belief requires some convincing, wishing do not. These are 3 very different things.

You ask

"Do you think that it's at all possible to have an instance of truth?
Some people are "truth agnostics"... They don't believe that there is such a thing."

Yeah well this is evidence I guess that I am not a truth agnostic either, for I have no reason to believe it is not possible to have an instance of truth, in fact I have evidence that it is, so that answer to that question is yes...or to be technical I don't believe it is possible to have an instance of truth, I KNOW it is for I have experienced it many times.

Yeah I suspect you think theist have a disadvantage theoretically, logically and morally.
I am especially curious about how you can think they have the moral disadvantage.

haha..and yes it is thrilling to find someone with opinions so diamtrially opposed if the opinions or honest and open-minded, otherwise its more of an annoyance

But I don't judge that about you, so I enjoy our talks. I have deep respect for your intellect, humor, understanding and respect.

"Hmmm

It's as if you are saying that as an atheist, I must not be as good with theories, logic or morality BUT I must be more practically, "physicaly ?" and emotionally advantaged.

Double hmmmm.

Let's just say that I am "skeptical" of all of that."

Yeah well if you look at belief as binary I can understand why you so easily can conclude that I am a creationist one moment and a atheist another.

But imagine what would happen if you tried to "tolerate pretending...not know" It might open a whole other world for you which would help you see the logic behind what I am saying and even why my position is far more scientific than the theist/atheist position.

"Can you describe what you think each positions is missing?

It can't be "handsomeness".. I'm not missing any of THAT.
Right? "

lol...yep right it is not handsomeness well I would love to explain that, but it would make for a very long post, and this post is very long already. So I will give a short version and if you want details lets do that in another post.

Theism is missing the practical A to B connection, and in is application of teaching and religion become very square and limited, in fact self-contradictory because all of their spiritual leaders taught of a un-limited life-flowing spiritual connection and the letter and law as giving death (and this includes the Biblical law). So theism works in connection with the spiritual, but self-destructs without it.

Atheism ironically has a similar dilemma. It concludes that there is no order, no purpose, nothing to hope for, and no objective moral truth and yet virtually everything they do is in aim of order, with a purpose, hoping for something unseen and talking as if they think their truth is more valid than other truths, so they constantly contradict themselves just like the theist do.

And no you are very right about the lack of evidence to prove a negative. I was joking about that. I knew you can not prove there is no God any more than I can

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 62 by Blastcat]

Ask you what you think, OK. You said, " I was brought up to think the idea of a god was VITAL... turns out not to be the case. I have no need for that hypothesis." OK, but I'm not interested in hearing what some opinionated Tom, Dick, or Harry, off the street, sitting on bar stool somewhere, thinks. Everyone has an opinion on the matter. I don't care a hoot about that. I want to her from someone who really knows his business here, can really make a case. So where is your evidence to support you claim here? How does it turn out not to be the case? Saying you don't need God and then just walking away, as you just did, is just as arrogant and irrational as saying that there is a God and just walking away. How is your position any more rational than that found among unreflective theists? Remember, this is debate forum, not a pulpit to proselytize unreflective atheism. You need to provide supporting arguments for your claims. Where are yours here? You simply stated how you felt, your personal opinion. Not good enough. Where is your solid argument that anyone should take seriously your personal opinion on the matter? What qualifies you to be such an expert that you can make such definitive pronouncements on God? What formal education in theology, philosophy, and science have you had that qualify you to so speak? Are you just talking though your hat, or can you go through each of the major arguments for God major philosophers and theologians have provided down through the centuries and show why your approach is superior? What, for example, is your understanding of the ontological argument as fund in Anselm, Descartes, and Hartshorne? True, we all have a right to our opinions and to express them here. However, all I am seeing in your posts, so far, is just another anonymous net respondent who is sounding off on matters way over his head. However, I may be wrong. So feel free to make your case. And remember, make a case, don't just state your personal opinions,

[Zzyzx]

.

And yes I agree that the person making a claim has the burden of proof. But as stated before believing in God is a claim, and so is not believing in God.

Correction: NEITHER believing in God OR not believing in God is a claim. They are statements of personal position. 'I believe' is NOT a claim. 'I do not believe' is not a claim. 'I believe that it will rain here today' is NOT a claim that rain will occur – and likewise, 'I don't believe (or think) that it will rain today' is NOT a claim that rain will not occur. Those are personal opinions.

If a person states 'God exists' or 'God did that' (or 'it will rain today') those ARE claims that incur burden of proof.

If a person states 'God does not exist' (or 'it will not rain today') those ARE claims that incur burden of proof.

So as far as I am concerned BOTH theists and atheists have burden of proof, and they have as far as I am concerned both failed to provide it.

Does 'I do not believe in fairies' require proof?

A claim is defined as "to state or assert something is the case, typically without proof"

Agree

and that is exactly what BOTH theists and atheist do.

Disagree

Theists claim there is a God and make a case for that, but have no proof
Atheist claim there is no God and make a case for that, but have no proof

Correction: SOME Atheists claim there is no God. MANY Atheists do NOT claim there is no god.

Atheism = without belief in gods. 'Without belief' is VERY different from denial of existence.

Theism = with belief in god or gods.

Notice that Theists tend to DENY the existence of gods other than their favorite. Some seem to allow for existence of other gods but declare that their favorite is 'biggest and best' (or 'almighty' or whatever they believe).

Many Theists who debate here make the classic blunder of assuming that one who does not believe in gods (an Atheist, Agnostic, Ignostic) MUST deny the existence of gods.

The default position to the existence of God would be Gnosticism or Agnosticism NOT theism or atheism.

Agree. 'I don't know' is the most rational position in the absence of compelling, verifiable evidence.

[Hector Barbosa]

[Replying to post 78 by Zzyzx]

What you wrote is not what the dictionaries I have seen have said, but that's not so important. What does it mean to be CONVINCED! of something? What does it take?
Can you be convinced about something without claiming it's position is stronger or better than another?

Theism is BELIEVING in God, so why should that have any more burden of proof than NOT believing?

If what you say is true, then neither theists or atheist has burden of proof for neither is claiming there is a certain truth, but where then is the argument between the two?

You can't prove or disprove opinions and since beliefs are not truths, the argument is really about the blind leading the blind.

What the point of the debate if neither theists or atheist knows or have any evidence to convince the other by?

If we agree by the dictionary definition that a claim is to state or assert something without proof, then stating "there is no God" would be a claim and require burden of proof.

If we are just going at beliefs and something without conviction, or not a claim officially until the stating or assertion is done outside our own mind. Then the fools with the burden of proof is only the people who claim there is a God they can not prove, or isn't a God they can not prove.

Then the theist/atheist argument is at a ETERNAL STALEMATE!

For once the truth is know, there is no belief, and so no atheist or theist, but when the truth is NOT known, neither has burden of proof to prove or disprove whatever nonsense they believe or disbelieve...while those who claim to know have lost the argument by default the moment they utter those words.

Well I sincerely hope you are right, for that makes the argument very simple in the future and strengthens my argument while weakening both the position of the theists and atheist, who then neither have a leg to stand on in argumentation

[Willum]

[Replying to Hector Barbosa]

Well that is the claim.

But it's not exactly true is it?
Can you tell me you can't disprove unicorns?
Any power is much more profound than a horse with a horn. If it existed then we'd know. The premise that God is hiding is the same kind of game an eight year old plays.