Religion question?

Amnesia · 19 Dec 2012 at 08:16

The existence of a book wrote by man is proof that god exists.
No wait
The faith christians have that god exists without any proof is proof that god exists.

Damn. ..Im not quite getting it right.

Give me a minute I'll think of something

Ok if you're dying to see god then all you have to do is die.

ubersonic · 19 Dec 2012 at 08:26

Amnesia said:
The existence of a book wrote by man is proof that god exists.
No wait
The faith christians have that god exists without any proof is proof that god exists.

Damn. ..Im not quite getting it right.

Give me a minute I'll think of something

Ok if you're dying to see god then all you have to do is die.

The point is that if people believe something and a minority do not then the is just as much onus on the minority to prove the widely accepted theory wrong as the is on the majority to prove it true.

You would think some people have never actually read a religion thread before, this type of thing has been covered a few times and is well established :confused:

Amnesia · 19 Dec 2012 at 08:31

ubersonic said:
The point is that if people believe something and a minority do not then the is just as much onus on the minority to prove the widely accepted theory wrong as the is on the majority to prove it true.

A bit like mob mentality ?

ubersonic · 19 Dec 2012 at 08:41

Amnesia said:
A bit like mob mentality ?

Sort of, a good example is "The world isn't flat, I say its round! and its up to you to prove me wrong!" that wouldn't be acceptable would it, neither is "I don't believe in god as I can't see him, you lot all have to prove your right!"

Amnesia · 19 Dec 2012 at 08:45

ubersonic said:
Sort of, a good example is "The world isn't flat, I say its round! and its up to you to prove me wrong!" that wouldn't be acceptable would it, neither is "I don't believe in god as I can't see him, you lot all have to prove your right!"

What are you on about

Castiel · 19 Dec 2012 at 09:09

dirtychinchilla said:
No it's called the burden of proof; if you claim the existence of something you must be the one to prove it, not the group in opposition.

Actually it is up to both groups to show their evidence and proofs for their relative definitively positions....it isnt as simply as saying "you must be wrong, because I dont believe you"...you must show why. You can say "I dont believe" without any burden...it is the definitive "you are wrong..sky fairies...mumble jumble..." that carries the burden.

Haggisman · 19 Dec 2012 at 09:11

ubersonic said:
The point is that if people believe something and a minority do not then the is just as much onus on the minority to prove the widely accepted theory wrong as the is on the majority to prove it true.

I think you'll find that it is a minority that believe in any one god.

ubersonic said:
Sort of, a good example is "The world isn't flat, I say its round! and its up to you to prove me wrong!" that wouldn't be acceptable would it, neither is "I don't believe in god as I can't see him, you lot all have to prove your right!"

Except that's a stupid example, because it's possible to prove that the world is round (well, oblate spheroidal if you want to be pedantic about it)

Castiel said:
Actually it is up to both groups to show their evidence and proofs for their relative definitively positions....it isnt as simply as saying "you must be wrong, because I dont believe you"...you must show why. You can say "I dont believe" without any burden...it is the definitive "you are wrong..sky fairies...mumble jumble..." that carries the burden.

I can fly. It is impossible for you to prove that I cannot, but you'd have to be pretty daft to actually believe me

Amnesia · 19 Dec 2012 at 09:26

Castiel said:
Actually it is up to both groups to show their evidence and proofs for their relative definitively positions....it isnt as simply as saying "you must be wrong, because I dont believe you"...you must show why. You can say "I dont believe" without any burden...it is the definitive "you are wrong..sky fairies...mumble jumble..." that carries the burden.

NO...when someone makes a wild claim it's fair to say 'i dont believe you until you prove it to me.

it's not down to me to prove that the claim is false.

ubersonic · 19 Dec 2012 at 09:43

Haggisman said:
I think you'll find that it is a minority that believe in any one god.

That's true, however the are more Christians than atheists out there, so in a christian god vs no god argument the atheists are in the minority.

Castiel said:
Actually it is up to both groups to show their evidence and proofs for their relative definitively positions....it isnt as simply as saying "you must be wrong, because I dont believe you"...you must show why. You can say "I dont believe" without any burden...it is the definitive "you are wrong..sky fairies...mumble jumble..." that carries the burden.

This, he explains it much better then me

Haggisman · 19 Dec 2012 at 09:48

ubersonic said:
That's true, however the are more Christians than atheists out there, so in a christian god vs no god argument the atheists are in the minority.

Which flavour of Christianity?

trojan698 · 19 Dec 2012 at 09:50

How can you put aliens in the same group as ghosts? I'm confused.

Haggisman · 19 Dec 2012 at 09:52

MeatSack said:
How can you put aliens in the same group as ghosts? I'm confused.

Yeah, seems a bit strange - one almost certainly exists, the other almost certainly does not :confused:

trojan698 · 19 Dec 2012 at 09:55

Well they're just so different. It's as though people let words come forth from their mouths, but don't think! Eureka! The world is full of retards. And here was me thinking I was going crazy.

Castiel · 19 Dec 2012 at 10:10

Amnesia said:
NO...when someone makes a wild claim it's fair to say 'i dont believe you until you prove it to me.

it's not down to me to prove that the claim is false.

It is if you are claiming it is false...if you are merely not accepting it on a personal level then fine, it is the definitive claim that has the burden. All definitive claims have a burden of proof, whether from the positive or negative.

estebanrey · 19 Dec 2012 at 10:18

Castiel said:
It is if you are claiming it is false...if you are merely not accepting it on a personal level then fine, it is the definitive claim that has the burden. All definitive claims have a burden of proof, whether from the positive or negative.

No.

You don't can't prove a negative.

RDM · 19 Dec 2012 at 10:20

Castiel said:
It is if you are claiming it is false...if you are merely not accepting it on a personal level then fine, it is the definitive claim that has the burden. All definitive claims have a burden of proof, whether from the positive or negative.

Surely religion is by default making a definitive claim that needs to provide proof?

shoes · 19 Dec 2012 at 10:21

EVH said:
No proof he exists

/thread

Fixed

trojan698 · 19 Dec 2012 at 10:21

Depends what you guys mean by proof really. If measuring it in a science lab and conducting experiments is proof you may aswell stop arguing and accept that ghosts and religion can't be proven. ALIENZ HOWEVER

Castiel · 19 Dec 2012 at 10:23

estebanrey said:
No.

You don't need to prove a negative.

You need to prove your claim. If you say "you are wrong" you then have a burden to say why. There is a difference between simply not believing something to be true and stating categorically that it is wrong. One has not requirement of proof, the other does.

koolpc · 19 Dec 2012 at 10:24

Christians etc, myself included, dont need any 'proof'

Religion is all about 'faith. You either believe or you dont. Simples