Religion question?

estebanrey · 19 Dec 2012 at 10:26

Ghosts, heaven and hell could be theoretically disproved/proved in the future if they manage to get all those chronologically frozen people like Walt Disney to come back to life. Then just interview them.

But no doubt if that did happen and they said nothing happened the preachers and spiritualists would come up with something about no retaining memory during the death phase or something.

Castiel · 19 Dec 2012 at 10:26

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

Indeed it does....and it provides what it deems to be valid proof..whether we accept it or not is up to the individual. But just because one definitive claim engenders a burden doesnt excuse the other definitive claim from the same burden.

trojan698 · 19 Dec 2012 at 10:27

estebanrey said:
Ghosts, heaven and hell could be theoretically disproved/proved in the future if they manage to get all those chronologically frozen people like Walt Disney to come back to life. Then just interview them.

But no doubt if that did happen and they said nothing happened the preachers and spiritualists would come up with something about no retaining memory during the death phase or something.

Check out near death experiences and out of body experiences, they're pretty interesting.

estebanrey · 19 Dec 2012 at 10:29

Castiel said:
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.

Atheism is the absence of a claim. It is theism that makes the claim.

Everyone is born an atheist, it takes preaching a upbringing to put the idea of god into people.

Your position is basically people can claim anything they like and you have to accept it as valid unless you can disprove it. That would be a rather silly way to go about your life on every other subject than a god's existence.

trojan698 · 19 Dec 2012 at 10:31

Nah man, atheism is a religion. I'm not sure on the technicalities of word formation but most "atheists" firmly believe in nothing. I'd say Agnostic was closer to an absence of claim.

estebanrey · 19 Dec 2012 at 10:33

MeatSack said:
Check out near death experiences and out of body experiences, they're pretty interesting.

Don't need to, the kind of claims made by these people have been tested.

There was a hospital that had a lot of these types of reports, most commenly people would claim their spirit rose out of their bodies and floated to the ceiling. So they put various items on top of cupboards and shelves that you'd only be able to see by looking down from above.

After a while they tested people making the rising spirit claims and not one could name any of the items.

Castiel · 19 Dec 2012 at 10:33

koolpc said:
Christians etc, myself included, dont need any 'proof'

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

Your faith should be underpined by reason. Blind faith is no faith. You have reasons why you believe as you do I would assume and within those reasons should lie your proof. Whether others accept your reasoning or not doesnt mean a whole lot unless they claim you are wrong, then they should show their reasoning why you are wrong. It is effectively pitting one body of evidence against another, one set of proofs against another opposing set of proofs.

RDM · 19 Dec 2012 at 10:34

koolpc said:
Christians etc, myself included, dont need any 'proof'

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

Which is fine as far as personal belief goes. However if you are going to use your God as an excuse to interfere with the lives of others then you really do need to bring some proof to the table or stop interfering.

trojan698 · 19 Dec 2012 at 10:35

dirtychinchilla · 19 Dec 2012 at 10:35

koolpc said:
Christians etc, myself included, dont need any 'proof'

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

Why would you believe something without proof???

MeatSack said:
Nah man, atheism is a religion. I'm not sure on the technicalities of word formation but most "atheists" firmly believe in nothing. I'd say Agnostic was closer to an absence of claim.

Atheism is the absence of belief. Would you claim that a baby had a religion when it was born? Of course not, because it has no knowledge that such a thing could exist. It's like the default position. I believe that is how Atheists feel, that's how I feel as an Atheist. There's no way it's a religion because it doesn't require belief or faith in any deity.

Castiel · 19 Dec 2012 at 10:35

estebanrey said:
Atheism is the absence of a claim. It is theism that makes the claim.

Everyone is born an atheist, it takes preaching a upbringing to put the idea of god into people.

Your position is basically people can claim anything they like and you have to accept it as valid unless you can disprove it. That would be a rather silly way to go about your life on every other subject than a god's existence.

I never said you have to accept anything....read what I said properly.

estebanrey · 19 Dec 2012 at 10:39

I said 'accept it AS VALID' as you in have to accept it could be true.

I didn't mean you have to believe it. Read what I said properly

ubersonic · 19 Dec 2012 at 10:41

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

Its proof would probably involve God/Jesus and a historical text documenting them and their actions on Earth. The burden is on the nay-sayers to disprove this evidence.

Castiel · 19 Dec 2012 at 10:41

MeatSack said:
damn so when I die I'm just wormfood?

That research is still ongoing. Nothing definitive has been released as yet.

trojan698 · 19 Dec 2012 at 10:41

Castiel said:
That research is still ongoing. Nothing definitive has been released as yet.

Nah I know what happens, I'm just trolling.

Castiel · 19 Dec 2012 at 10:45

estebanrey said:
I said 'accept it AS VALID' as you in have to accept it could be true.

I didn't mean you have to believe it. Read what I said properly

Pfft..not interested in your sophistry. You dont have to believe it...I never said you did...I never claimed you have to accept the validity of it as that would imply belief anyway and I never said you have to accept it could be true.....only the if you are going to tell him he is wrong and his reasoning is flawed you then acquire a burden to say why.

trojan698 · 19 Dec 2012 at 10:47

I hope all you atheists realise you support the devil, and will burn in the lake of fire for eternity for your blasphemy.

RDM · 19 Dec 2012 at 10:50

MeatSack said:
I hope all you atheists realise you support the devil, and will burn in the lake of fire for eternity for your blasphemy.

You are going to need to prove that to be true...

Castiel · 19 Dec 2012 at 10:52

RDM said:
You are going to need to prove that to be true...

Quite.

Gilly · 19 Dec 2012 at 10:52

dirtychinchilla said:
Atheism is the absence of belief. Would you claim that a baby had a religion when it was born? Of course not, because it has no knowledge that such a thing could exist. It's like the default position. I believe that is how Atheists feel, that's how I feel as an Atheist. There's no way it's a religion because it doesn't require belief or faith in any deity.

Atheism is not absence of belief. It is belief that there is no God. It is a faith based position as much as believing in God is.

Those babies you mention will be closer to agnostic than atheist.

MeatSack said:
Nah I know what happens, I'm just trolling.

Really?