x

Meet New Friends!

Recommended friends are based on your interests. Make sure they are up to date.

Friends ff8c072dd79a91c1300f032d674241a8d64367100ffb1f25fa3f9bec4a05319f
Kidzworld Logo

Politics and Religion

What are the evidence and proof of your current religion?

Posted By:
Kagamine(=^.^=)Rin_2234100 Lock e1691472cafece64304be81c5c9c507a93800d3a6cd5948297266277351b71ef
Kagamine(=^.^=)Rin_2234100
Member since:
August 2012
Status:
Offline

Posts: 1514
Star 771721baa52164faab3e80914eb3e8e418513288f39d7ccffd0d5c4f8d045d1eStar 771721baa52164faab3e80914eb3e8e418513288f39d7ccffd0d5c4f8d045d1eStar 771721baa52164faab3e80914eb3e8e418513288f39d7ccffd0d5c4f8d045d1eStar 771721baa52164faab3e80914eb3e8e418513288f39d7ccffd0d5c4f8d045d1eStar 771721baa52164faab3e80914eb3e8e418513288f39d7ccffd0d5c4f8d045d1e
Posted about 4 years ago
Yeah. Science


Posted By:
-Zachary- Lock e1691472cafece64304be81c5c9c507a93800d3a6cd5948297266277351b71ef
-Zachary-
Member since:
December 2012
Status:
Offline

Posts: 571
Star 771721baa52164faab3e80914eb3e8e418513288f39d7ccffd0d5c4f8d045d1eStar 771721baa52164faab3e80914eb3e8e418513288f39d7ccffd0d5c4f8d045d1eStar 771721baa52164faab3e80914eb3e8e418513288f39d7ccffd0d5c4f8d045d1eStar 771721baa52164faab3e80914eb3e8e418513288f39d7ccffd0d5c4f8d045d1e
Posted about 4 years ago
Don't you believe that there is no God, even thought you can't prove that a god doesn't exist,


No one seeks out to prove a negative, lol. You can't prove that there isn't an invisible cat juggling chainsaws at my fingertips. Doesn't mean you should believe there is one. The burden of proof lies upon the person making the claim that something exists. In this case, it lies upon religious folks who claim that God exists. 

It's a dogma against religion.


You do not know or understand what dogma means.

They're no negative connotations to our religion


Religion in general, as well as atheism have negative connotations attached to them when you try to discuss them with people. Most people are really adverse to the idea of actually talking about it. That's why calling your religion a 'personal relationship', or saying 'intelligent design' is more appealing to talk about than religion or creationism. 



“Mutual caring relationships require kindness and patience, tolerance, optimism, joy in the other's achievements, confidence in oneself, and the ability to give without undue thought of gain.”


Posted By:
-lka_2375201 Lock e1691472cafece64304be81c5c9c507a93800d3a6cd5948297266277351b71ef
-lka_2375201
Member since:
January 2013
Status:
Offline

Posts: 135
Star 771721baa52164faab3e80914eb3e8e418513288f39d7ccffd0d5c4f8d045d1eStar 771721baa52164faab3e80914eb3e8e418513288f39d7ccffd0d5c4f8d045d1eStar 771721baa52164faab3e80914eb3e8e418513288f39d7ccffd0d5c4f8d045d1eStar 771721baa52164faab3e80914eb3e8e418513288f39d7ccffd0d5c4f8d045d1e
Posted about 4 years ago

"-Zachary-" wrote:


No one seeks out to prove a negative, lol.

While investigating a crime for example, it can be proven that a suspect was not in the crime scene at the time the crime was done. 'figuring that someone wasn't there' is seeking to prove a negative. 

"-Zachary-" wrote:


You can't prove that there isn't an invisible cat juggling chainsaws at my fingertips. Doesn't mean you should believe there is one. The burden of proof lies upon the person making the claim that something exists. In this case, it lies upon religious folks who claim that God exists.

You're making the argument that because I'm religious I have no reasons to believe in the existence of God, if you have done any search on my religion I'm sure you'd find the arguments for God existence we believe because of.

"-Zachary-" wrote:



You do not know or understand what dogma means.

You claim that religions teachings are unethical for instance. You believe that as a fact, don't you? or do you think that there is a chance for what you think is unethical now to be ethical later on? 


 

"-Zachary-" wrote:


 That's why calling your religion a 'personal relationship', or saying 'intelligent design' is more appealing to talk about than religion or creationism. 

Appalling to whom exactly?

My opinions is right has the possibility of being wrong, and your opinion is wrong has the possibility of being right.


Posted By:
-Zachary- Lock e1691472cafece64304be81c5c9c507a93800d3a6cd5948297266277351b71ef
-Zachary-
Member since:
December 2012
Status:
Offline

Posts: 571
Star 771721baa52164faab3e80914eb3e8e418513288f39d7ccffd0d5c4f8d045d1eStar 771721baa52164faab3e80914eb3e8e418513288f39d7ccffd0d5c4f8d045d1eStar 771721baa52164faab3e80914eb3e8e418513288f39d7ccffd0d5c4f8d045d1eStar 771721baa52164faab3e80914eb3e8e418513288f39d7ccffd0d5c4f8d045d1e
Posted about 4 years ago

While investigating a crime for example, it can be proven that a suspect was not in the crime scene at the time the crime was done. 'figuring that someone wasn't there' is seeking to prove a negative.


This is a really bad analogy because it's not dealing with the existence or non-existence of something which is the context I was using it in. The logic is is that the argument of "You can't prove that God doesn't exist, therefore he exists" is faulty. Saying you can't prove a negative (or you don't seek to prove the negative) in this regard is referring to the atheist's position of being incapable of proving that God doesn't exist, even though the burden of proof lies upon the believer. 


You're making the argument that because I'm religious I have no reasons to believe in the existence of God, if you have done any search on my religion I'm sure you'd find the arguments for God existence we believe because of.


What? No, I'm sure you have plenty of reasons. It's just that all of those reasons are founded in either delusion, ignorance, or faith (or a mixture). None of which actually hold up when investigating reality.


 or do you think that there is a chance for what you think is unethical now to be ethical later on? 


Yes. The main difference between freethinking and religion is that one actually changes and doesn't claim to have absolute answers. If we find that blowing yourself up in the name of Allah is actually the best for overall human wellness, then I'm all for it. But at the moment, that hasn't made itself very clear in regards to being a positive thing. 


Appalling to whom exactly?


Appealing. And the general masses of people that I have talked to on the internet and offline in the US. The vast majority of people don't enjoy talking about it. 

“Mutual caring relationships require kindness and patience, tolerance, optimism, joy in the other's achievements, confidence in oneself, and the ability to give without undue thought of gain.”


Posted By:
niyahboo712
niyahboo712
Member since:
March 2012
Status:
Offline

Posts: 5
Star 771721baa52164faab3e80914eb3e8e418513288f39d7ccffd0d5c4f8d045d1e
Posted about 4 years ago
When you have a religious belif, lots of people can tell because of what you were or what you do or what you say or how you talk.

Aniyah Smith


Posted By:
AlphaT
AlphaT
Member since:
March 2011
Status:
Online

Posts: 10830
Star 771721baa52164faab3e80914eb3e8e418513288f39d7ccffd0d5c4f8d045d1eStar 771721baa52164faab3e80914eb3e8e418513288f39d7ccffd0d5c4f8d045d1eStar 771721baa52164faab3e80914eb3e8e418513288f39d7ccffd0d5c4f8d045d1eStar 771721baa52164faab3e80914eb3e8e418513288f39d7ccffd0d5c4f8d045d1eStar 771721baa52164faab3e80914eb3e8e418513288f39d7ccffd0d5c4f8d045d1e
Posted about 4 years ago
Hey, not to head into the debate but, Zach, your 'burden of proof lies on the one who believes it exists' is stipulatory. You see, we all have an equal burden of proof, because we have to successfully account for why we don't believe in any other religion, or reject it. Now, unless your just talking about belief in general, this goes for any religion, including atheism.


Posted By:
-Zachary- Lock e1691472cafece64304be81c5c9c507a93800d3a6cd5948297266277351b71ef
-Zachary-
Member since:
December 2012
Status:
Offline

Posts: 571
Star 771721baa52164faab3e80914eb3e8e418513288f39d7ccffd0d5c4f8d045d1eStar 771721baa52164faab3e80914eb3e8e418513288f39d7ccffd0d5c4f8d045d1eStar 771721baa52164faab3e80914eb3e8e418513288f39d7ccffd0d5c4f8d045d1eStar 771721baa52164faab3e80914eb3e8e418513288f39d7ccffd0d5c4f8d045d1e
Posted about 4 years ago

"AlphaT" wrote:

Hey, not to head into the debate but, Zach, your 'burden of proof lies on the one who believes it exists' is stipulatory. You see, we all have an equal burden of proof, because we have to successfully account for why we don't believe in any other religion, or reject it. Now, unless your just talking about belief in general, this goes for any religion, including atheism.


That's not how you use 'stipulatory'.

There is not an equal burden of proof. The person claiming the existence of something has the burden of proof to support its existence, just like if I claim there is an invisible pink cat juggling chainsaws at my fingertips, I have to prove that it's true. It's not your job to somehow prove that it doesn't exist (Which is impossible). The burden of proof does not lie upon the atheist because it is impossible to disprove the existence of something, but it is possible to prove the existence of things, such as the DVD case I have in front of me, or, if he exists, God. Atheism is not a religion, lol. It's simply the absence of belief in a deity, it has no rules (other than the definition of what being an atheist is) and atheists are free to conduct their lives in any fashion they like and still call themselves atheists. Atheism has no beliefs, and no rules. It has nothing in common with religion other than being related to God in its nature. 

You enter into a fallacious argument if you try to shift the burden of proof to the skeptic. 



“Mutual caring relationships require kindness and patience, tolerance, optimism, joy in the other's achievements, confidence in oneself, and the ability to give without undue thought of gain.”


Posted By:
AlphaT
AlphaT
Member since:
March 2011
Status:
Online

Posts: 10830
Star 771721baa52164faab3e80914eb3e8e418513288f39d7ccffd0d5c4f8d045d1eStar 771721baa52164faab3e80914eb3e8e418513288f39d7ccffd0d5c4f8d045d1eStar 771721baa52164faab3e80914eb3e8e418513288f39d7ccffd0d5c4f8d045d1eStar 771721baa52164faab3e80914eb3e8e418513288f39d7ccffd0d5c4f8d045d1eStar 771721baa52164faab3e80914eb3e8e418513288f39d7ccffd0d5c4f8d045d1e
Posted about 4 years ago


"-Zachary-" wrote:






"AlphaT" wrote:




Hey, not to head into the debate but, Zach, your 'burden of proof lies on the one who believes it exists' is stipulatory. You see, we all have an equal burden of proof, because we have to successfully account for why we don't believe in any other religion, or reject it. Now, unless your just talking about belief in general, this goes for any religion, including atheism.


That's not how you use 'stipulatory'.

There is not an equal burden of proof. The person claiming the existence of something has the burden of proof to support its existence, just like if I claim there is an invisible pink cat juggling chainsaws at my fingertips, I have to prove that it's true. It's not your job to somehow prove that it doesn't exist (Which is impossible). The burden of proof does not lie upon the atheist because it is impossible to disprove the existence of something, but it is possible to prove the existence of things, such as the DVD case I have in front of me, or, if he exists, God. Atheism is not a religion, lol. It's simply the absence of belief in a deity, it has no rules (other than the definition of what being an atheist is) and atheists are free to conduct their lives in any fashion they like and still call themselves atheists. Atheism has no beliefs, and no rules. It has nothing in common with religion other than being related to God in its nature. 

You enter into a fallacious argument if you try to shift the burden of proof to the skeptic. 


 
I didn't even know it was a word. So, by this im guessing you are talking about belief in general, since you believe that you have a cat juggling chainsaws on your finger. Like I said that would change things. If your talking about belief in general, then even that is stipulatory. Wink   You see, if I claim that the sky is green, I must provide some evidence that it actually is green, but I also have to refute the belief that it is blue. One of the most influential people of this time in history, Mike Tyson, was quoted once saying that "In order to be the greatest that ever lived, you have to beat everyone living." Think about it, in order to be right on something, you have to beat every other argument out there, and even I can say that's impossible to prove something 100%. But the fact still stands, you have to provide a refutation against opposing beliefs.


Posted By:
-Zachary- Lock e1691472cafece64304be81c5c9c507a93800d3a6cd5948297266277351b71ef
-Zachary-
Member since:
December 2012
Status:
Offline

Posts: 571
Star 771721baa52164faab3e80914eb3e8e418513288f39d7ccffd0d5c4f8d045d1eStar 771721baa52164faab3e80914eb3e8e418513288f39d7ccffd0d5c4f8d045d1eStar 771721baa52164faab3e80914eb3e8e418513288f39d7ccffd0d5c4f8d045d1eStar 771721baa52164faab3e80914eb3e8e418513288f39d7ccffd0d5c4f8d045d1e
Posted about 4 years ago
I didn't even know it was a word


Stop trying to use it then. You do this quite frequently.

since you believe that you have a cat juggling chainsaws on your finger


No.

You see, if I claim that the sky is green, I must provide some evidence that it actually is green, but I also have to refute the belief that it is blue.


No. If you prove the sky is green, that rules out the possibility of it being other colors. Because it is X, it cannot be both X and Y at the same time because it is contradictory. Like the analogy Ika used earlier: you don't seek to prove that the man wasn't there, but you seek to prove that the suspect was elsewhere, indirectly proving that he was not at the crime scene because he cannot simultaneously be at the crime scene, and somewhere else.

But the fact still stands, you have to provide a refutation against opposing beliefs.


Lol. There is no refutation against an absence of evidence other than there being an absence of evidence. Just like there is no refutation against the existence of God other than there being no evidence in favor of the existence of God. Again, this has gone back to it being impossible to prove the lack of existence of something, leaving the burden of proof upon the one making the claim that something exists. 

“Mutual caring relationships require kindness and patience, tolerance, optimism, joy in the other's achievements, confidence in oneself, and the ability to give without undue thought of gain.”


Posted By:
AlphaT
AlphaT
Member since:
March 2011
Status:
Online

Posts: 10830
Star 771721baa52164faab3e80914eb3e8e418513288f39d7ccffd0d5c4f8d045d1eStar 771721baa52164faab3e80914eb3e8e418513288f39d7ccffd0d5c4f8d045d1eStar 771721baa52164faab3e80914eb3e8e418513288f39d7ccffd0d5c4f8d045d1eStar 771721baa52164faab3e80914eb3e8e418513288f39d7ccffd0d5c4f8d045d1eStar 771721baa52164faab3e80914eb3e8e418513288f39d7ccffd0d5c4f8d045d1e
Posted about 4 years ago


"-Zachary-" wrote:





 


Stop trying to use it then. You do this quite frequently.

Well i like to use words that i make up. Its auctauly fun.



No.
Then don't use it as a case.


No. If you prove the sky is green, that rules out the possibility of it being other colors. Because it is X, it cannot be both X and Y at the same time because it is contradictory. Like the analogy Ika used earlier: you don't seek to prove that the man wasn't there, but you seek to prove that the suspect was elsewhere, indirectly proving that he was not at the crime scene because he cannot simultaneously be at the crime scene, and somewhere else.

Um, care to elaborate? Poor choice of words im sorry. But the color thing was an analogy. Its not really a  color at all.




 


Lol. There is no refutation against an absence of evidence other than there being an absence of evidence. Just like there is no refutation against the existence of God other than there being no evidence in favor of the existence of God. Again, this has gone back to it being impossible to prove the lack of existence of something, leaving the burden of proof upon the one making the claim that something exists.

Where did i even state the words absence of evidence? All i said was that while you need to have your facts straight and an apologetic in order for your belief, you have to give some evidence why someone else is wrong. Not establish them to be wrong without a doubt, because trust me knowledge has limits. But all i said was you have to have refutation of opposing beliefs. Dont guess my own argument.  Because i didn't say you have to refute an absence of evidence. Im saying you have to refute somewhat of the evidence that someone happened to claim to have for their theory. Because we all know that we have limits to what we can prove or disprove, but your shifting your proof about the burden of proof to make it acceptable to a point of absolute, which is what none of us are entailing. Though i do have to commend you, it took about five minutes of hard thought to think of a reply, which is the most time Ive had to spend thinking about one's thesis.  


Latest Forum Posts

What is The Trinity?

Bullies or Cyber Bullies; Whats worse?

Bullies or Cyber Bullies; Whats worse?

Food which you would never eat

Find your birthday twin! Whens your birthday?

Find your birthday twin! Whens your birthday?

Food which you would never eat

Food which you would never eat

Post or Make Your Own Song!

Coming Out ~ Any Tips for a Gay Guy Coming...

Latest Videos

Play Online Games