Thinking Of Becoming Religious?

Author: Salixes

Posts

Read-only
Total: 42
Topic's author
#1
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
Thinking of becoming religious in the hope of leading a meaningful, righteous life or are you just a little bit "God-curious"?

Despite the fact that religious organisations such as Christian churches have been steadily losing members in droves over recent years there are still die-hard followers who are only too keen to bring you down to their level and try to convince you with all sorts of devious explanations to join their particular brand of belief.

So, here are a few of the common tricks these apparently over-friendly people will try to put past you in order to suck you into their webs of deceit and lies.

* God is real: There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever, not even a single shred, as to the presence of God or any other supernatural being.

* Evidence of God cannot be disproven: Completely absurd since it is impossible to disprove something that hasn't even been proven.

* Existence of God is beyond the realm of science: This is the latest deceptive trick in saying something that is completely meaningless and obvious at the same time since, how would anyone know that anyway? There is no such thing as "beyond science".

* God is love: A completely contrived metaphor designed to appeal to your emotions.

* You will be a better person: Rubbish. There have been studies that reveal religious people are no more or less happy or honest than normal people.

* You have a spirit and an afterlife: This is the ultimate guilt-trip religious nuts will lay on you. Of course, they don't know there is some sort of afterlife and they are using the "Hell alternative" as a dishonest fear tactic to lure you.

* Many people have believed in God for centuries: So what? Many people have believed in all sorts of superstitions such as witches, ghosts, and fairies for centuries but does that make them real?

In reality, there is no such thing as God and we were not created. We know for sure how life started but nobody knows yet how matter came to be. There are many theories but the theory of God and creation has been long since thrown out the window and modern, civilized society has moved on way past clinging onto primitive, naive superstitions.

So, You be the judge and ask yourself the question, "Am I that gullible and impressionable as to believe a load of utter tripe for the benefit of a few dishonest charlatans whose business it is to manipulate others for their own personal gain?"

#2
Dynasty
Dynasty's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 220
1
1
7
Dynasty's avatar
Dynasty
1
1
7
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever, not even a single shred, as to the presence of God or any other supernatural being.
The burden of proof on you to prove that claim.

Completely absurd since it is impossible to disprove something that hasn't even been proven.
What makes you say that?

This is the latest deceptive trick in saying something that is completely meaningless and obvious at the same time since, how would anyone know that anyway?
It's just said that God is outside our space-time.

A completely contrived metaphor designed to appeal to your emotions.
Bold claim.

There have been studies that reveal religious people are no more or less happy or honest than normal people.
Would you provide those studies? And, what about meta-studies?

In reality, there is no such thing as God and we were not created.
In reality, there is such a thing as God and we were created. How about that?
Topic's author
#3
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@Dynasty
The burden of proof on you to prove that claim.
What do you want me to do? Lift up every single stone and grain of sand in the universe to prove that there is no sign of God?

You can keep on being as pedantic and arrogant as you like but the fact is that you have absolutely no viable retort whatsoever to the issues I raised. 
Not one.

"Well Sal, I think that you are wrong and I contend ".............." because "............."

Oh no, instead we get, "What makes you say that?"

"Oh, and Sal, there is a God, because the overwhelming evidence of "................" proves such.

Oh no, instead we get, "In reality, there is such a thing as God and we were created. How about that?"
Which is simply a reversal of the exact words that I used.

I'm afraid that if you want to engage in intelligent discussion you need to do a lot better than that sort of snotty pre-school banter........

.........and actually have the guts to say something.

The alternative, of course, is to admit the obvious:

"Yes, Sal, you are of course right and you have used sound logic in the presentation of the issues raised both in this thread and the other confronting issues you exposed in other threads. No, I don't have any evidence nor reasoning to refute what you say and because I am in a position of no return with my beliefs I must resort to extreme, illogical and meaningless tactics in a vain attempt in making it look like I am standing my ground. You have to appreciate though that I intend to visit the appropriate professionals in order to deal with my delusions."

Now, suggesting that is neither arrogant nor preposterous. It's being correct.
#4
Dynasty
Dynasty's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 220
1
1
7
Dynasty's avatar
Dynasty
1
1
7
-->
@Salixes
#5
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
If Christianity is so obviously false, why does anyone need you to repeatedly tell them that it is?
#6
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
The Ultimate Reality is God.

God exists.

Anyone who denies this God has adopted a foolish position.

#7
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@Dynasty
You should come up with your own evidence if you wish to confirm that God exists.  You shouldn't cite a book that is hard to read for most people.

#8
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@Salixes
Time for me to play Devil's advocate while advocating for God.

Get it?
#9
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@Salixes
If God doesn't exist, how did the pope come into power?  Even atheists acknowledge that the pope exists.

Topic's author
#10
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@Alec
If God doesn't exist, how did the pope come into power?  Even atheists acknowledge that the pope exists.
Well yes, the Pope exists. But does that mean that God exists?

If you go back into history you will find out how the Roman Catholic Church came to be and how it amassed power. And that is what it was all about; power.

History will also show you that religion has always been a matter of those in authority using the fear of God to command control of the masses who were by and large uneducated and ignorant of the facts.

Nowadays civilised society is not influenced by religion and people have access to knowledge and good education. There is no valid reason whatsoever for anybody to believe in supernatural phenomena. Those who do actually believe there is a God are deluded. However most people who claim to believe in God, in fact, do not but use religion as a means to better their own interests. For example, politicians and community leaders who will use religion as an "image booster".

There is no such thing as God.
#11
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
The Ultimate Reality is God.

Therefore, anyone who says God doesn't exist is ignorant.


#12
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Dynasty
The burden of proof.
If you were prepared to be logical you would admit that the logical progression would be GOD - I WILL PROVE GOD EXISTS rather that GOD - YOU PROVE GOD DOESN'T EXIST.

The existence of something without proof, would not be questioned unless it had been proposed.

Theists shifting the burden of proof is just a convenient cop out, in other words a way of avoiding the primary burden of proof.

#13
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@zedvictor4
If you were prepared to be logical you would admit that the logical progression would be GOD - I WILL PROVE GOD EXISTS rather that GOD - YOU PROVE GOD DOESN'T EXIST.
Incorrect. If Dynasty were arguing from ignorance, you'd have a point. But Dynasty clearly isn't. Dynasty's response to Salixes' ontological claim--i.e. "there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever, not even a single shred, as to the presence of God or any other supernatural being"--is quite apt. Salixes is affirming the claim that no evidence for God exists; therefore, Salixes has the burden to prove that claim. Neither the order nor the proposition of inverse claims--e.g. "there's absolutely evidence that God exists"--mitigates Salixes' onus.

The existence of something without proof, would not be questioned unless it had been proposed.
This is pertinent just as much to affirmations of negative claims.

Theists shifting the burden of proof is just a convenient cop out, in other words a way of avoiding the primary burden of proof.
There are no "primary" burdens of proof. There are only burdens of proof. If I were to assert "God exists," I would have the burden to prove that assertion. If you were to assert "God doesn't exist," you'd have the burden to prove that assertion. The order in which these claims are proposed doesn't matter. And using Salixes' retort, if one has no intention of scouring the universe, searching under every stone or grain of sand, then one must be mindful of one's claims. The absurdity of one's burden reflects the absurdity of one's claim.

This would be a different matter if the typical atheist--at least the ones I've come across in my experience--assumed the position of the skeptic, but they don't. They use the lack of submitting material evidence as information for their arguments of ignorance, which by logical description is a shift in the burden of proof. Thus, by your own description, "a convenient cop out."
Topic's author
#14
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@Athias
They use the lack of submitting material evidence as information for their arguments of ignorance
I think it goes a bit further than that though.

Whether or not an atheist has the burden of proof has no practical use anyway since it is impossible to prove the absence of something.Similarly it is impossible to prove nothing.

So, in fact, it is a convenient cop out for a theist to demand such an absurd task.

In any case; so what if the absence of God cannot be proven? That in no way places any validity whatsoever on the claim by theists that God exists.
It would be a totally absurd world if we could validate any and every assertion purely because "it can't be ruled out".

Similarly, society would be in total shambles if our legal system was based on the premise that "if you assert your innocence you must prove it"

Asserting innocence in a court of law has absolutely no onus of proof. The positive assertion (you are guilty) has the burden of proof.

So, why don't theists get off their high horses and stop making impossible demands of others in some vain attempt at trying to divert the topic...."Prove your assertion that God exists?"

Not anybody, has ever done so, neither has anybody ever come up with one single shred of evidence.

A claim (positive assertion) made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Those who believe in God should stop trying diversionary tactics in order to avoid the obvious: there is no such thing as God.

They would do a lot better for themselves and the community at large if they took positive steps towards dealing with their delusion
#15
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Salixes
Because it is an extraordinary claim that there is no ultimate reality, and it is a totally unreasonable belief, the idea that you could prove such a thing without undermining your own argument is ridiculous.


Atheism towards The One True God is nihilism, and is a patently idiotic position to take. Not only does it not deserve to be considered, such a ridiculous superstition deserves to be mocked mercilessly.

#16
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
I'm just referring to burden of proof. 
Not burden of proof relative to a specific context or exchange.

So:
I propose that the universe is contained within a solid box, therefore the burden of proof rests upon you to prove that it doesn't.

Is this a logical progression of reasoning?

Or just an easy cop out for me.



#17
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Mopac
Atheism towards the one true God etc.

This statement cannot be substantiated.

This statement is only your opinion.

Just as Salixes statements are their own opinion.
#18
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@zedvictor4
I speak of what I know. Salixes opinion is uneducated, just as yours is.


Topic's author
#19
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@zedvictor4
Just as Salixes statements are their own opinion.
Completely wrong.

My "statements" are properly researched and fully proven facts.
I challenge you to single out just one of my "statements" and try to claim otherwise.
#20
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@zedvictor4
I'm just referring to burden of proof. 
Not burden of proof relative to a specific context or exchange.
You may have not referred to a specific exchange but you were referring to a specific context--i.e. "Theists shifting the burden of proof is just a convenient cop out, in other words a way of avoiding the 'primary' burden of proof." One of my points is that there is no primary burden of proof; there is only a burden of proof manifested from affirmations of any claim.


I propose that the universe is contained within a solid box, therefore the burden of proof rests upon you to prove that it doesn't.

Is this a logical progression of reasoning?
No it isn't. I don't dispute that this is logically fallacious reasoning (i.e. argumentum ad ignorantiam.) Conversely, if I were to propose, "the universe is not contained within a solid body" I would neither demand that you prove otherwise to inform my claim, nor shirk my responsibility to substantiate my proposition because you submitted your proposition first.

Or just an easy cop out for me.
The shifting of one's burden is indeed a cop out.


#21
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Mopac
All opinions are educated.

That's how we are able to have opinions.
#22
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@zedvictor4
It is that type of nihilistic mentality, rendering all statements as being equally valid, that undermines the very expression of truth itself.


I am not stating an opinion, I am speaking of what I know. The Ultimate Reality is God, and denial of this God is nihilism.







#23
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Salixes
You are an independent mass.

You input, assimilate and output data independently.

That which you output is your own opinion, irrespective of what input you utilise as a basis for it.

Also, the validity of both input and output is a separate issue and not relevant to the point in question.

#24
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Mopac
I refer my fellow debater to the above comment.
#25
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
There is no reasonable doubt concerning the existence of God.


If The Ultimate Reality doesn't exist, nothing is ultimately real.

If nothing is ultimately real, there is no reality.

This is nihilism in the purest sense. 

It is also self defeating and patently idiotic. 







#26
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@zedvictor4
Yes, I can see that you have embraced relativism. A house built on sand.

Recognizing the nature of created things, but not seeing the Truth that holds it all together.




#27
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Mopac
As I've always stated.

I do not deny an ultimate reality.

No singing, praying or pointy buildings required though.

#28
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@zedvictor4
And why do you feel the need to say these things are not required?

#29
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Mopac
Because whatever it might be, the ultimate reality is nonetheless what it is. 

So how can singing and praying and pointy buildings make the slightest difference to that fact?





#30
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@zedvictor4
Then why even mention them if they don't make the slightest difference?

Mo has a point, your mentioning them was a petty shot.