This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Why Your Religion?
Return to board index
Post by
Adamsm
No, I'm just saying "There is no one way" or even one truth; for all we know, the One Creator(can't think of a better term for it), is literally every creation god/goddess rolled into one, and we all just see a different face depending on which religion we follow.So why is it bad to worship the wrong statue?
It's not, or at least not to me; I know my views are in a wide minority after all; just as I know there are people who lash out at me because I don't follow one religion, and instead follow three.
Post by
Skreeran
Islam and Atheism are mutally exclusive. Explain to me how we can both be right.
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
That's why most Christians hate on athiests - the athiest argument generally comes down to precisely what you've said - "you're believing in imaginary things that can't be proven". But realistically, the 'imaginary things' can't be disproven either, so it's a very hypocritical argument.
It's not up to Atheists to disprove Christianity.
Nor is it up to Christians to prove Christianity.
If you so chose not to become a Christian because I can't prove Christianity, then that is your choice. As for the 'burden of proof', such a thing doesn't exist. It's a religon, not a trial.
Post by
Orranis
Just as much as I hate it when people say "Well, you can't disprove it either." Technically, I can't disprove any theory. For all I know, I may be the only conscious being in existence, and the rest of you are all 2-D projections of my own imagination. Thus, I created the world. I couldn't disprove that I am God, nor could you. Does that mean that if I strode up to you and told you that you don't exist and that I'm God, you would believe me? Faiths, by definition, cannot be disproved to any true followers of said faiths. So if I can't prove I'm right to you, you must prove you are right to me.
Post by
TheMediator
While atheism is more correct than religion considering what proof there is, the most correct stance is agnostic. Most organized religion runs counter to existing evidence that is present, whereas atheism makes a claim in the absolute when, even though we have evidence towards a conclusion, we don't have absolute proof. The most correct stance is to say "I don't know whether or not God exists, but given the evidence that exists, it is unlikely a God exists".
And yes, the burden of evidence falls on whoever is making the claim. If Christians don't want to be ridiculed, then it IS on them to provide evidence for their claims. If I made a claim that giant fluffy bunnies are secretly controlling world governments, I would have to provide some evidence or I would expect my claim not to be taken seriously except by the ignorant and foolish.
Post by
Orranis
While atheism is more correct than religion considering what proof there is, the most correct stance is agnostic. Most organized religion runs counter to existing evidence that is present, whereas atheism makes a claim in the absolute when, even though we have evidence towards a conclusion, we don't have absolute proof. The most correct stance is to say "I don't know whether or not God exists, but given the evidence that exists, it is unlikely a God exists".
That, in my opinion, is what Athiesm is. Agnosticism seems like something I would tell my ultra-religious racist zionist grandpa what I think about Judaism to avoid an argument. Anybody who denies the possibility of Gods using scientific facts is a hypocrit.
Post by
Adamsm
While atheism is more correct than religion considering what proof there is, the most correct stance is agnostic. Most organized religion runs counter to existing evidence that is present, whereas atheism makes a claim in the absolute when, even though we have evidence towards a conclusion, we don't have absolute proof. The most correct stance is to say "I don't know whether or not God exists, but given the evidence that exists, it is unlikely a God exists".
And yes, the burden of evidence falls on whoever is making the claim. If Christians don't want to be ridiculed, then it IS on them to provide evidence for their claims. If I made a claim that giant fluffy bunnies are secretly controlling world governments, I would have to provide some evidence or I would expect my claim not to be taken seriously except by the ignorant and foolish.
*Sound of a radio* Warning, there on to us, someone let Commodore Fluffykins know, send the retrieval squad after him.
Beyond that, it's still all about belief for me.
Post by
Skreeran
While atheism is more correct than religion considering what proof there is, the most correct stance is agnostic. Most organized religion runs counter to existing evidence that is present, whereas atheism makes a claim in the absolute when, even though we have evidence towards a conclusion, we don't have absolute proof. The most correct stance is to say "I don't know whether or not God exists, but given the evidence that exists, it is unlikely a God exists".
And yes, the burden of evidence falls on whoever is making the claim. If Christians don't want to be ridiculed, then it IS on them to provide evidence for their claims. If I made a claim that giant fluffy bunnies are secretly controlling world governments, I would have to provide some evidence or I would expect my claim not to be taken seriously except by the ignorant and foolish.Well, all atheism is agnosticism to some extent. However, in my experience, those who call themselves "agnostic" are basically saying "faeries might be real, or they might not" rather than "we know beyond a reasonable doubt that faeries probably don't exist."
That's why most Christians hate on athiests - the athiest argument generally comes down to precisely what you've said - "you're believing in imaginary things that can't be proven". But realistically, the 'imaginary things' can't be disproven either, so it's a very hypocritical argument.
It's not up to Atheists to disprove Christianity.
Nor is it up to Christians to prove Christianity.
If you so chose not to become a Christian because I can't prove Christianity, then that is your choice. As for the 'burden of proof', such a thing doesn't exist. It's a religon, not a trial.Of course it is! If I tell you that there is a flying spaghetti monster floating about in the Andromeda galaxy, you can't possibly disprove it. Does that mean that it's a legitimate claim? Of course not! I have no proof of my claim! What proof do you have of your claim?
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
While atheism is more correct than religion considering what proof there is, the most correct stance is agnostic. Most organized religion runs counter to existing evidence that is present, whereas atheism makes a claim in the absolute when, even though we have evidence towards a conclusion, we don't have absolute proof. The most correct stance is to say "I don't know whether or not God exists, but given the evidence that exists, it is unlikely a God exists".
That, in my opinion, is what Athiesm is. Agnosticism seems like something I would tell my ultra-religious racist zionist grandpa what I think about Judaism to avoid an argument. Anybody who denies the possibility of Gods using scientific facts is a hypocrit.
Atheism is commonly described as the position that there are no deities.
Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.I'm an atheist in the same sense that I've an amermaidist.
If you believe that there is an actually possibility of there being mermaids, despite there being no evidence, then I think you are rather silly.
Post by
Monday
This got far since my last post =P
For my last post, like I said we use the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, and to some extent the King James version of the Bible (both New and Old Testament.)
But the main thing I'm facepalming over is that I forgot to add we believe that our Prophet, Seer and Revelator (Thomas S. Monson) gives completely new doctrine.
Post by
Skreeran
This got far since my last post =P
For my last post, like I said we use the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, and to some extent the King James version of the Bible (both New and Old Testament.)
But the main thing I'm facepalming over is that I forgot to add we believe that our Prophet, Seer and Revelator (Thomas S. Monson) gives completely new doctrine.And why do you believe this?
Post by
Monday
This got far since my last post =P
For my last post, like I said we use the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, and to some extent the King James version of the Bible (both New and Old Testament.)
But the main thing I'm facepalming over is that I forgot to add we believe that our Prophet, Seer and Revelator (Thomas S. Monson) gives completely new doctrine.And why do you believe this?
I'm not even going to answer that as you will be spending the rest of, well, a loooong time trying to convince me I'm wrong.
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
If you believe that there is an actually possibility of there being mermaids, despite there being no evidence, then I think you are rather silly.
If you believe that there is an actual possibility of there being no mermaids, despite there being no evidence, then I think you are rather silly.By all means, explain. Not only is there evidence of no mermaids (namely, the fact that no mermaids have been observed), but why should I believe that mermaids could exists, if there is no evidence that they exist? Really. I would like to hear you explain to me why I sould actually beleive that mermaids actually have a fair chance of existing.
Think of it this way. There is no way to disprove anything. Anything imaginable could possibly exist, but the chances of this are quite remote if there is no evidence. We cannot prove 100 percent that something exists, either. Therefore, we must use our best judgement on the evidence presented to make an educated decision. Rather than say, "mermaids might exist, or they might not," I say "mermaids probably don't exist, and I have no reason to beleive that they do."This got far since my last post =P
For my last post, like I said we use the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, and to some extent the King James version of the Bible (both New and Old Testament.)
But the main thing I'm facepalming over is that I forgot to add we believe that our Prophet, Seer and Revelator (Thomas S. Monson) gives completely new doctrine.And why do you believe this?
I'm not even going to answer that as you will be spending the rest of, well, a loooong time trying to convince me I'm wrong.Well, isn't that the purpose of this thread?
Post by
Monday
Well, isn't that the purpose of this thread?
I suppose. The problem is nobody ever listens to my reasons why I am LDS besides trying to find a way to prove that I was stupid to join the LDS church and that all my reasons are wrong. Happens every time I mention I'm LDS to anyone, atheist, Catholic, Muslim, w/e.
Post by
Squishalot
Well, isn't that the purpose of this thread?
The purpose of this thread is to understand, not to ridicule, as far as I was aware.
Polite questioning to gain a better understanding is in. Flat out saying 'you're wrong' is out.
See my comments to Queggy - once I was sure that his primary reason for believing everything in the Bible is 'faith', then I can drop it - there's no way to convince him out, and it would be rude to try. As long as he understands 'why his religion'.
Post by
Skreeran
Well, isn't that the purpose of this thread?
I suppose. The problem is nobody ever listens to my reasons besides trying to find a reason to prove them wrong. Happens every time I mention I'm LDS to anyone, atheist, Catholic, Muslim, w/e.I'm just curious. Most people I have met have been a part of their religion because they were taught by their parents, and I'm wondering if you were taught by your parents or made the choice by yourself. I don't understand how someone could choose a religion other than the one they were taught as a child, barring giving it up altogether, as I did.
Post by
Monday
Well, isn't that the purpose of this thread?
I suppose. The problem is nobody ever listens to my reasons besides trying to find a reason to prove them wrong. Happens every time I mention I'm LDS to anyone, atheist, Catholic, Muslim, w/e.I'm just curious. Most people I have met have been a part of their religion because they were taught by their parents, nad I'm wondering if you were taught by your parents or made the choice yourself. I don't understand how someone could choose a religion other than the one they were taught as a child, barring giving it up altogether, as I did.
I was taught by my parents to some extent. However all my extended family except my grandparents aren't members and I have quite a few friends who aren't as well.
I've looked at different religions, but I am always drawn back to Mormonism. It just seems to click with me like nothing else can.
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.