@SodaAnt My point is that when Vulcan was proposed, it was accepted by respected scientists and led to a major and valid search. The theory was incredibly powerful. But no matter how powerful and complete the story is, I myself do not accept anything without it being proven.
God is a non existent thing.
I don’t understand Christians when they say they hear a Still small voice, God in the old testament was a murderer and created unjust laws.
God is fictional but when you read the Bible with an open mind and rational and logical thought you will see that the bible not only contradicts reality but that “God” contradicts himself.
Christians are delusional and stand by their beliefs, they don’t question them they would rather question how to be better Christians. The Christians I grew up with were not not friends.
1 Like
Hi @PureLeaf, welcome to AR.
That quote is an assertion and as such carries a burden of proof, As an atheist I think it is epistemologically and rationally sound to disbelieve claims, when they are offered with no or insufficient objective evidence to support them. However if I go further and make a contrary claim, then that also carries an epistemological burden of proof.
Well I don’t need to fully understand what they think they are experiencing, as it is a bare and unfalsifiable claim, so I must remain agnostic, and I also disbelieve it.
Well the deity depicted certainly appears to have done this, yes. I cannot disagree that the deity depicted in the bible is on the whole a barbaric and cruel sadist, by any objective standard.
1 Like
Welcome to Atheist Republic PureLeaf.
That was the straw that broke this ex-theist’s back. Until then I was diligently searching for my creator. And then late 1990’s I decided to read the bible in it’s entirely. Yes, that is one fucked up book.
Mort christians have a priority we have all heard. God first.
1 Like
Studying physical sciences here. And reading talk.origins plus some of the classic books by Dawkins (The Selfish Gene, Climbing Mount Improbable, The Blind Watchmaker). And attending talks held by creationists. Also, bizarrely, learning about the weird beliefs and cult practices of Scientology (helped me understand the irrationality in protecting religions against criticism).
1 Like
It astounds me how people are willing to believe the most ridiculous things in the name of religion. It’s like they’re having a contest to see who can believe the most ludicrous thing. Even with the modern takes on religion like the Mormons or Scientologist that were clearly started by con men and peddle really bizarre beliefs, they still amass followers and obscene wealth on the backs of those followers. Human beings endless capacity to believe the most ridiculous things with no evidence to back these things up isn’t a blessing like the bible implies, it’s more like a curse, the curse of the stunningly gullible.
5 Likes
The thing, about Scientology, it is built on the back of a very modestly successful book “Dianetics” by L Ron Hubbard.
Dianetics, because of its plagiarized nature compounding behavioural psyche with buddhist tradition actually does work for many people.
Then of course there was the infamous bet with Heinlein that led to the founding of surely the most ridiculous “religion” that allowed unbridled greed and cupidity to be the essence of the “faith”. Point proved L.Ron.
Again he plagiarised organisations such as the Catholic Church, the Freemasons and OddFellows and set up his heirarchy. It worked.
Now that Herr Miscavige is in power it will only get worse, his hand picked acolytes ensuring that the “real business” of scientology (personal enrichment) will go undetected by government agents and the followers alike.
My entire family of inlaws were all into this organisation at one point, even members of the infamous “SS” modelled Sea Org.
Thankfully, one by one they all escaped the poison, but they bear the scars to this day.
2 Likes
I know I quote Aron Ra a lot, but here’s another very relevant quote: “If you talk to an imaginary person long enough, it won’t be long until they start talking back.”.
1 Like
I hear a voice in my head all the time, as far back as I can remember. I’d always assumed it was mine? 
1 Like
I talk to myself all the time. I realize that might not may not speak well for my mental state, but there you are.
Me too. That way, I’m guaranteed to get a talking partner that matches my intelligence 
2 Likes
It doesn’t sound like it’s an easy organization to escape from, so good for them. There’s some evidence to suggest its membership is way down. I hope so, but it’s amassed quite a fortune and doesn’t seem likely to be going anywhere soon.
I feel like “The Burden of Proof” will always be the responsibility of anyone who is a Theist. What aggravates me is when they attempt to shift the burden of proof. Because most often it is the Theist who is trying to convert people into their religion and it falls on to the one trying to convince the Atheist that their religion is legit.
I respectfully disagree. No matter a person’s opinion or leanings, it is incumbent on the one making a claim.
For example:
If a theist claims there is a god, then the burden of proof falls on them. They have to provide a compelling argument or evidence to support their claim.
If an atheist claims there is a no god, then the burden of proof falls on them. They have to provide a compelling argument or evidence to support their claim.
1 Like
Fair enough. In arguments when Theists are going on about claims especially with some agnostics who appeal to a mysterious deity never say how they got to that conclusion or back it up when asked. I must have asked this one guy 3 times and he wouldn’t answer the question.
1 Like
Re: Why do Christians defend their deity?
My question is why would the Christian god need defending in the first place? All-powerful, right? All-knowing, right? Created the ENTIRE UNIVERSE and every single tiny detail in it down to each and every individual atom, right? Has a “Perfect Plan” for the universe and humans he/she/it created, right? HOWEVER… This ALL-POWERFUL entity is incapable of defending itself against the very beings it created? This MIGHTY GOD has to rely on a select few of its human pets to keep the other non-believing pets in line? If the Christians believe their god to be so powerful, then why can’t their god deal directly with those of us who don’t believe in it? And if the Christians believe their god has a Perfect Plan, then it stands to reason their god INTENDED for us to not believe in it, right? In which case, the Christians trying to “defend” their god and “force” us to believe in it are attempting to alter the Perfect Plan of their god. After all, if their god wanted us to believe in it, then that all-powerful god could easily make that happen. Just an observation… (shrugging shoulders)…
3 Likes
Exactly. There’d be no question about it’s existence either. The deity in the Bible was very active making demands, murdering humans, and commanding it’s followers to murder people who didn’t adhere to it’s rules. Outside of the good book, this deity is very very absent with no evidence what so ever. Even the characters outside of the Bible are absent to history itself let alone leaving any trace of evidence that they even existed.
Well, since there’s no evidence I happily dismiss it all as fiction until a Monotheist can meet “The Burden of Proof”.
1 Like
The burden of proof is one of logic. This rule of logic is applied to a religious claim. The burden of proof is not exclusive otto religion, it could be applied to mathematics or anything else.
If this person is denying based on religion he is wrong. He is denying the rues of logic.
Religion is muddy, and thus can be confusing and open to many interpretations. But in this case, the “burden of proof in a claim” is not religious and not muddy.
2 Likes
1 Like
Christians are pikers when it comes to defending their god. Muslims are the real champions in this regard. Even something as silly as a cartoon will prompt them to riot and kill people.