Losing Your Religion: brown townytic Thinking Can Undermine Belief

[xXBeibsFan119Xx]

Where?

You could watch this informative video.

[Ad Bot]

[xXBeibsFan119Xx]

How, in any way, does any of this prove God to be false and manmade?

generic religious argument #3543

Theists must prove otherwise.

[Aces]

Theists must prove otherwise.

No both can either show proof or go their own ways.

[xXBeibsFan119Xx]

No both can either show proof or go their own ways.

Why do I need to disprove theist's claims? It's up to them to prove them.


By the way, I have a dragon sitting next to me. It's up to you to prove otherwise.

[Bisjac]

well christians's (and many other religions, but not all) creed demands that christians convert people.
back in the day everyone assumed this meant by force, but in modern times its done through education.

so if not for the sake of science asking for proof, its your own religion that demands you convince the non believers.
you dont have to convince us with proof, but you HAVE to convince us.


so where are the practiced faithful christians? it is your turn to step up and do as you are told by your own god. convert us in whatever ways you do.
i am willing to listen. but you have to talk.

tldr; your god says you HAVE to speak up. you are not allowed to hide behind the "believe me because i said so" crap.

this may not be true if you are supposed to convert us by violence. is that how its done?

[Aces]

Why do I need to disprove theist's claims? It's up to them to prove them.


By the way, I have a dragon sitting next to me. It's up to you to prove otherwise.

Way to pull a ridiculously overused and illogical argument.

Haven't heard that one ever.

[xXBeibsFan119Xx]

Way to pull a ridiculously overused and illogical argument.

Haven't heard that one ever.

How is it illogical? It's up to the claim maker to provide proof to support the claim, not for others to disprove it.

[Headcrab Zombie]

people who sit on the fence (agnostics)

The problem is this is that "sitting on the fence" means at least a non-trivial amount of doubt, and doubt is essentially disbelief.
The definition of agnosticism that people who call themselves agnostic use stems from an incorrect definition of atheism.

No both can either show proof or go their own ways.

You either believe something, or you don't believe it.
What other way could there be?

Way to pull a ridiculously overused and illogical argument.

Haven't heard that one ever.

Except it's not overused.
It wouldn't need to be used at all if people would stop using the overused "You can't prove he doesn't exist!"

[Bisjac]

religion is NOT accepted as true in the modern 1st world.
its only tolerated.

if you are going to claim crazy stuff, then its your job to make others believe it in whatever means you can.
not simply expect them to just because you say so.

[Aces]

How is it illogical? It's up to the claim maker to provide proof to support the claim, not for others to disprove it.

Roles arent assigned to the people who claim but to the people who're militant about them.

(i.e. you)

Nobody has the job except you because I'm fine with being ignorant and following an age old cancer of a belief.

:)

[Visage]

Roles arent assigned to the people who claim but to the people who're militant about them.

(i.e. you)

Nobody has the job except you because I'm fine with being ignorant and following an age old cancer of a belief.

:)

You're basically saying you're fine with believing something that is unbelievable.

[xXBeibsFan119Xx]

Roles arent assigned to the people who claim but to the people who're militant about them.

(i.e. you)

Nobody has the job except you because I'm fine with being ignorant and following an age old cancer of a belief.

:)

Yeah, no. If you claim that a supernatural deity exists, it's up for you to prove it, not me to disprove it. However, you can stop claiming it and I'll stop asking for proof. But it's a logical fallacy to expect people to have to disprove something when you've presented no evidence.

[Aces]

Yeah, no. If you claim that a supernatural deity exists, it's up for you to prove it, not me to disprove it. However, you can stop claiming it and I'll stop asking for proof. But it's a logical fallacy to expect people to have to disprove something when you've presented no evidence.

You're basically saying you're fine with believing something that is unbelievable.

It's perfectly believable.

[xXBeibsFan119Xx]

It's perfectly believable.

It doesn't matter if it's perfectly believable, it matters if it has evidence.

[Aces]

It doesn't matter if it's perfectly believable, it matters if it has evidence.

Except I'm not the one making the claim.