the "god" i've spent most of my life disagreeing with isn't the god i have come to accept. the theism vs. atheism argument is absolutely hopeless and, honestly, meaningless. both sides of the debate are targeting/attacking an idea that the opposition may not even believe in. the struggle comes from a lack of understanding and compromise. if either side knew exactly what their opposition meant when describing god or a lack thereof, there would be no argument. i could rant on endlessly but i'll put a stop to it here. i'm sure a few of you know where i'm coming from.
The never ending strides taken to prove each other wrong (religion VS science) is what has fueled many of the good (and bad) things that we accept as "progress" Remove the conflict and you see examples of how far back those societies are in comparison to those that fight for either Gods or Science. We may look at those tribes as "far back", but in relation to how well our recent history of Gods has helped us, their Gods and the things that they worship and respect are much closer to the ones that may have the staying power over time.
The people that tend to live in tune with nature, who don't need anyone going in to missionise them into something 'better', are far more balanced than we are. Instead of forcing them to accept our ways, learning from them would have been so much better. I know of one missionary, who, after having spent time with an indigenous people in Brazil, not only did he let go of the need to be one, but released his need to call himself Christian as well. He decided to learn their language in order to understand them better, and realised they had discovered, or naturally were, people who lived completely in the present moment. The idea of something in the future had no place in their minds. When they're hungry they fish. When they are tired they sleep. They don't intend to do these things they just do them. They also have no need for numbers. Have no concept of counting. How many of these do I have? A few. How many are there now? More. What happens when I take some away? There are less. How many have I got now after adding all these? Lots.
You are right, the argument over the existence of a god or gods is meaningless, because of a little concept known as burden of proof.
Why is anyone burdened to prove anything to you? Do you know what a belief is? Belief does not require proof. You waste your time asking for proof.
I don't know, you tell me. Obviously you feel burdened to prove something, otherwise why would you argue with the atheists on these forums.
To help you understand a few things, such as the meaning of "believe" It's not because i'm trying to prove God exists, I dont have proof.
i'm assuming you're saying that the burden of proof lies on the shoulders of the theists? if so, i have to ask, why? why should it be assumed that there is no god, and theists have the burden of proving it's existence, and not vise versa?
420neverforget pretty much summed it up. Burden of proof always lays with the one making the positive claim. He just claimed unicorns exist, I claim I can fly, you may claim there is a god that made and controls everything. Someone who makes a claim must back it up for it to be taken seriously. Then of course there is the whole difference between making a claim that there is a god and making the claim that the god that does exist is revealed to us through a single book. The book people have much more burden.
I think I see what Kush Lord is saying. Technically, he's right. Beliefs don't require proof. That's what makes them beliefs. "I believe God is real" does not require evidence. "God is real" requires evidence. The 1st one is a belief and the 2nd one is a statement of fact.
I guess the concept of god isn't black and white. The concept of god is more like every color in existence. Maybe god is green like the ganja.
There's something about the simplicity of people like this that is so wonderful and that for so long we missed, thought they were simple savages, when in reality, we were the savages all along.
Someone taking those two stances would be a gnostic theist. I think we all know what Kush Lord is talking about. Most of us atheists used to be theists. I firmly believed for several decades. A belief should not affect others' lives, that's where the problem lies.
I like how the concept of god is always proposed as an 'actual' or a 'being' of some sort. I understand the importance of the 'burden of proof', a very rational and factual based point of view. Thus, I must encompass this notion of proof in my life. That is the beauty of science. However, the fact is science can not prove everything, nor does it claim it can. God is just a word, just like green or blue are. Now ask yourself how do we know blue is blue? There is no proof? It is just a word. The concept of spirituality whether it be via allah, god, buddha etc etc is to explore those energies/conciousness' which are nameless. There is no 'one book', there are many writings, teaching and experiences within the realm of so called 'Godliness'. It is the self proclaimed 'atheists' whom claim they know everything. But all they seem to state is how they know everything about the nothingness that does not exist. And this is not to all persons whom do not believe in anything higher than themselves as beings, but to the ones who shout about 'i need proof, give me everything'. Well Sir, I'm sorry to say you will not get it. Proof will come to those who seek, not those who speak of it. We all have a lot to learn, just depends if you keep your senses open to take in the knowledge Peace
I agree bro, could not have said it better. Seriously though, I am dead against radicalism of any sort when it comes to affecting others lives. But that should not deter you from your beliefs, as it would imply they were not your beliefs to start with, just something that was imposed on you.
I think the topic is interesting. On one hand you have the religious who have been sort of conditioned to accept beliefs that are meant to be non provable and then on the other hand you have atheists who only believe in die hard facts. The problem is, is that neither side is open minded enough to try and understand one another. Now I've gone back and forth on my religion while dealing with hard times, and I know for a fact my life is way easier when I pray and talk to God for guidance. But, is it actually God or just the belief that he is there that comforts me? This debate is only proven when one dies, but I believe that if you die believing in a heaven then you'll go to heaven, but if you die an atheist then there is nothing. Sorta like self manifestation.
That would be Pascal's wager. If you think about it, it isn't authentic faith. It's just like a backup plan, which you wouldn't need if you actually believed what you have been conditioned to.