There is no general consensus for who is the instigator. The instigator is the one who first proposes an idea. For example: Bob: Hey Jim, I saw a UFO today! Jim: Oh really? Prove it! From here Bob can do one of two things: Bob: Prove that I didn't! (Which isn't debatably sound) or Bob: Okay, so this is what happened [and then goes on to prove it] Obviously, the second choice is the correct choice. The instigator must prove theories. If you ask me from the general consensus, atheists are the instigators, because there are far fewer of them. Don't mistake me for a stubborn Christian. Its like all of a sudden someone I've never seen can rightfully judge what I believe; no thanks.
To be specific, I did state that I was an anti-theist, not an atheist, so of course my following statements reflect that. I'm quite certain that my position will be vindicated by history. I see no reason to believe; I see no reason for others to believe; and I do see very real societal harm done by believers, and it is my self-ascribed duty to fight that where I see it. Of course, I would rather do it with wit and brains and persuasive arguments than with name-calling. I'm a polite Canadian, after all. However, I do stand by my former statement that there really is no debate, in my mind. That certainly does not mean that there isn't one in here, lol. Furthermore, I postulate that my lack of belief negates the belief of all that I survey. Like a reverse polarity faith killing field. It's all reality here
(1) Of course I would assume that. You were using her to make a case that religions give support. (2) You need to stop ignoring people's points. All you have really been doing is making insane claims and then ignoring anybody who refutes them as being a retard or ignorant or by telling them to shut up or by calling them biased or doing a million other things. Either grow up, act mature, and argue with patience and ration, or leave. No.. it doesn't matter how many people believe something. In every situation, it is the one attempting to prove a positive that must prove themselves. Regardless of how many people believe it, the person claiming that something does exist must always provide the evidence. It's impossible to prove a negative, because the person defending the positive can just keep making things up (think about the invisible pink unicorn.)
You're undoubtedly assuming right now. Either I don't follow... or you're saying I'm just using my grandma's death as something to back up my story... Sounds like an assumption to me.. Insane claims that my grandma actually believed she was going to heaven. Going to heaven is not an insane claim in this day and age. Just because you think it's insane doesn't mean it's insane. That goes along with many of your other posts. You're just assuming things. So I say you aren't ignorant, but arrogant. That's another assumption. It's clear that you're just assuming things. Being rather arrogant. Just telling me to do one thing, not showing me how you got to that point. So you need to stop assuming. I'm trying to make this as clear as possible.
You are, of course, quite correct. Thank you, I knew I was missing a key part of the debate process. Well done. *files for later use*
(1) What the hell are you talking about? You won't know you are dead- you will just be alive one second and dead the next. I don't care if you believe in the afterlife, unless you can give me proof of your god and the afterlife you are the one who is assuming something. (2) You use the story of your grandma's happiness in the face of death in an attempt to show what a true Christian should be like. I responded, saying that that wasn't a Christian value, but simply a value that everybody, even non-Christians, should have. (3) For the hundredth time, I will consider your beliefs insane until you can give me any kind of logical reasoning behind them. You have not done so thus far. (4) What is? That personal experience means nothing? The word personal means that something is true/important only to you, and any kind of proof or logic is global. (5) Did you even read my link? It is about how religion is perfectly fitted to encourage believers to hold very strong convictions without logic to back themselves up.
Of course it doesn't matter but had your brain understood my post in the first place you wouldn't bother bringing it up would you? The point of bringing up population was to show that, if anything of the general consensus, atheists were instigators, not God exists. The one attempting to prove something is almost always the instigator. Oh, and your fancy little quote, funny thing is, that's not the way I debate. Your silly self can go make stupid assumptions somewhere else, but I'd prefer to debate with someone that can substantiate such a stupid notion, especially since it doesn't even make a difference in the face of this debate. And yeah, you're just helping my case out right now.
Uhhh, Amoeba, that fancy little quote is one of the hard and fast rules of debating. This isn't something that's new, these go back thousands of years. Maybe that's not the way you debate, but that means the way you debate will be flawed. You can say that your computer runs on butter, but you're gonna break it that way. And come on, he's obviously not stupid.
... What? I'm saying that I agree with what he changed in the quote, I'm also stating that he hasn't realized it. If you're saying "prove that he doesn't exist" is a rule of debating, then I only laugh.
The reason why I am having a problem is because I don't see how can you can accept what I changed in the quote, but also be theist. I know you have stated in this thread before that there is no proof of god - how can you believe in a god when you are fully aware that you have no proof of your claims?
What can't you understand? I agree that arguing by saying "prove it doesn't" is foolish but I dismissed it when you said that I use that argumentative etiquette. Well, I have what I believe to be "proof;" but even then, that wouldn't accomplish anything, as it is still a tossed around theory.
If you have proof, it should be able to hold up to questioning (or else it isn't proof). Go ahead and tell us.
I know - I want to start a discussion and figure out how they can be so confident in their faith, when it is, by definition, irrational.
Rather than allow this debate to get off track and become mired down in semantics, let me rekindle things from my perspective. So people that believe in god, do so because they've had profound religious personal experiences and religious epiphanies. Certain situations in their life have led them to belief in some sort of benevolent higher power. For convenience we'll use the Judeo-Christian god, although most religions have an anthropocentric, benign, and interventionist deity. These experiences they've had have proven, to their minds, that this god exists. As an adjunct to that, they respond to the accoutrements of the culture of belief, the subsidiary customs and world-views. Evolution is false, there is a soul, there is a heaven and hell. These are artifacts of the perception they have of their world. However, what doesn't usually enter into their world-view, is that perception is not reality. I'm not saying that in an exclusivist way. My perception is not reality either. We are bound to our perceptions in a way most people don't consider. The fact is, we as human beings are a highly evolved collection of perceptions, motivations, and systems. Our surety in our special place in the universe, every thought we have, every all-consuming religious enlightenment, is literally a few molecules crossing a miniscule space in a wrinkled fatty ball inside an advanced animal's skull. If you believe in your perception of the universe that you have a soul, what happens when your perception changes? What if you have a stroke, or a head injury, or a very specific lobotomy, and can no longer experience that sense of self, or religious wonder, or anything that defines you as special? You have just lost your soul. You've lost any perception of god, because that is all god or soul is and can ever be, is just random neural firings in your brain. You imagine him, in the most literal sense of the word. That is the scientific, true nature of the debate. It literally cannot be anything else. All experience is through our perception and our interpretation of it.
That's the problem inherent with this debate. What seems irrational to you does not appear that way to them. Beliefs do not have to be rational for people to interpret them as the truth.
You're being rather arrogant, and you know it. Saying there is no afterlife to a religious person is not going to end well. So stop saying it, or we won't progress through this debate. ...Okay... now you're just saying crap so you don't look bad... Let me get this straight... You're saying, according to your "atheist" life... That you should be happy when someone tells you you're going to die within two weeks knowing, again, according to your "atheist" life, that you will not have an afterlife of any sort... That makes no sense what so ever. People have given logical reasoning in the past 248 pages, but it seems as if you're too stubborn to even suggest that it might be logical... at all. You're looking at it with a biased point of view. Simple. And I can't debate with biased people because there's absolutely no point. Personal experience can mean a lot. See, when you have a personal experience, you can then tell others about it. It's called sharing. And that wasn't even a personal experience.. that dealt with my grandma's friends and family... Yes, I did, but it's all biased to me. I use experience as logic. Other people are saying you just assume things. Take the hint... You are assuming things, and there's no way to go around it. So it's either you accept it, or you pout on about how you think you're smarter than everyone else.
Maybe not to you. I think it's rather humbling to believe that we live out cosmically insignificant lives and then accept death's inevitability, rather than use thoughts of an afterlife as a placebo crutch.