Is Islam true?.

[Kadagar_AV]

As I said every belief HAS to have its flaws in terms of reasonability. An agnostic would argue that defying the existence of god, hence the very fundamental of atheism, is impossible for the existence or non-existence of such deity could not be determined.

I think You got atheism wrong... We don't defy any God more than any other. Atheists are saying that there are no evidence for a God at large, and that the different religions of the world probably got things wrong.

If you are an atheist, You also accept that science might one day prove the existence of a deity.

It's just that all the guys trying to prove the existence of a deity has failed so far. Failed quite hard, too.

[total relism]

I think You got atheism wrong... We don't defy any God more than any other. Atheists are saying that there are no evidence for a God at large, and that the different religions of the world probably got things wrong.

If you are an atheist, You also accept that science might one day prove the existence of a deity.

It's just that all the guys trying to prove the existence of a deity has failed so far. Failed quite hard, too.

I now i complain about off topic alot, but would you 1v1 me on the topic, is there clear evidence for a creator vs is there clear evidence for atheism.

[Kadagar_AV]

I now i complain about off topic alot, but would you 1v1 me on the topic, is there clear evidence for a creator vs is there clear evidence for atheism.

I already agreed to do that. But as you aren't serious about your posts, and don't even remember things such as me already having agreed, I will instead lean back and let someone else school you.

If you start to contribute to the boards, however, I will gladly take up the challenge again.

EDIT: LOL @ "Clear evidence for atheism".

It's quotes like that, that makes me think you should read up some before you post on the subject.

[total relism]

I already agreed to do that. But as you aren't serious about your posts, and don't even remember things such as me already having agreed, I will instead lean back and let someone else school you.

If you start to contribute to the boards, however, I will gladly take up the challenge again.

EDIT: LOL @ "Clear evidence for atheism".

It's quotes like that, that makes me think you should read up some before you post on the subject.

you asked me, I said yes, than you backed out because i said i needed Little time [had 7 thread going]. But I do forget sometimes who posted what, that as we now will not happen in a 1v1, as we will be only posters. As far as title, or ""Clear evidence for atheism"" I was just trying to make debate a even topic. If diest are suppose to provide evidence for a creator/ should not atheist provide evidence there is no creator?. I will gladly as you seem to hold "science" highly, debate with you also, does science support creation or atheism.

But why is on all threads, the ones that make great sweeping claims as you did

"It's just that all the guys trying to prove the existence of a deity has failed so far. Failed quite hard, too.".

than not back up in debate? maybe you feel this way as you dont debate the question, or allow evidence to be presented.

[Kadagar_AV]

If diest are suppose to provide evidence for a creator/ should not atheist provide evidence there is no creator?. I will gladly as you seem to hold "science" highly, debate with you also, does science support creation or atheism.

No, you got a very basic fact wrong:

If you claim something, the burden of proof is on you.

So if you claim there IS a God, and not only that there is a God, but you know what God and how he wants us to live our lives... Then you have the burden of proof. This is very basic logic, I'm surprised you'r not familiar with it.

IE:

You say: There is a God, and it is the Christian God.
I say: I have no idea if there is a God or not, but I have seen nothing pointing in the direction that there is.

How can you POSSIBLY think both sides have the burden of proof here?

If some psycho tell you that Mermaids swim at the bottom of the ocean, would you assume he would have to back it up, or would youy see it as your job to investigate it to see if he was right?

C'mon, think.

[total relism]

No, you got a very basic fact wrong:

If you claim something, the burden of proof is on you.

So if you claim there IS a God, and not only that there is a God, but you know what God and how he wants us to live our lives... Then you have the burden of proof. This is very basic logic, I'm surprised you'r not familiar with it.

IE:

You say: There is a God, and it is the Christian God.
I say: I have no idea if there is a God or not, but I have seen nothing pointing in the direction that there is.

How can you POSSIBLY think both sides have the burden of proof here?

If some psycho tell you that Mermaids swim at the bottom of the ocean, would you assume he would have to back it up, or would youy see it as your job to investigate it to see if he was right?

C'mon, think.

I thought you were atheist based on you saying you were atheist post 334. My debate offer in 1v1 with you was indeed I had to support evidence for a creator, as I intended to do. But your claim, the bible is false, you should have to support that claim as well. Your claim atheism [or so I thought] should equally have to be supported with evidence as well. After all, I could make same claim you have to reject christian by saying.

"It's just that all the guys trying to prove the existence of a deity has failed so far. Failed quite hard, too."

but I would say
"It's just that all the guys trying to prove there is no god has failed so far. Failed quite hard, too."


So the case in such a debate, should be evidence for both claims, deity vs no deity.

As far as mermaids, if I were to reject the idea of mermaids, I would provide evidence against mermaids. If I reject a claim there is mermaids, I than should provide evidence there is no mermaids. But all this matters not,as we are not debating.

[Kadagar_AV]

EDIT: You want someone to prove that there are no evidence for something?

Again, YOU claim there is a God, and a specific one at that.
ATHEISTS claim you, and other believers, have no evidence for that assumption.

Sorry, but this really does come off as stupid.

Let's have a debate on this topic: I claim that somewhere in the universe there is a mighty fine Pizza (with extra cheese) orbiting a moon. Oh, and it has pepper on it instead of spice. And extra pineapple.

Now prove me wrong.

[The Stranger]

I think You got atheism wrong... We don't defy any God more than any other. Atheists are saying that there are no evidence for a God at large, and that the different religions of the world probably got things wrong.

If you are an atheist, You also accept that science might one day prove the existence of a deity.

It's just that all the guys trying to prove the existence of a deity has failed so far. Failed quite hard, too.

that sounds more like agnosticism, tho its not even that really. atheism denies the existence of god, what you made of it is some sort of agnosticism based mixed with some science. and on a sidenote, my experience is that most athiests only accept that science will one day prove that god doesnt exist, not the other way around. that atheism doesnt defy any god more than any other is true, they defy/deny all gods equally.

edit: it kinda depends on how narrow you define atheism i guess

[Kadagar_AV]

that sounds more like agnosticism, tho its not even that really. atheism denies the existence of god, what you made of it is some sort of agnosticism based mixed with some science. and on a sidenote, my experience is that most athiests only accept that science will one day prove that god doesnt exist, not the other way around. that atheism doesnt defy any god more than any other is true, they defy/deny all gods equally.

edit: it kinda depends on how narrow you define atheism i guess

Well, I said an atheist have to accept that science might one day prove the existence of a deity. A proper atheist would however consider it HIGHLY unlikely that any of the now surviving religions have got it right.

Just like if someone would say that there is a huge Chinese ninja figure behind the moon. It's hard to prove him wrong, but you'd deem it highly unlikely that he was right.

But yeah, agnosticism and atheism is very close, and I'm not sure there is a definite line drawn between them.

[The Stranger]

well as I conceive it the line is that the atheist denies the existence of god (hardline) or denies that the belief in god is rationally justified (softline) while the agnost suspends judgment on the matter and simply says god may or may not exist while the believer ofcourse says God exists.

im not sure how far you have to leave the door open in order to go from atheist to agnost, but if there is a thin line between them i think your position is on it.

[Kadagar_AV]

well as I conceive it the line is that the atheist denies the existence of god (hardline) or denies that the belief in god is rationally justified (softline) while the agnost suspends judgment on the matter and simply says god may or may not exist while the believer ofcourse says God exists.

im not sure how far you have to leave the door open in order to go from atheist to agnost, but if there is a thin line between them i think your position is on it.

You might be right, I have always had a hard time with those two terms. I would find it strange if an atheist would say that there definitely is no God though, as comprehensible data enough for an analysis simply are missing.

From what I have got, atheists are open for the idea that there might be stuff we have no idea of. They do however attack hard when people start saying that they have an idea of what that stuff is, without sufficient evidence to back them up :)

[The Stranger]

i suppose there are different kind of atheists, just as there are different kind of believers. many atheists, call them radical or fanatical or militant atheists simply deny the existence of god (or close enough to make no matter) and often are as radical in their belief and faith in that their position is true as the religious believers they oppose. they often make the same baseless claims as well. and like i said, from my experience with them, many of these people believe that it is only a matter of time before science will prove everything, thus including that god doesnt exist.

it is my firm belief that the majority of the people i just described would be fanatically burning witches 300 years ago, in the name of god ofcourse.

[Kadagar_AV]

i suppose there are different kind of atheists, just as there are different kind of believers. many atheists, call them radical or fanatical or militant atheists simply deny the existence of god (or close enough to make no matter) and often are as radical in their belief and faith in that their position is true as the religious believers they oppose. they often make the same baseless claims as well. and like i said, from my experience with them, many of these people believe that it is only a matter of time before science will prove everything, thus including that god doesnt exist.

it is my firm belief that the majority of the people i just described would be fanatically burning witches 300 years ago, in the name of god ofcourse.

Oh, I agree with everything you say.

I have way more in common with a moderate of opposing beliefs than I have with fanatics of my own.

I know many an "atheist" who wouldn't say that it would be impossible for some "force" like... force... to exist... To use Star wars terminology. So I guess it also depends on the definition of God.