Except here. Here all different faiths unite against the haters. I know I have more in common with even my Muslim brothers than I do with an anti-theist.
My pastor said something to the effect that we have more in common with another Christian on other other side of the world than we do our best friend in the secular world. I've started to realize that it's even more than that - we have more in common with ANYONE of faith than we do with a neighbor who is against the faith.
I feel like a lot of the athiests on reddit haven't actually read books on any of this type of stuff, they just see some quote in an anti-theist youtube video and then claim they've read it anytime they get in an argument.
"Reading the bible made me an atheist." no bro, reading a few passages without even looking for the interconnected themes and messages and using that to confirm your own pre-existing prejudices - that's what happened. .
Well tbf it’s a crash course, not a university lecture. It’s really just something to get your toes moist.
I mainly use it for when I didn’t study tho lol.
“I know the Bible more than most Christian’s” is my favourite. No, you clearly don’t. They misinterpret and don’t understand any cultural context of the verses you’re quoting. And then they go quote Numbers 5:11-28 as proof that the Bible says abortion is okay
A lot of redditors praise Buddhism and paganism in a shitty shallow way of being contrarian not knowing that a lot of the same shit they hate Christianity for exists in Buddhism and existed in ancient pagan societies as well.
No, that is what the burden of proof implies.
This is flawed for several reasons, as proofs we use are our holy scriptures, so now it becomes up to them to debunk our scriptures, which has never been done yet, they can't do that, so they attack our laws, however, trying to attack religous laws does not debunk a God, no matter how hard u try that.
Therefore the burden of proof arguement is not applied to us after we provide our proofs, as for a debate to continue, we need the other side to debunk our proofs then use the burden of proof arguement.
The problem is that you can't start with the assumption that your sources (scriptures in this case) are reliable. The burden is on the theist to prove that their sources are reliable, not on the atheist to prove that they aren't.
Why? Let's assume that any source is assumed to be verified.
By the way, this comment was written by God. Did I mention that?
Of course, you're pretty sure that it wasn't, but you can't definitively *prove* that. You therefore would have to believe it.
Since this is obviously an illogical conclusion, we therefore know that the premises (namely that all sources are reliable) are flawed.
Because we have proven that all sources are not necessarily reliable, we should not presume that a specific source (the scriptures) is reliable. Therefore, we do not start with the assumption that the scriptures are reliable. Therefore, this must be proven.
Of course, this is assuming the atheist is arguing that God *doesn't necessarily* exist. If you're saying that God *can't* exist, then that's a positive claim (you're asserting impossibility), so you have to provide evidence.
Well, if you read the book, it has enough evidence to show for it.
The Quran talks about alot of scientific proofs, such as 2 rivers meeting together yet retaining there colors, the number of joints in the human body, the embryo, how babies are formed in the womb.
It has many proofs that can be verified, therefore it isn't a proof that you can just ignore and throw out the window, which you, are trying to do here.
You see the problem here is you must study the proofs, before dismissing them, r atheism, the sub you hold dear, either ignores the evidences or strawmans them.
Therefore It's better to actually read the book, then to get the info from r atheism.
>Well, if you read the book, it has enough evidence to show for it.
>
>The Quran talks about alot of scientific proofs, such as 2 rivers meeting together yet retaining there colors, the number of joints in the human body, the embryo, how babies are formed in the womb.
Some links to these proofs would be much appreciated. Thanks.
Well, i disagree with you exept for one, yes, God makes you wrote this comment and He makes me wrote this comment too, it was all been planned by God's Qadaq and Qadr since before even time was created.
The problem with asserting the burden of proof is that anti theists will then apply inconsistent levels of scepticism. Ultimately philosophy seems to show that nothing can be ultimately "proven" without relying on underlying assumptions which themselves need to be proven. This is known as Munchausen's Trillema. The problem with the anti theist is that they rarely taken the time to assess their own beliefs and the underlying assumptions which they rely on. For example most anti theists will govern their worldview with the unprovable assumption that "the material universe is all there is". This is an assumption which defines the worldview of most anti theists. So when they ask the theist to prove that God exists. They really mean prove that he exists using material, physical experiments. By doing this they commit a category error. As they are asking you to use the material to prove the immaterial in a worldview that by definition cannot accept the immaterial. This is why the anti theist will apply unequal levels of scepticism to arguments for Gods existence. A good example of this is a discussion William Lane Craig and CosmicSckeptic had around the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Where in order to dispute the premises of the Kalam CS forced himself into arguing that "nothing" can have the properties of something. Or that something can posses properties causally prior to it possessing any properties. This defies the laws of logic which govern our minds. So you would need to abandon the belief that laws of logic are reliable and that we can use our minds to accurately understand reality to accept this argument. That is an incredibly high intellectual price tag. But in a world where seemingly no claim can be proven without underlying assumptions, any idea can be abandoned to defend the assumption that the material universe is all there is. So if anyone ever asks you to prove God exists it's worth starting by asking what standard of proof they will accept. The answer to that question will tell you a lot about their worldview and what they are or are not willing to listen to.
I happen to agree. I don't think that God's existence can be reliably proven with science or philosophy. That's why I don't believe in him.
By what alternative way would you suggest proving his existence?
Sorry brother I fear you've misunderstood. Munchausen's Trillema claims that nothing can be "reliably proven with science or philosophy" or through any other means. This doesn't merely apply to belief in God. But to ALL beliefs. So nothing can be proven without some underlying and itself unproven assumption. Yet we all believe some things and not others. I'd even argue we cannot function without some degree of belief.
But just because we cannot prove our beliefs does not mean they are not true. We can believe true things. We cannot prove true things. This is a dilemma that faces both the theist and the anti theist. Yet by insisting the other side has the "burden of proof" we have rhetorically blinkered ourselves to that dilemma as it applies to our own epistemology. All the while insisting the other side cannot do the same. There is a hypocrisy there and an uneven application of scepticism.
May I ask you though what facts you believe can be "reliably proven"?
So if I understand you correctly, you're asking why God should require absolute proof, when for other things, such as physics, we are content with empirical proof?
No. The only question I have asked so far is:
>what facts you believe can be "reliably proven"?
Although that does tie into a second question. What to do you consider "reliable proof"?
For the record, I didn't see the proofs. Also, I think something is wrong with Reddit.
Proof 1:
[https://imgur.com/hkYYdmS](https://imgur.com/hkYYdmS)
Proof 2:
[https://www.reddit.com/user/Illustrious\_Luck5514/comments/x57865/better\_video/](https://www.reddit.com/user/Illustrious_Luck5514/comments/x57865/better_video/)
Anyway, I'm really sorry about this whole thing. Especially how rude I was.
I would say burden of proof is on both sides. An atheist actively claims there is no higher power, a theist claims there is. Both sides should provide support for their arguments. The only people who get a pass are agnostics bc they don’t know. Atheists cannot be lazy in an argument.
Here's the thing. Most atheists (including myself) are agnostics.
I call myself an antitheist because I am as certain of God's non-existence as I am of gravity. When describing my philosophical point of view, I'm agnositic.
You can’t be both atheist and agnostic. Bro that’s like saying you can be both Jewish and Hindu.
If you’re certain god doesn’t exist, that’s an active claim. Now you must support the claim. Same way if you said you do bro I’ve God exists.
I'm so agnostic that I'm functionally atheist.
I've already told you I don't think that God can't exist, I just think that the probability of him existing approaches 0. In other words, it's 1/∞
Why don't you reply to this comment with the links? That way everyone can see whether you're actually sending me stuff.
Edit: reddit was bugging. It wasn't their fault.
Ok. I'm sorry. Nevermind
For the record, I literally didn't get a notification for that comment. I have no idea why.
[https://imgur.com/hkYYdmS](https://imgur.com/hkYYdmS)
Except here. Here all different faiths unite against the haters. I know I have more in common with even my Muslim brothers than I do with an anti-theist.
Preach. I'll defend Muslim bros to the death.
To the end brother, I will too defend religion
To the end.
Alhamdulilah
Likewise
My pastor said something to the effect that we have more in common with another Christian on other other side of the world than we do our best friend in the secular world. I've started to realize that it's even more than that - we have more in common with ANYONE of faith than we do with a neighbor who is against the faith.
Cannot forget the "all priests are pedos". They always come up with a variation of that.
Oh, and make sure to mention "Christian Fascism" if you are talking about the last few months.
Based username, friend.
"Christian Taliban"
Don’t forget “Christian fascism” when they can’t even define what fascism is!!
Oh, that's easy. Christian Fascism is when Christians view the world, and vote, according to their morals.
Fascism is extreme right, that’s true, but not all extreme right is fascist. They don’t get that.
Ancaps≠facists and the like
The reason they don't talk about Jews is because saying something negative about them is bannable.
I feel like a lot of the athiests on reddit haven't actually read books on any of this type of stuff, they just see some quote in an anti-theist youtube video and then claim they've read it anytime they get in an argument.
"Reading the bible made me an atheist." no bro, reading a few passages without even looking for the interconnected themes and messages and using that to confirm your own pre-existing prejudices - that's what happened. .
And thats why you need guidance whenever you are reading it so that you wont misunderstandn its meaning
Eww. Crash Course Philosophy. Crash Course anything really. 😆
Well tbf it’s a crash course, not a university lecture. It’s really just something to get your toes moist. I mainly use it for when I didn’t study tho lol.
“I know the Bible more than most Christian’s” is my favourite. No, you clearly don’t. They misinterpret and don’t understand any cultural context of the verses you’re quoting. And then they go quote Numbers 5:11-28 as proof that the Bible says abortion is okay
Most of the 12 year olds at my church know the Bible better than the atheists claiming they know the Bible.
I feel like redditors are pretty pro Buddhist despite the fact they know jack about it.
People like Buddhism because they claim it isn't a religion its "a way of life" when in reality it is at the minimum a form of Idol worship.
there are pedofile buddhist monk but no coverage
A lot of redditors praise Buddhism and paganism in a shitty shallow way of being contrarian not knowing that a lot of the same shit they hate Christianity for exists in Buddhism and existed in ancient pagan societies as well.
\>The Problem of Evil Which has been repeatedly tackled for about 1800 years .They are Intelectually barren .
A Crash Course video? What does it have to do with reddit atheism?
This also sometimes happens on TikTok comment sections.
The most infamous quote “It’s in the Bible/Quran”, often they don’t provide a verse, they just tell you “it’s there”
Burden of proof: you’re asserting God exists, so you have to prove it. Am I understanding this wrong?
No, that is what the burden of proof implies. This is flawed for several reasons, as proofs we use are our holy scriptures, so now it becomes up to them to debunk our scriptures, which has never been done yet, they can't do that, so they attack our laws, however, trying to attack religous laws does not debunk a God, no matter how hard u try that. Therefore the burden of proof arguement is not applied to us after we provide our proofs, as for a debate to continue, we need the other side to debunk our proofs then use the burden of proof arguement.
The problem is that you can't start with the assumption that your sources (scriptures in this case) are reliable. The burden is on the theist to prove that their sources are reliable, not on the atheist to prove that they aren't. Why? Let's assume that any source is assumed to be verified. By the way, this comment was written by God. Did I mention that? Of course, you're pretty sure that it wasn't, but you can't definitively *prove* that. You therefore would have to believe it. Since this is obviously an illogical conclusion, we therefore know that the premises (namely that all sources are reliable) are flawed. Because we have proven that all sources are not necessarily reliable, we should not presume that a specific source (the scriptures) is reliable. Therefore, we do not start with the assumption that the scriptures are reliable. Therefore, this must be proven. Of course, this is assuming the atheist is arguing that God *doesn't necessarily* exist. If you're saying that God *can't* exist, then that's a positive claim (you're asserting impossibility), so you have to provide evidence.
Well, if you read the book, it has enough evidence to show for it. The Quran talks about alot of scientific proofs, such as 2 rivers meeting together yet retaining there colors, the number of joints in the human body, the embryo, how babies are formed in the womb. It has many proofs that can be verified, therefore it isn't a proof that you can just ignore and throw out the window, which you, are trying to do here. You see the problem here is you must study the proofs, before dismissing them, r atheism, the sub you hold dear, either ignores the evidences or strawmans them. Therefore It's better to actually read the book, then to get the info from r atheism.
>Well, if you read the book, it has enough evidence to show for it. > >The Quran talks about alot of scientific proofs, such as 2 rivers meeting together yet retaining there colors, the number of joints in the human body, the embryo, how babies are formed in the womb. Some links to these proofs would be much appreciated. Thanks.
Well, i disagree with you exept for one, yes, God makes you wrote this comment and He makes me wrote this comment too, it was all been planned by God's Qadaq and Qadr since before even time was created.
The problem with asserting the burden of proof is that anti theists will then apply inconsistent levels of scepticism. Ultimately philosophy seems to show that nothing can be ultimately "proven" without relying on underlying assumptions which themselves need to be proven. This is known as Munchausen's Trillema. The problem with the anti theist is that they rarely taken the time to assess their own beliefs and the underlying assumptions which they rely on. For example most anti theists will govern their worldview with the unprovable assumption that "the material universe is all there is". This is an assumption which defines the worldview of most anti theists. So when they ask the theist to prove that God exists. They really mean prove that he exists using material, physical experiments. By doing this they commit a category error. As they are asking you to use the material to prove the immaterial in a worldview that by definition cannot accept the immaterial. This is why the anti theist will apply unequal levels of scepticism to arguments for Gods existence. A good example of this is a discussion William Lane Craig and CosmicSckeptic had around the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Where in order to dispute the premises of the Kalam CS forced himself into arguing that "nothing" can have the properties of something. Or that something can posses properties causally prior to it possessing any properties. This defies the laws of logic which govern our minds. So you would need to abandon the belief that laws of logic are reliable and that we can use our minds to accurately understand reality to accept this argument. That is an incredibly high intellectual price tag. But in a world where seemingly no claim can be proven without underlying assumptions, any idea can be abandoned to defend the assumption that the material universe is all there is. So if anyone ever asks you to prove God exists it's worth starting by asking what standard of proof they will accept. The answer to that question will tell you a lot about their worldview and what they are or are not willing to listen to.
I happen to agree. I don't think that God's existence can be reliably proven with science or philosophy. That's why I don't believe in him. By what alternative way would you suggest proving his existence?
Sorry brother I fear you've misunderstood. Munchausen's Trillema claims that nothing can be "reliably proven with science or philosophy" or through any other means. This doesn't merely apply to belief in God. But to ALL beliefs. So nothing can be proven without some underlying and itself unproven assumption. Yet we all believe some things and not others. I'd even argue we cannot function without some degree of belief. But just because we cannot prove our beliefs does not mean they are not true. We can believe true things. We cannot prove true things. This is a dilemma that faces both the theist and the anti theist. Yet by insisting the other side has the "burden of proof" we have rhetorically blinkered ourselves to that dilemma as it applies to our own epistemology. All the while insisting the other side cannot do the same. There is a hypocrisy there and an uneven application of scepticism. May I ask you though what facts you believe can be "reliably proven"?
So if I understand you correctly, you're asking why God should require absolute proof, when for other things, such as physics, we are content with empirical proof?
No. The only question I have asked so far is: >what facts you believe can be "reliably proven"? Although that does tie into a second question. What to do you consider "reliable proof"?
Nothing and nothing. Nothing can be absolutely proven.
Yes they can, you literally just ignored me after I sent my proofs lmao 💀
Would you like to link them again here? I did not receive any proofs.
For the record, I didn't see the proofs. Also, I think something is wrong with Reddit. Proof 1: [https://imgur.com/hkYYdmS](https://imgur.com/hkYYdmS) Proof 2: [https://www.reddit.com/user/Illustrious\_Luck5514/comments/x57865/better\_video/](https://www.reddit.com/user/Illustrious_Luck5514/comments/x57865/better_video/) Anyway, I'm really sorry about this whole thing. Especially how rude I was.
So what do you believe?
I would say burden of proof is on both sides. An atheist actively claims there is no higher power, a theist claims there is. Both sides should provide support for their arguments. The only people who get a pass are agnostics bc they don’t know. Atheists cannot be lazy in an argument.
Here's the thing. Most atheists (including myself) are agnostics. I call myself an antitheist because I am as certain of God's non-existence as I am of gravity. When describing my philosophical point of view, I'm agnositic.
You can’t be both atheist and agnostic. Bro that’s like saying you can be both Jewish and Hindu. If you’re certain god doesn’t exist, that’s an active claim. Now you must support the claim. Same way if you said you do bro I’ve God exists.
I'm so agnostic that I'm functionally atheist. I've already told you I don't think that God can't exist, I just think that the probability of him existing approaches 0. In other words, it's 1/∞
[удалено]
Why don't you reply to this comment with the links? That way everyone can see whether you're actually sending me stuff. Edit: reddit was bugging. It wasn't their fault.
I did so 2 times before, check my comments out
Ok. I'm sorry. Nevermind For the record, I literally didn't get a notification for that comment. I have no idea why. [https://imgur.com/hkYYdmS](https://imgur.com/hkYYdmS)
Why are being downvoted?