Does God exist? (William Lane Craig vs Peter Atkins debate) (19 Viewers)

[Sheik Yerbouti]

what happens next is you follow what makes sense to YOU, your little video with the circular focal point is inaccurate, every experience you go though is part of the same journey, the only thing you can really do is stagnate, but the journey continues you mature your ideas mature your perspectives change and so do your ideas.

I am doing, and will continue to do all of that regardless of whether the existence of a deity is proven or not. But so far, I find the arguments of atheists more convincing than theists.

Actually its not, his post is about being on a path you chose (like in the video meeting people/experiences on one path which affectr you).

The point of the video is that if you want to know the real truth you have to go down every path to explore if it is true.. which is not the situation in your post.

Precisely.

I doubt AC has truly explored all paths.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[AndreaCristiano]

What would happen if he had an open mind? It's not the first time I see you doing this. First you say you have no evidence and it's all faith, then you call him close minded because he doesn't find your reasons convincing. And how exactly can you bring reasons for your faith? Having faith in a creator is your way, be fine with that, you don't need to convince Sheik that you are right if it's the way you have chosen to live your life in.

No I called him closed minded because he neither considers them by any believer nor does he actually listen. Many a times he mocks and shouts believers down. In the end I care neither way. If he wants to not believe that's his prerogative yet he gets angry when people believe and mocks people. So therefore that is the reason he is close minded. He uses this supposed Q&A as a reason to dismiss and mock believers

 

[AndreaCristiano]

I am doing, and will continue to do all of that regardless of whether the existence of a deity is proven or not. But so far, I find the arguments of atheists more convincing than theists.



Precisely.

I doubt AC has truly explored all paths.

You can doubt all you want you do not know my journey. Also the reason why you doubt is because I haven't come to the conclusion you agree with

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

@king Ale: If I was close minded, I'd still be a Hindu.

That's fine if my reasons aren't enough for you, they are not supposed to be , but they are my reasons as in for me so therefore it's enough for my belief Also burden of proof only applies when one side actually has indisputable evidence which yours does not. So therefore like i said neither side has the burden of proof

You clearly don't understand what burden of proof is, then.

 

[AndreaCristiano]

@king Ale: If I was close minded, I'd still be a Hindu.



You clearly don't understand what burden of proof is, then.

You clearly think that everyone needs to prove something to you in reality no one needs to prove anything to you

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

No I called him closed minded because he neither considers them by any believer nor does he actually listen. Many a times he mocks and shouts believers down. In the end I care neither way. If he wants to not believe that's his prerogative yet he gets angry when people believe and mocks people. So therefore that is the reason he is close minded. He uses this supposed Q&A as a reason to dismiss and mock believers

If I was close minded, I would never even visit this thread. I would not be involved in any discussions, be it about my religion or yours. I would continue to believe in what my family believes in and ignore all other religions. But I'm not close minded. I'm willing to admit that I'm wrong and change my beliefs. Just don't expect me to drop and roll over so easily.

I mock beliefs, and not the people holding them.

Also the reason why you doubt is because I haven't come to the conclusion you agree with

 

[AndreaCristiano]

If I was close minded, I would never even visit this thread. I would not be involved in any discussions, be it about my religion or yours. I would continue to believe in what my family believes in and ignore all other religions. But I'm not close minded. I'm willing to admit that I'm wrong and change my beliefs. Just don't expect me to drop and roll over so easily.

I mock beliefs, and not the people holding them.

Mocking a persons beliefs is the same as mocking them. Coming into this thread just to spread vitriol isn't being part of the discussion

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

You clearly think that everyone needs to prove something to you in reality no one needs to prove anything to you

Going by that logic, newspapers don't need to have articles or stories. They can print whatever headlines they want because they won't need to prove it.

I can claim that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the one true god and all other gods are man made. And I went have to prove anything!

Do you see why that stance is stupid?

 

[AndreaCristiano]

Going by that logic, newspapers don't need to have articles or stories. They can print whatever headlines they want because they won't need to prove it.

I can claim that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the one true god and all other gods are man made. And I went have to prove anything!

Do you see why that stance is stupid?

Newspapers sometimes do that but we are dealing with a subject that has no definitive proof either way so therefore how can there be a burden of proof when none exists on either side

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Mocking a persons beliefs is the same as mocking them. Coming into this thread just to spread vitriol isn't being part of the discussion

A religious belief is not everything that defines a person. I can mock Vinman's belief that Juve would finish 6th with actually mocking the man, who serves his society by being a good law enforcement officer.

 

[AndreaCristiano]

A religious belief is not everything that defines a person. I can mock Vinman's belief that Juve would finish 6th with actually mocking the man, who serves his society by being a good law enforcement officer.

Incorrect again a person who is truly religious or devout is by that essence what he believes. A Christian is a Christian first all else second. So a person who truly believes describes themselves by that standard. So if you mock the belief you mock the person. It's synonymous. Being you don't hold that strong connection to your faith you can not comprehend that

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Newspapers sometimes do that but we are dealing with a subject that has no definitive proof either way so therefore how can there be a burden of proof when none exists on either side

You are confusing the burden of proof with the proof itself. IT'S NOT the same! Just because there is no proof for god, doesn't mean that a person still believing in god is exempted from providing a reason for his claims.

 

[AndreaCristiano]

You are confusing the burden of proof with the proof itself. IT'S NOT the same! Just because there is no proof for god, doesn't mean that a person still believing in god is exempted from providing a reason for his claims.

So why is a non believer exempt?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Incorrect again a person who is truly religious or devout is by that essence what he believes. A Christian is a Christian first all else second. So a person who truly believes describes themselves by that standard. So if you mock the belief you mock the person. It's synonymous. Being you don't hold that strong connection to your faith you can not comprehend that

I'm truly sorry for offending you. But I see that as collateral damage. My intention is still to mock the belief, not the believer.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

So why is a non believer exempt?

Because I'm not making an original claim! The believer is.

 

[AndreaCristiano]

I'm truly sorry for offending you. But I see that as collateral damage. My intention is still to mock the belief, not the believer.

Your intention doesn't change the desired affect for real believers. This discussion shouldn't be looked at with a mentality that allows for collateral damage. Apology accepted by the way

 

[AndreaCristiano]

Because I'm not making an original claim! The believer is.

Explain to me how that claim is the original ?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Your intention doesn't change the desired affect for real believers. This discussion shouldn't be looked at with a mentality that allows for collateral damage. Apology accepted by the way

There's nothing we can do about it. Either I'll have to stop ridiculing ideas that sounds ridiculous, or you'll need to stop being offended at ridicule that your beliefs and not you directly. Neither of us are willing to do that.

Explain to me how that claim is the original ?

Because it came first.

 

[AndreaCristiano]

There's nothing we can do about it. Either I'll have to stop ridiculing ideas that sounds ridiculous, or you'll need to stop being offended at ridicule that your beliefs and not you directly. Neither of us are willing to do that.



Because it came first.

The difference is the ideas only sound ridiculous to you not to those you ridicule. That's where you don't realize your error. Everyone has the right to believe what they want no matter what you deem ridiculous or not. Also there is no proof that belief in God came first

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

The difference is the ideas only sound ridiculous to you not to those you ridicule. That's where you don't realize your error. Everyone has the right to believe what they want no matter what you deem ridiculous or not. Also there is no proof that belief in God came first

Oh yeah? Then I believe that ridiculous ideas are worthy of ridicule!

There may be no proof for that, but logically, the concept of god has to come before the unbeliever. If not, then the nonbeliever will have nothing to not believe.