State-Church Separation

[mdk]

Vortex said
Who's laughing now?!!

Fie on you if you think I'm going to parse this whole thread, but if you can show me who's actually arguing the merits of mixing church and state (as opposed to spring-boarding off this 'topic' to talk about whatever else is on their mind), I'll gladly eat crow and call that person a moron.

[Kho]

Brovo said Think for a moment about what what has just been said in this section before we continue to the rest. It's very malleable--that is, it's very... Non-concrete, lacking any sort of force or specific idea. Essentially: You're saying that there are numerous potential answers and that any of those options could be right or wrong, in any kind of combination.The Bible, on the other hand, is the piece I'm arguing against generally here. It's very concrete in its answers--believe in God is a repeated message throughout. I can't argue against all religion because I just don't think I could learn the details of every single one and then form some kind of argument. Only the ones I know, can I argue

I think you misread, I said 'there are numerous ways of coming to an answer, and there is nothing to say any are wrong or right.'
The journey is where the difference is, rather than the answer itself. People in history have all gone on a spiritual journey to find a God, from Buddha, to Abraham to Muhammed and various other historical religious leaders. We cannot say for certain that they all knew much about each other as they were separated by space and time, but many came to the conclusion that through the pursuit of knowledge and 'enlightenment', through following certain - frighteningly similar - ways of life, one could gain the greatest knowledge, Nirvana, Yaqeen, Oneness with the Spirit of God etc.

Of course belief in God would be the message of the Bible, it is the 'answer' but there is nothing to say that the way the Bible preaches is the correct way, or if the God of the Bible is the correct God. That takes exploration. And truly, I think you constrict yourself greatly by arguing within the pages the Bible, allow yourself more freedom, just as you explore Christianity searching for faults, turn your eye to other religions. It is a truly interesting thing to do. The pursuit of knowledge is as worthy a cause as any, and who knows, maybe the ancients are right, maybe there is some kind of 'enlightenment' waiting for us once we amass enough knowledge and have philosophised ourselves into a cave.

Brovo said Erm, no. A test can easily be given to you for you to solve. School gives out plenty of tests, for example, that blatantly state "TEST [subject] ##" on them.Now while there are tests whose point is not to be revealed until the end, the idea that life is a test, is merely belief. There's no evidence to back that up and so, as someone who places his faith in the rational, I can't accept it. I won't even try to deny others who see it that way, because faith-based arguments are unassailable and it's foolhardy to try, but I myself... Just can't.

Apologies, that sentence, as I look back on it, doesn't convey my meaning as I wanted it to. Of course we know we are doing a test while we are doing it. That is obvious, we are sat down in a hall and told to write for who knows how long. I meant that the one thing we don't know in a test is the exact, correct answer. We can guess, we can use logic, we can use previous knowledge, but we can never know with concrete certainty that the answer we put down is going to be right or will gain the maximum marks, else we would all pass our exams with flying colours and no one would fail. We only known the correct answer after the exam is over. We will only ever know, for certain, that God exists once we die. And if he doesn't exist, we don't even get the satisfaction of laughing at those who thought he did, because then we don't exist either.

Of course, whether this world is a test or not is open to debate, but before that can be established we need to establish whether the one who made the test exists or not. And that's the bigger debate. I completely agree with you, blind faith, unquestioning belief, is quite possibly the most irritating thing in existence. I cannot stand fools, let alone blind ones, as the wise man once said, 'Never argue with a fool - they will drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.' and nothing is worse than a victorious fool

Brovo said Oh, even putting aside religion, the argument of free will versus destiny or human nature or memory is absolutely mind numbing even if you do know all the factors in play (which I openly admit I generally don't). For example: Hard determinism versus soft determinism, Tabula Rasa, nature versus nurture, the two door paradox, choice versus knowledge... What I -do- know, though, is this: If the future is premapped, that is, if someone can see into the future with any sort of certainty (a qualification for omniscience), then free will is merely an illusion, in the same sense that no matter how many times you watch Frodo reach Mount Doom he will never be able to change the fact that he will succumb to wearing the ring and then have his finger bitten off for it. After that it becomes the argument of hard determinism versus soft determinism, that is, do you have any flexibility in how you reach your ultimate course, can you change your course once you know it, and so on and so on. Ironically this is why the ending of Bioshock Infinite tends to confuse people who don't understand that it's a significant plot hole, because the universe constantly tells you that it's hard determined and yet the future changes. Oops.

I personally don't know the inner-weavings of the debate, but I know that if somebody jumped out of a time machine and told me, right now, that I am going to get full marks in my exams, that they've seen it, I would fail just to spite them. If I do get full marks despite no revision, I'd be pretty chuffed though. Hmm...suddenly want to read Invictus...

Brovo said Also depending on the version. Some Bibles just go "they go to hell and burn" some add "eternally". I don't know enough about Biblical history to know why that is. Mine tends to be limited to major events, like the separation of the catholic and orthodox churches, the rise of islam, protestantism, the great awakening in north america, and so on.

I don't think it is a big mystery really, priests, bishops, preachers, academics in the field of religion all admit it, the Bible has been changed countless times over the ages by more human hands can be counted. Today none of the main Christian denominations accept the Bibles of the other main denominations, the Catholic Bible includes books which Protestants don't recognise, and the Orthodox Church includes books which neither Catholics nor Protestants accept. It's no wonder that when you say 'The Bible says this: '[quote]'' someone will undoubtedly come up and say, 'no, it doesn't' because there is no one Bible, there are many Bibles. I don't think any other 'divine' book in the world, from my research thus far, faces this problem.

Brovo said Eh'... Evidence isn't really personal. Evidence is as non-personal as it gets: If the evidence points to the innocent looking woman committing a murder, then 99 times out of 100, it's probably the woman who did it assuming the evidence isn't rigged. One can have personal , but evidence, as in defined as something that all can see and universally understand (ex: fingerprints), is never personal.

I may have mis-worded. Evidence, in and of itself, cannot be said to be personal, I agree. What is personal is whether we choose to accept evidence or not. You can wave equations and proofs and theories at people all you want, but if people simply don't care for your scientific evidence, no one is going to believe you. Luckily we live in a society which embraces the acceptance of evidence, and even now, people don't accept scientific theories because they are convinced of them, but because everyone else says they're true and scientists can talk at length showing a great amount of complicated and un-understandable evidence at which the lay person can nod and pretend to be convinced.
When it comes to the existence of God, whether a person accepts the evidence given to them or not is very personal. While for one person contemplating at how amazing the world is can be enough evidence, for someone else it is not. While for one person, studying religious books and analysing their scientific claims can generate enough evidence to believe in God, for another person it may not be. So I agree with you, evidence itself isn't personal, the factors dictating whether we believe it or not are personal, especially in the context of a God-debate.

Brovo said Why yes, good chap, that is a healthy view of things. It's why I stick to the rational, I know things will change as our understanding of the universe grows and that makes it extremely exciting. Maybe we'll find out our creators were really unisex aliens who made us to figure out what would happen if you created creatures with two genders and biologically made them different. Or maybe there is a god but he's not this all wise and omniscient god, maybe he's like... A child and he created this... Fantastical, fantasy-like universe, and maybe all those mythological stories we have of like dragons and faeries and so on were all once real but he retconned them over time and the mythos is all we have left of the non-canon stuff, and people who go to heaven are his friends who tell him about mortality and pain and emotions and feelings and weakness and things he can't intrinsically understand.All really interesting shit I can't disprove but won't believe until otherwise proven, though.

Perhaps, perhaps not. But as neither aliens nor all-powerful children have left much of a mark on our world, so far as we can see, I don't think they are currently a viable potential deity to explore the existence thereof. I think I prefer exploring the much more material books and codes in existence which billions believe are in someway divine and which actually call for people to read them. The flying spaghetti monster, aliens, omnipotent children and the invisible pink unicorn have yet to reveal their divine scriptures upon our ever waiting hearts

Brovo said Because there is none. There is literally none. Zero. Zip. Nothing. It doesn't exist. The whole point of religion is the faith part of it. That's what makes it religion and not truth: Faith. If you need evidence to back up your faith you're doing it wrong.Seriously I can't prove nothingness except to point at it and say "look, nothing."

EDIT

Come to think of it, Russell's Teapot. Look it up.

That is rather extreme don't you think? There are people far more knowing than either of us who have seen that there is sufficient evidence to believe in a God, just as there are those far more knowing than either of us who have decided that there is no evidence. I don't think we should ever decide that there is zero evidence for the existence of a God, to do so is rather disrespectful to those who wake up every morning and pray to a God they genuinely believe exists, futile and pitiful as their 'state of ignorance' may appear to us. In the end, if science has not managed to wipe out religion, there must be more than just blind belief and faith keeping religion entrenched, these people who believe in religions must genuinely see something we're not. That is why we must continue exploring. We must open up our feelings and allow our most basic beliefs to be challenged and questioned with all sincerity. We must question our beliefs just as intensely as we do those of others. If they survive the grueling experience and still convince you, then go bravely go, for you shall never need to shield them from anything ever again, let all other ideologies assault them, and if they emerge unchanged then truly they must be perfect, and if they emerge changed, then surely they are one step closer to perfection.

I hope I am not coming across as some irrational hippy whose had a bit too much weed here I just think that just as we must be rational and logical, we must not forget that humans have emotions and can be rather deep-thinking. A deepness which the scientific method can sometimes overlook, for it is curiousity and that very deepness and desire for knowledge which first gave rise to the scientific method as we know it.

[Dervish]

Boy, this turned out predictably.

Let's condense pages of argument into a really simple rule of thumb: since there's no way to definitively proof or disprove the existence of God, there's no point in arguing about it. We'll all find out after we die, so let's focus on more practical things that we can measure and find tangible.

Since the topic is about if church and state should be separate or not, the more pressing concern is balancing human rights and freedoms verses preserving religious customs and traditions. It makes more sense to me to discuss that than if the Big Guy in the Penthouse in the Sky is real or not. I am much more concerned about what His followers are doing than if He exists or not, considering there's the whole cherry picking what to follow out of the Bible or Qur'an or Torah or whatever to impose select values on entire groups of people. I mean, when you have one Church saying one thing and then the one down the street saying another, it doesn't exactly inspire trust in one leading the government if they can't even agree with what's legitimate or not.

But seriously guys, you aren't accomplishing anything by debating if God exists or not because nobody's changing their minds. Agree to disagree and move on.

[ActRaiserTheReturned]

But seriously guys, you aren't accomplishing anything by debating if God exists or not because nobody's changing their minds. Agree to disagree and move on.

[Kho]

Dervish said But seriously guys, you aren't accomplishing anything by debating if God exists or not because nobody's changing their minds. Agree to disagree and move on.

I am here to debate and learn. If we avoid this topic at school, and we avoid it at social gatherings, and we avoid it in the workplace and only ever see opinionated people who will not change their minds argue about it on T.V, then why can we not discuss it here, on the internet. I understand you might have seen many God debates, but as you may have noticed, this is a first for me here, and I am quite interested in learning more and in contributing what I believe I know. We need to end this custom of 'argument for the sake of argument and debate for the sake of debate.'

I am here to debate, and I am here to learn from it and change my mind, and I am hoping people are just as open as I am in that regard. I will personally be the first to end it if I feel it is going nowhere.

Edit: I just realised that I have suddenly lost interest in this debate. I have too many other things to focus on, it was a mistake to join, but I couldn't help it
Maybe I'll start a proper debate about this and we can continue this some other time. Adios.

[Vortex]

Yes, that reminds me we should probably get back to the original topic. I agree with you Kho that we should have a debate about it, and learn from it but it is not the original question, if you guys want to talk about wether God exists or not (he doesn't FYI) then go make another thread, but this is not the place for it

[Dervish]

Vortex said
Yes, that reminds me we should probably get back to the original topic. I agree with you Kho that we should have a debate about it, and learn from it but it is not the original question, if you guys want to talk about wether God exists or not (he doesn't FYI) then go make another thread, but this is not the place for it

Just because you think so doesn't make it true, nor does it make it false. A while back, people used to think that the Earth was flat and the Sun revolved around the Earth, and anyone who thought otherwise was seen as a wishful idiot. Point is, there's no way of knowing one way or another to make a definitive statement, and there's a lot of things science can't quite answer, namely what came before the Big Bang or why does the universe even exist in the first place. There's a lot we don't know, and if people wish to subscribe to faith, let them. It doesn't make them ignorant or unintelligent, especially since a lot of scientists are openly religious, and they're a hell of a lot more intelligent than you or I. The whole point of having faith is just that; you don't have to have a math equation to prove something exists in your heart and soul. The only time it becomes a problem is when people use faith as a crutch to hate other people for what they believe, which not paradoxically is exactly what a lot of hardliner atheists do.

Let's put this in another light, you believe in a communist political system that historically has no precedence of success or feasibility given human nature and how there's several factors working against it ever happening as it was intended. You have faith it could work and would be best for humanity moving forward, without any solid evidence it would ever work out or even be practical. Is that not similar to a religious person having faith that there's a God, even though there's no concrete, measurable evidence of there being a God?

So cut the inflammatory rhetoric because it's not doing you any favours. The key to having intelligent discussion with people is to respect that their perspectives will differ from yours. The world isn't black and white.

[Alkeni Synair]

Its nice and easy to sit there and say that because there is no way to know either way it is impossible to make a definitive statement about the existence of god. Except for the fact that that is nonsense. If I say that I have a baseball in my left hand right now, there is no way anyone can tell, because there is no one in this room I'm in right now. You have no way of knowing. Granted. But you are under no obligation to believe that I have baseball in my left hand, nor act as though such is the case, unless I provide proof. I am the one making the claim. Therefore, the burden of proof is on me, and effectively, in the minds of everyone else (or at least, people who like proof), I'm not holding a baseball in my left hand.

The 'God' and 'Not-God' propositions are not two sides of the same coin, propositions that can be equally proven. First of all, it is impossible to prove a negative. You cannot prove that something does not exist, because it would have left no indication of its existence (since it didn't exist). Things that do not exist cannot provide data. Proving a negative is impossible. All that can be done in support of the negative proposition is to disproven given evidence that is in support of the positive proposition. The burden of proof is not on the atheist. The burden of proof is on the theist, the person making the claim. If the positive claim (God exists) has insufficient evidence to establish it, then we can actually say that God doesn't exist - because there is yet no proof for his existence.

[ActRaiserTheReturned]

Alkeni Synair said
Its nice and easy to sit there and say that because there is no way to know either way it is impossible to make a definitive statement about the existence of god. Except for the fact that that is nonsense. If I say that I have a baseball in my left hand right now, there is no way anyone can tell, because there is no one in this room I'm in right now. You have no way of knowing. Granted. you are under no obligation to believe that I have baseball in my left hand, nor act as though such is the case, unless I provide proof. I am the one making the claim. Therefore, the burden of proof is on me, and effectively, in the minds of everyone else (or at least, people who like proof), I'm not holding a baseball in my left hand.The 'God' and 'Not-God' propositions are not two sides of the same coin, propositions that can be equally proven. First of all, it is impossible to prove a negative. You cannot prove that something does not exist, because it would have left no indication of its existence (since it didn't exist). Things that do not exist cannot provide data. Proving a negative is impossible. All that can be done in support of the negative proposition is to disproven given evidence that is in support of the positive proposition. The burden of proof is not on the atheist. The burden of proof is on the theist, the person making the claim. If the positive claim (God exists) has insufficient evidence to establish it, then we can actually say that God doesn't exist - because there is yet no proof for his existence.

The burden of proof is one whomever there is more evidence against. There is yet no proof that there is more evidence against theists. If you think there is no evidence against athiests or agnostics, etcetera, then leave theists alone and let them believe what they want. Hands off their freedom of belief. Agree to disagree and be civilized.

[So Boerd]

The burden of proof is on whomever is making the statement. I can say green swans exist. You cannot prove they don't. Therefore you can only say you don't know. By making the assertion that they don't, the burden is on you to prove it. Green swans exist is an verifiable, unfalsifiable statement. The opposite is unverifiable and falsifiable. Making a definitive statement which is unverifiable is silly, don't you think?

The burden is on the atheist and the theist both. It is not on the agnostic.

[ActRaiserTheReturned]

So Boerd said
The burden of proof is on whomever is making the statement. I can say green swans exist. You cannot prove they don't. Therefore you can only say you don't know. By making the assertion that they don't, the burden is on you to prove it. Green swans exist is an verifiable, unfalsifiable statement. The opposite is unverifiable and falsifiable. Making a definitive statement which is unverifiable is silly, don't you think?The burden is on the atheist and the theist both. It is not on the agnostic.

In a legal case it's on both. I've more or less thought that in a debate that isn't in a court setting that it depends on someone making an assertion. While the faithful/theists, have an assertion for of course, that, for lack of a better word, "Church" involvement, is not just okay, but beneficial, to society and even politics in general, the fact is that it isn't really all that hard to make an observation of many benefits that have come from Christian contributions to the culture in Western societies.

The burden is on others to prove that, in summary, that proper involvement of religious thought in the Government and public life, is as negative to Society in general, if it's negative AT ALL, as they say it is.

[Vortex]

Dervish said
Just because you think so doesn't make it true, nor does it make it false. A while back, people used to think that the Earth was flat and the Sun revolved around the Earth, and anyone who thought otherwise was seen as a wishful idiot. Point is, there's no way of knowing one way or another to make a definitive statement, and there's a lot of things science can't quite answer, namely what came before the Big Bang or why does the universe even exist in the first place. There's a lot we don't know, and if people wish to subscribe to faith, let them. It doesn't make them ignorant or unintelligent, especially since a lot of scientists are openly religious, and they're a hell of a lot more intelligent than you or I. The whole point of having faith is just that; you don't have to have a math equation to prove something exists in your heart and soul. The only time it becomes a problem is when people use faith as a crutch to hate other people for what they believe, which not paradoxically is exactly what a lot of hardliner atheists do. Let's put this in another light, you believe in a communist political system that historically has no precedence of success or feasibility given human nature and how there's several factors working against it ever happening as it was intended. You have faith it could work and would be best for humanity moving forward, without any solid evidence it would ever work out or even be practical. Is that not similar to a religious person having faith that there's a God, even though there's no concrete, measurable evidence of there being a God? So cut the inflammatory rhetoric because it's not doing you any favours. The key to having intelligent discussion with people is to respect that their perspectives will differ from yours. The world isn't black and white.

Dear god, someone actually listened to my rambling about communism. I do agree yes, there is a lot of factors against communism but unlike God (who has equal, if not more evidence against it) it is not a entity but a political system with many experts in the field of political theory. Now you may say that there are many priests in the field of religion who may be considered experts of such, but how can you be "expert" in a field which studies a entity that may or may not exist. Communism does not physically exist ether, but nobody claims it to be a entity which created the universe but merely a political and economic system in which we govern ourselves.

Look when I said "He doesn't FYI" it was supposed to be young and cheek and not supposed to rally the libertarian army against me. Now let's get back to Church and state. If you want to talk about god himself (herself? Itself?) go make a thread about that. If you want to talk politics go to the political ideology thread. Just stay on topic.

[ActRaiserTheReturned]

Vortex said
Dear god, someone actually listened to my rambling about communism. I do agree yes, there is a lot of factors against communism but unlike God (who has equal, if not more evidence against it) it is not a entity but a political system with many experts in the field of political theory. Now you may say that there are many priests in the field of religion who may be considered experts of such, but how can you be "expert" in a field which studies a entity that may or may not exist. Communism does not physically exist ether, but nobody claims it to be a entity which created the universe but merely a political and economic system in which we govern ourselves.Look when I said "He doesn't FYI" it was supposed to be young and cheek and not supposed to rally the libertarian army against me. Now let's get back to Church and state. If you want to talk about god himself (herself? Itself?) go make a thread about that. If you want to talk politics go to the political ideology thread. Just stay on topic.

I would rather that we go back to the discussion like I have. I'ts about Church and State involvement. Not necessarily whether God exists or not, even if Christianity is what we mean by Church and State.

[Brovo]

ActRaiserTheReturned said The burden of proof is one whomever there is more evidence against. There is yet no proof that there is more evidence against theists. If you think there is no evidence against athiests or agnostics, etcetera, then leave theists alone and let them believe what they want. Hands off their freedom of belief. Agree to disagree and be civilized.

wut. That's not how things work. He's being quite civilized, what are you on about--

So Boerd said The burden of proof is on whomever is making the statement. I can say green swans exist. You cannot prove they don't. Therefore you can only say you don't know. By making the assertion that they don't, the burden is on you to prove it. Green swans exist is an verifiable, unfalsifiable statement. The opposite is unverifiable and falsifiable. Making a definitive statement which is unverifiable is silly, don't you think?The burden is on the atheist and the theist both. It is not on the agnostic.

... This line of reasoning is legitimately incoherent and insane.

I am now a God because I say so. You can't disprove that. Now worship me in my newly founded church of Brovism. The one tenet is that you must wear a silly hat. Also gimmie all your monies plox or else you will go to candy-land and die over and over from cholesterol.

The burden of proof is on you to disprove it, after all!

EDIT

Also, "on a legal case" it's innocent until proven guilty. Please learn the basics of your own justice system. Thanks.

[ActRaiserTheReturned]

I am now a God because I say so. You can't disprove that. Now worship me in my newly founded church of Brovism. The one tenet is that you must wear a silly hat. Also gimmie all your monies plox or else you will go to candy-land and die over and over from cholesterol.

It's not insane if I've give you reasonable room and freedom to disprove it, like I have.
"I am God!" Worship me!"


::Gets back up, shoots Bison in the head::
"And thus, you are refuted!"

On the other hand, if someone says, "It's true that the Church has brought suffering and negative repercussions to society when it merges with the Government, but the Church involvement with the Government is acceptable and even beneficial to society, if it's prevented from taking involvement AS the Government." In other words, the burden is on the other side of the Debate to prove that if officials indulge in shedding positive light on their religion with statements, that it will somehow harm society through political involvement of the Church is somehow hurting our freedoms/hurting society in some way. It doesn't."

[Darog the Badger God]

So Boerd said
The burden of proof is on whomever is making the statement. I can say green swans exist. You cannot prove they don't. Therefore you can only say you don't know. By making the assertion that they don't, the burden is on you to prove it. Green swans exist is an verifiable, unfalsifiable statement. The opposite is unverifiable and falsifiable. Making a definitive statement which is unverifiable is silly, don't you think?The burden is on the atheist and the theist both. It is not on the agnostic.

Oh hey, your hyperbole is showing.

You should get that fixed.

[So Boerd]

I am now a God because I say so. You can't disprove that. Now worship me in my newly founded church of Brovism. The one tenet is that you must wear a silly hat. Also gimmie all your monies plox or else you will go to candy-land and die over and over from cholesterol.

I don't believe you, a view I gained from my intuition, however strictly rationally, I don't know. That would be why I included the bit about the agnostic having no burden.

[Gwazi Magnum]

The Nexerus said They are all divinely inspired. You seem to misunderstand the teachings of Christianity with regard to scripture; God did not literally reach down with an ethereal hand and physically write the Bible. It was written, according to Christian teaching, by human beings who were divinely inspired. The same thing occurs with Islam and the Quran—Muslims believe that the angel Gabriel, as a representative of God, gave Muhammad the knowledge to write what he did, just as he had done with the prophets of the older faiths, whom Muslims recognize as legitimate prophets (including Jesus, even). Jews believe the same sort of thing about the prophets.You need to remember that the Old Covenant and the New Covenant are entirely separate, and made with God between two different parties—in the older case, the Israelites, and in the newer case, all of humanity. The reason that the Old Testament and New Testament are both within the Bible is what I've been telling you in all of my posts so far, but that you've apparently ignored. Context. The Old Testament explains the prophecy of the Messiah, of 'Christ', and tells the mutual heritage of all of the Abrahamic faiths: Judaism, Christianity and Islam alike. There's also the matter of a disagreement amount the different denominations of Christians over whether some of the Old Testament, specifically the Old Covenant, does apply to Christians. In my previous post I expressed the most mainstream view: that they're entirely and completely separate, and the Old Covenant is in no way whatsoever binding to Christians. There is also a popular view among Protestant Christian denominations that the moral teachings of the Old Covenant apply to Christians, but not the pen of the laws and rules for Orthodox Jews.The Old Testament is a part of the Bible chiefly for contextual and historical reasons, but some denominations also believe that the moral teachings ring true as well. No one besides Jewish Christians would tell you that Christians must be Torah-submissive.

So basically you're saying the OT is man's word and the NT is God's word?

If so, how are we to know that the NT is not also just mans word?
If you look at it from what the Bible says, it's all Gods word so you're expected to listen to all of it.

If you look at it from personal interpretation, that's where the thousands of different denominations of Christianity popped up from.
But once you're at that point it's no longer trying to establish fact on what God said, but rather what you personally want God to of said.

Since we currently have no proof of God existing and no way of asking said God which parts are his own, all we have to go by is the Bible (Well, we could actually go by history, but history would show the Bible is 100% man made, no God's intervention. So to give you some benefit of the doubt, we'll go at it from what the Bible says). And the Bible says it is all God's word, OT and NT.

So Boerd said Let me adopt a different tactic. Every scientist on Planet Earth, Dawkins included, knocks on your door and says there is a God. Do you then believe?

Do they provide proper proof and evidence?
Observable, physical, repeatable proof and evidence?

If so, probably. If no, I have no more reason to believe them than I do Ray Comfort.

So Boerd said I don't pretend to be rational.

You sure you don't want to take that back?

Kho said I am here to debate and learn. If we avoid this topic at school, and we avoid it at social gatherings, and we avoid it in the workplace and only ever see opinionated people who will not change their minds argue about it on T.V, then why can we not discuss it here, on the internet. I understand you might have seen many God debates, but as you may have noticed, this is a first for me here, and I am quite interested in learning more and in contributing what I believe I know. We need to end this custom of 'argument for the sake of argument and debate for the sake of debate.'

I am here to debate, and I am here to learn from it and change my mind, and I am hoping people are just as open as I am in that regard. I will personally be the first to end it if I feel it is going nowhere.

Heh, I like you! :)

Kho said Edit: I just realised that I have suddenly lost interest in this debate. I have too many other things to focus on, it was a mistake to join, but I couldn't help it Maybe I'll start a proper debate about this and we can continue this some other time. Adios.

Well darn... :(

ActRaiserTheReturned said The burden of proof is one whomever there is more evidence against. There is yet no proof that there is more evidence against theists.

It's simple math.
Science has tons of proof and evidence.
Religion has no proof and evidence.
Therefore by subtracting nothing from a ton our total is... There is more evidence against.

ActRaiserTheReturned said If you think there is no evidence against athiests or agnostics, etcetera, then leave theists alone and let them believe what they want. Hands off their freedom of belief. Agree to disagree and be civilized.

As long as they agree to stop...

1) Teaching it to the next generation as if it's fact
1a) And down talk/shelter/hide the teaching of science to the next generation

2) Trying to push it into schools

3) Push it into law

4) Let it influence how they treat others

5) Trying to push it into Science

Then sure. But all these things are still happening, so it's still going to be debated.

So Boerd said The burden of proof is on whomever is making the statement. I can say green swans exist. You cannot prove they don't. Therefore you can only say you don't know. By making the assertion that they don't, the burden is on you to prove it. Green swans exist is an verifiable, unfalsifiable statement. The opposite is unverifiable and falsifiable. Making a definitive statement which is unverifiable is silly, don't you think?The burden is on the atheist and the theist both. It is not on the agnostic.

Like was already stated, the burden on proof is whoever make's the claim.
You claim God is real? Prove it. If you can't we have no reason to believe in it.
Combined with the fact it is impossible to disprove a negative since it has no evidence to start with (therefore leaving nothing to truly disprove it with), it is safe to say it doesn't exist rather than to simply say you don't know.

Brovo said I am now a God because I say so.

Praise be onto you

Brovo said You can't disprove that. Now worship me in my newly founded church of Brovism.

All bow before the almighty and logical Brovo!

Brovo said The one tenet is that you must wear a silly hat.

Oh boy! This is my favourite tenet ever! :D

Brovo said Or else you will go to candy-land and die over and over from cholesterol.

... I LOVE THIS NEW RELIGION!

[So Boerd]

but history would show the Bible is 100% man made, no God's intervention.

Here we go again with that whole making claims without showing evidence. Your priest of science would be proud.

Do they provide proper proof and evidence?
Observable, physical, repeatable proof and evidence?

Why should that matter? You make decisions with serious, tangible, consequences on much shakier testimony, or testimony that says it has evidence. This decision has no consequences and stronger proof.

it is safe to say it doesn't exist rather than to simply say you don't know.

Go up to a mathematician and say the Riemann hypothesis is false because no one has proven it. Watch them laugh and ask to see your proof.

[So Boerd]

Teaching it to the next generation as if it's fact

2) Trying to push it into schools

3) Push it into law

4) Let it influence how they treat others

Any reason why your moral values are acceptable and a religious person's are not? Can you prove your moral values?

You can't argue consequences, Communism has killed more and in less time. Communism made the lot of the common man worse in the long run. But I don't see you taking such a hard stance on it.

Biggest killers in history, all atheists. Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot.