He Who Claims "God", Has A Moral Obligation To Produce Evidence.

He who continue to support this claim of belief in God has a moral
obligation to produce a physical evidence that is beyond any reasonable doubt,
otherwise this claim of "God" is to be rendered as moot and academic.

polscie

 

OK!

What do you breath?

What do you eat?

What do you need of drink?

What are you made of?

What universe are you alive in?

Have you ever left?

What is God itself, but your creator; mother nature!


ie..... mankind is just a life within this body of god and created all the other gods with the words that mankind created.

 

Yeah.... words like "mother nature".

 

Response: Similarly, those who claim that there is no God have the same obligation to prove so.

 

am a bit confused.
help me out.
God is my creator?
so what is the role of your mother nature here.

So are you claiming that god and mother nature is all but one?
Because as I see it, mother nature does exist.
But I really doubt if ever "God" exist.

polscie

 

Why should someone who doesn't believe have to prove it? If I was born and raised isolated from the world and never once heard of god, do i still have to prove his existance non existence? Im sure I might question my existence but I don't see how jesus would ever enter my mind without another human putting it there.

Since my earliest memories I have been told that I would suffer in my afterlife if I didn't believe in god. I have never seen or heard from god. I have never seen or heard from aliens or dragons either. All of which including god were told to me by man. Yet I have to prove there is no god? Do I have to prove there is no dragons to? I guess so. After being a god fearing man for so many years it truly was a wonderful feeling losing the fear and belief in god. I haven't changed. I still fight to protect life and follow basic principles in the bible like I always have. I still support the church and all the good they do for people around the world. But having to prove what someone else tells you doesn't make since to me.

 

mother nature is your creator "God" itself.

mother nature itself, is your 'god' but you just dont know it

ie... every phenomenon is from 'god' (mother nature)

mankind made the invisible man

so stick with what is real

ie....mankind can create an airplane, not the invisible man.

Mankind is a part of 'god' (nature) and with words, can create.

pinnacle of evolution: existence comprehending itself

ie... we are of 'god' (nature) defining itself

what's the 'name' to know?

 

I have challenged him several times to show proof that 'mother nature' is "God", but he refuses to accept that challenge. I can't imagine why.

 

Silly really. You demand proof of something you don't believe. Rings of insecurity.

 

Moral obligation? The belief in God requires faith. Since that is unacceptable to you, you're on your own.

 

Those who claim the affirmative have the burden of proof.

 

Are you now forced to slip back into that early childhood mentality?

 

LOL. Tell me, how do you prove that God does not exist? Perhaps I will make my own religion where that little guy at the end of the rainbow with the pot of gold is the one and only true God. Please prove to me that I am wrong. (-;

Arguing theology is so fun, because there is no way to prove right or wrong... it is all a matter of faith, personal experience and perspective.

 

Bold! Also rude as hell. Leave people alone and let them relish in their beliefs. If they approach you and offend you with their beliefs, be the bigger person and enlighten them respectfully on yours. That was pretty (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)-tastic of you.

 

Seems to be the most logical way to explain illogical beliefs.

 

The Idea.

Some have tried to make me produce evidence. I am god.

 

From the point of view of the child intellect which expressed it, I suppose you would consider it the most 'logical' way.

 

Or.. I has baseball, but I got it from a snake and its on fire and inside of a whale.

 

More child like imaginations. You people are really in need of some education.

 

Religion does seem to have that effect.

 

If anything Sean Faircloth conveys in the video below is true then there is indeed a moral obligation to take the burden of proof seriously among some religious groups.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTCGx6M4K-Y"]Atheism: A New Strategy. Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science, US - YouTube[/ame]

 

Moral obligation according to who? Most atheists are subjective moralists. They believe that morality is simply an invention of man which varies from culture to culture and person to person and holds no absolute truths. So whose morals state that anyone has an obligation to produce evidence for God, and more importantly, why are those morals any more important than anyone else’s?

For example, I say atheists have a moral obligation to constantly remain humble and open-minded and re-examine their beliefs daily in order to make sure they are not becoming closed-minded and arrogant. What makes your assertion any more correct than mine?

 

Ah, the copout. The scoundrel's argument of choice. "If I take the negative, I never have to prove anything." Classic.

How can you firmly believe in a negative if you can never prove it to be true? Aren't you operating on faith there? You know, that thing you ridicule religious people about?

 

A moral obligation towards those a religious tenet is being imposed upon.

It's not about evidence of a god as such (that's a moot issue anyway since such evidence can't even exist) but about common decency and respect for the intellectual integrity of fellow human beings.

For example, just 1:25 into the video above, Sean Faircloth mentions a congresswoman who fought for bringing creationism into science class and was asked if she believed in evolution, to which she allegedly replied, "I'm a Christian. What else do you want to know?"
Well, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as Carl Sagan said, not an entirely rotten approach like the one sported by this congresswoman.

Evidence.

 

An absence of a positive is not necessarily a negative. The negation of a positive such as "Zeus exists" is "Zeus does not exist". However, I couldn't care less if Zeus existed or not. So I do not negate claims of Zeus' existence.

I'm indifferent to either claim of Zeus' existence. If you ask me, I will of course have to tell you that I've seen no evidence of Zeus and therefore that he almost certainly doesn't exist but that's a conclusion (and a positive one at that) purely based upon available evidence.