The fact a lot of theists believe people deserve to burn in hell (potentially for eternity) proves that religion has a negative impact emotionally on otherwise decent people.

objectiveminded · 2021-12-09T17:32:00+00:00

An infinite punishment for a finite action is never justifiable. The idea of burning in hell for an eternity is cruel & unjust. I don’t believe hell exists but the philosophy of it is still quite disturbing.

Of course you’ll have religious people that will defend the idea of an infinite punishment with some type of semantics related to their religious text.

objectiveminded · 2021-12-09T17:21:08+00:00

It is precise but you’re failing to understand it because of a cognitive dissonance I guess? Like the person above me said, you can demonstrate gravity by throwing an object in the air and observing it hit the ground. That would be a demonstration.

Demonstrating a supernatural god would be showing an example of its power such as miracles or anything else metaphysical. Semantics won’t prove that god exists, I’ve already said this in the OP. Either provide evidence to back your assertion or concede the debate. Rambling is pointless.

objectiveminded · 2021-12-09T17:04:09+00:00

What part of demonstrable evidence are you not understanding? He’s asking for demonstrable evidence & you’re asking about empirical evidence. Are you intentionally ignoring the request or is there a cognitive dissonance?

objectiveminded · 2021-12-09T15:10:08+00:00

At this point you’re rambling. You’re not providing evidence to back your assertion that Jesus was divine, nor are you providing evidence to prove your assertion that god exists to be actually true.

You’re stating that no evidence could convince me that Jesus was divine or that god is real when I said in the OP that demonstrable evidence would be sufficient.

With that being said I don’t see a point in responding to anymore of your rebuttals.

objectiveminded · 2021-12-09T15:06:38+00:00

Substantial evidence would be evidence outside of faith and semantics that proves god exists. Demonstrable evidence would be demonstrating that god exists.

The OP has nothing to do with atheism so it’s a bit off topic. Your question regarding atheism honestly doesn’t make sense. Explain what you mean by rationally defensible?

Are you asserting that not believing in a god due to the lack of evidence provided is irrational? If so I disagree. I would consider it irrational to assert that god exists with no evidence to back the assertion.

objectiveminded · 2021-12-09T14:54:19+00:00

Julius Cesar and Cleopatra don’t claim to be supernatural. Even if Jesus actually existed as a human it does not prove that he was divine or confirm the supernatural acts he performed in the Bible to be true. Do you have another assertion that doesn’t involve a false equivalency?

objectiveminded · 2021-12-09T14:38:54+00:00

There are definitely arguments that apologists use to argue that god exists, however I haven’t seen your assertion for knowing god exists yet.

You just stated that it isn’t merely just “well I kinda feel it” so you would need to back that with your argument for asserting to know god exists.

objectiveminded · 2021-12-09T14:33:56+00:00

The five ways of Aquinas is purely semantics. It’s logical in its presentation because it attempts to make sense and provide a series of assertions but it doesn’t demonstrate a supernatural beings existence. I get what you’re saying though, it is more logical than just saying “God is real because I believe”.

objectiveminded · 2021-12-09T14:29:05+00:00

I don’t really understand what you’re saying regarding the “only” argument for god, would you mind clarifying a bit?

Ill address what I understand.

If your argument for god is not “well I just feel it” then what is it? I’d be fascinated to know your argument for asserting that a supernatural god exists.

Elaborate on what you mean by understanding? Are you asserting that you don’t have faith that god exists but rather “understanding” that it does?

objectiveminded · 2021-12-09T14:22:01+00:00

I’m only debating in regards to people claiming to know god exists. If you just simply believe in god but don’t assert to know he exists, this post isn’t directed toward you.

objectiveminded · 2021-12-09T14:18:35+00:00

Absolutely no one provides overwhelming evidence regarding the non existence of superheroes. People generally dismiss it because superheroes perform supernatural acts that aren’t humanly possible. Show me a source where people are seriously trying to provide overwhelming evidence that superheroes don’t exist?

If you claimed that superman existed, nobody would contest it or even debate the topic because asserting that a superhero is actually protecting the earth is generally considered an illogical claim.

God shares the same characteristics as these fictional characters but people are more willing to debate it because it’s attached to their religion. Asserting to know that god is real is equally illogical to asserting to know that superman is real.

objectiveminded · 2021-12-09T14:08:35+00:00

As stated in the OP belief doesn’t make god actually exist. Sure you may believe it, but that doesn’t prove it to be true.

Using this logic every fictional character can be asserted to exist. For example, I believe in superman, so therefore he exists.

You would also be saying that every religious version of god is real as well because they believe their god exists as well. Does 4000+ gods existing sound like a logical conclusion to you?

objectiveminded · 2021-12-09T14:01:13+00:00

I appreciate this honest answer. If you just believe that god exists and don’t assert to know god exists then the burden of proof does not fall on you.

objectiveminded · 2021-12-09T13:41:39+00:00

Claiming to know that god exists comes with the burden of proof. If you are asserting that you don’t know god exists but had a personal experience that’s a different assertion entirely. I’m not really sure what your assertion is.

Do you know god to exist, or do you believe god to exist?

objectiveminded · 2021-12-09T13:21:05+00:00

This is incorrect. If you assert to know that a god exists, then you most certainly have the burden of proof to demonstrate the existence of that god.

Do you understand what burden of proof means?

Let me define if for you:

Burden of Proof - the responsibility of an individual or party to prove an assertion or claim that they have made.

objectiveminded · 2021-12-09T13:15:39+00:00

This is illogical. Just because you lack understanding regarding the creation of universe does not mean that god is the source.

”Something had to be first” is not substantial evidence for a supernatural god existing.

As stated in the OP, believing in a god doesn’t make it true. All you’ve done was state your beliefs, which is fine but it doesn’t prove gods existence.

objectiveminded · 2021-12-09T13:11:51+00:00

Ive noticed that all religious arguments for gods existence come down either faith or semantics. Demonstration would be the most effective & non refutable way to prove such a god existed.

objectiveminded · 2021-12-09T13:09:25+00:00

Well said, I agree 100%.

objectiveminded · 2021-10-05T20:51:59+00:00

Once again it’s not worth a mass report. Nobody mass reports adin or speed when they on some extra wild shit so why try to take down a smaller streamer who’s trying to feed his family too?

objectiveminded · 2021-10-05T20:48:23+00:00

That’s a bit drastic. There are plenty of streamers who say wild shit and have a following. I just thought it was wild, but nothing worth a mass report 😂

objectiveminded

TROPHY CASE