tldr: summary at the bottom
Big Mike;356456 wroteI have to call BS on this one. You believe in things with 'zero proof' every day. Of all the facts you can think of, how many of them have you independently verified the truth of? Or have you merely accepted the testimony of another (or many others) as proof?
are you being serious here? independently verifying something and researching/reading the proofs already proven by others is very different. please show me where the proof of god's existence is because you're suggesting that there is some. please show me and all the other doubters out there. you'd really be doing us a service (i.e. saving our souls).
as for everything else that i 'believe' in with 'zero proof', can you give some examples. what do i believe in that has zero proof? what do i believe in that i can't easily do some a google search on and find the scientific evidence that proves it? furthermore, how do you even know what i believe in? pretty sure you're coming off here as slightly arrogant in suggesting that you know exactly what i think, but i'll ignore that for now if you can show me this definitive proof of god.
again, i should stipulate that i also question the theory of the big bang, for example, along with other so called scientific theories, so perhaps you should get to know me better before you start making assumptions on what i believe in. i don't just doubt religion thank you very much.
There is ample evidence that Jesus existed, and that God exists, and that he is active in the world today. You simple choose to discount/disbelieve/explain away this evidence, which is your prerogative.
if you show me evidence that i can't disprove then i will agree with you. i can't argue against facts. i'm not that good. so again, please show me instead of just saying 'it's out there and you're just ignoring it'.
There is no proof man has ever walked on the moon - though I believe the evidence strongly suggests someone did - to the point that I accept it as fact. Similarly there is evidence that aliens have visited the earth. I don't believe it, though some do.
okay, now i'm really thinking you're not being serious. there is proof that man walked on the moon. you can find tons and tons of information about the moon landing. you can speak to tons and tons of people who worked for nasa, worked on the rocket, conducted research on rocks and crap they brought back etc. there are videos of it, tons of records, and so on. now, if there was that much evidence to prove god's existence we'd be having a different conversation here.
and btw, to say 'there's no proof' but the 'evidence strongly suggests' doesn't quite make sense. you may want to rephrase your argument here. (i.e. definition of evidence:
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof. AND
something that
makes plain
or clear; an indication or sign)
there is evidence of aliens? please show me that as well. this is probably another thread topic though, but i'd be interested in this for sure. aliens are my second favourite apocalypse scenario (behind zombies obviously).
You can choose to believe the latter case applies more to the claims of christians (or whichever religion),
um...what? latter in this case is referring to aliens? i'm lost here to what you're trying to say. please explain more.
but saying you need 'proof' of something before believing it is (hopefully) untrue.
wait, are you saying that me needing proof to believe in something is hopefully untrue!? wft? so you wish that all people just believed in things without proof? wft? i strongly hope that i'm just misunderstanding you here because...damn that's scary.
to be honest, this is one of the things that scares me the most about religions fanatics. they don't need proof that they are right, they just 'know' it and that's all the proof they need to convince themselves that what they are doing is right. it's the excuse for the crusades and pretty much every other war between different religions. obviously no one can prove your belief to be wrong as it's just what you want to believe. like i mentioned previously, atheists can have a big problem on their hands just like religious people. agnostics (and all skeptics for that matter) hold off judgment without proper evidence. obviously we can argue about what is 'proper' evidence though as well if you'd like.
edit: Almost forgot to answer your question. If you're choosing not to believe something, then yes, it is your fault.
that was not what i said but you're close. i never said that i choose to not believe. i said i choose to question it without sufficient evidence to prove it. so does the fact that i question it and not just blindly believe make me a bad person? didn't god give me the power to question and make my own choice? well, my choice is i need to know things with (i'm stealing from descartes here as i don't really have a proper term in mind at the moment) 'a clear and distinct perception' before i can believe in them. god has not supplied me with this clear and distinct perception. in fact, it's his plan not to supply anyone (minus all those guys 2000 years ago) with any evidence at all of his existence.
this is fun so i'll try to explain in more details.
god gave us the rational capacity to think and choose for ourselves, our free will (which i'm assuming for this argument). at the same time, he gave us zero proof of his existence (again, please show me the definitive proof if you have some. i've asked this a couple times and i still haven't seen anyone offer any yet). so, the logical conclusion here is that god just set up this test for us in our lives. he created rational, free thinking, sentient beings. he gave them tons of evidence to question his existence. he provided zero evidence of his existence. then he expects us to believe in him just because he allegedly said so 2000 years ago. for some omniscient, omnipotent being, that sounds pretty damn stupid to me.
not to mention, i doubt things that people say to my face. i doubt things that i read online all the time. so why the hell would i just believe some account that has been altered and rewritten by some guys 2000 years ago?
idk, i can even get into my opinions on the general concept of 'tradition' as well. i can't even fathom why people just accept 'traditional' things as good simply because 'it's tradition'. just makes absolutely no sense to me. again, this is probably another thread topic though.
tldr: blah blah blah