Theists structure their beliefs so they can not be disproven. Agree/Disagree?

Answer 1

Agree. Superstition (dogma, if you prefer) is not based upon reason, and goes against it. Sophistry (lying) is the only recourse of those pushing it. However learned, however skilled at debate, the final recourse of the proselytizer is faith, which can be claimed to support anything.

I was raised southern Baptist and have heard the circular arguments for a god ad nauseum.

I assume you're not including Pantheists.

Answer 2

No i disagree. A lot of their beliefs.... like for Christians the belief that the Bible is the Word of a God. Can be almost completely disproven. They just refuse to accept that. They call it Faith and stick their fingers in their Ears.

Answer 3

No, I don't think theists go out of their way to do this. It's that theism and other religious beliefs are, by their very nature, based on subjective experiences and personal revelations. So "proof" or "disproof" is not really applicable in an objective sense. Of course, when theists claim their beliefs apply to everyone else, it's a another story.

Answer 4

Disagree, "I" could not have structured "my" beliefs; because I was born in the 1960's and the faith I have in the LORD God has been around for almost 6000 years -- look at the date on a Jewish calendar. {Hebrew Date Converter Thu, 4 October 2007 = 22nd of Tishrei, 5768}
http://www.hebcal.com/converter/

Non-Biblical evidence of “my” faith in the LORD God, inscribed on the Black Obelisk is the name of an “Israelite King” (a Jew). This is dated to the time of Shalmaneser III who reigned between 858-824 BC.
http://www.specialtyinterests.net/cuneiform_writing.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Obelisk
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/jerutime.html

Jesus the Christ and all of His Disciples were of the Jewish religion. The term Christianity was first used when Paul and Barnabas were in Antioch.
http://www.luthersem.edu/ckoester/Paul/Journey1/AntiochPisidia.htm

The Judeo-Christian religion is the only one in the world, in which holy texts / writings are being discovered (Torah, Tanankh, Bible, and Dead Sea Scrolls). IF this were a false faith or a disproved religion, why are there over 25,000 manuscripts in existence?
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1031&letter=B#3063
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/bible-manuscripts.htm
http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Manuscript.html
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/scrolls/toc.html
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/features/scrolls/exodus.htm

Answer 5

I agree to an extent where as the the disapproval part is limited to themselves only.No matter what anybody proves or disproves,they stick to their guns and rightly so.A blind belief has to have a hermetically sealed MIND.

Answer 6

I think that fanatics and zealots--religious or political--tend to use all sorts of sophistry and circular logic in support of their belief systems.

Answer 7

I doubt there was premeditated thought of that kind. "Hmmm, let's come up with one that the athiests won't be able to shoot down"? No, can't see that being a plausible scenario.

Occam's Razor, dude.

Answer 8

Disagree.

Your making it sound too complicated. They simply cling onto that silly thing called faith.

Answer 9

in maximum cases information against a element *is in fact* information for that's opposite and vice versa (information for a element is information against its opposite). working example, think of if I stated "There are actually not any eco-friendly adult adult males on Mars" and additionally you're saying "There are eco-friendly adult adult males on Mars." Then, we bypass to Mars and discover one eco-friendly guy. that's information against my fact and on your fact. Atheists use one in all those argument each and all the time. working example, they say that the shown fact that there is no information FOR God is information that there is no God. i've got talked to a lot of Atheists who think of that in the event that they are able to tutor that the Cosmological Argument for the existence of God (or any of the different arguments) is fallacious that, subsequently, God shouldn't exist. on occasion that's real that absence of information is information of absence (the theory of ether). on occasion that's not real (no information that there are actually not eco-friendly adult adult males on Mars does not mean we could continually have faith that there are eco-friendly adult adult males on Mars). So your question has some problems. For one element, it creates a sweeping generalization of what "theists" do... needless to say ATHEISTS do the comparable element. for yet another element, the full premise that "disproving something does not mean your theory is nice" is purely too huge. on occasion it does, on occasion it does not. That relies upon on the question, the character of the question, this form of information discovered, etc. ultimately, your shown fact that "you may tutor what you assert is nice" is absurd. tutor to me which you may tutor that what you assert is nice. in spite of everything, you think of that fact is nice, do not you? yet you have not shown it! so which you're falling wanting your very own accepted. as quickly as you tutor that to me, then tutor to me that the information you have given is nice. and then tutor to me that the information of the information you have given is nice. the theory that we could continually could "tutor" each thing is absurd. What does the notice "information" even mean? maximum philosophers would define "information" as a cogent argument. yet cogent arguments are *person relative*. so as that what's "information" for one person would not be "information" for yet another person. back, you're purely portray with too huge a broom. specific, some issues could be "shown" (despite which ability), yet to make a blanket shown fact that we could continually "could tutor what you assert" is obviously absurd.

Answer 10

you make it sound like everyone in this world is out to make a fool of the other :)