|
United States7483 Posts
On July 08 2012 13:16 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 02:57 ShadeR wrote: David Hume on the virgin birth.
"What is more likely: that the whole natural order is suspended or that a Jewish minx should tell a lie?"
(emphasis my own) a circular argument. you've started by assuming that Mary was a liar and a promiscuous girl. a more proper question, from the Christian perspective would be: is it more likely that God should lie, or that he should be fully capable of reworking his reality however he sees fit? of course, this too assumes that God is real and that he is good. the problem with such arguments then is that our conclusion must prove our premise, no matter how we look at it. you cannot assume Mary is a liar and then ask if she would lie and still claim a logical ground. just as i cannot assume that Mary was truthful and claim logical ground. logic has nothing to do with it.
You missed the point. It isn't a question of assumptions at all, it doesn't matter what you assume. In fact, assume nothing, and take a perspective of pure probabilities.
What is the probability that there is a god, who is also good, who wouldn't lie, who also told us this particular story as completely true, suspended the natural order of birth to create a virgin birth to have his son, versus the probability that Mary (or someone else at some point who had the power to do so) lied?
If you want to be reasonable about this, you'd examine it from both perspectives (that of a believer and a non-believer) just for the sake of posterity. From the perspective of a believer, it seems ridiculous, because you're a believer and you already accept all of the requirements for this story as fact. At this point, it merely becomes a question of finding evidence to prove the story true, since you are the claimant (that it is true, burden of proof and all that). The non-believer would very likely find the probabilities drastically favor the lie or some requirement of god (if he exists) not to fall into place for this story to be true, and that's that, he doesn't have the burden of proof.
|
we should repair bronze leaguers to be grandmaster
|
On July 08 2012 13:21 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 13:16 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 08 2012 02:57 ShadeR wrote: David Hume on the virgin birth.
"What is more likely: that the whole natural order is suspended or that a Jewish minx should tell a lie?"
(emphasis my own) a circular argument. you've started by assuming that Mary was a liar and a promiscuous girl. a more proper question, from the Christian perspective would be: is it more likely that God should lie, or that he should be fully capable of reworking his reality however he sees fit? of course, this too assumes that God is real and that he is good. the problem with such arguments then is that our conclusion must prove our premise, no matter how we look at it. you cannot assume Mary is a liar and then ask if she would lie and still claim a logical ground. just as i cannot assume that Mary was truthful and claim logical ground. logic has nothing to do with it. You missed the point. It isn't a question of assumptions at all, it doesn't matter what you assume. In fact, assume nothing, and take a perspective of pure probabilities. What is the probability that there is a god, who is also good, who wouldn't lie, who also told us this particular story as completely true, suspended the natural order of birth to create a virgin birth to have his son, versus the probability that Mary (or someone else at some point who had the power to do so) lied? If you want to be reasonable about this, you'd examine it from both perspectives (that of a believer and a non-believer) just for the sake of posterity. From the perspective of a believer, it seems ridiculous, because you're a believer and you already accept all of the requirements for this story as fact. At this point, it merely becomes a question of finding evidence to prove the story true, since you are the claimant (that it is true, burden of proof and all that). The non-believer would very likely find the probabilities drastically favor the lie or some requirement of god (if he exists) not to fall into place for this story to be true, and that's that, he doesn't have the burden of proof. there is no probability. or, more accurately, there is no possible way for you or I, or anyone else, for determining the probability. and the original quote was doing exactly what i accused it of, and more. it was not only begging the question, it was using purposefully loaded language.
the problem with your next statement lies with your misunderstanding of my belief. at no point do i desire, or attempt to give, proof of my beliefs. belief is not about proof, and to desire proof is to desire exactly that which i am forbidden from desiring. thus, i have no desire to find any "evidence" for my belief in God, because 1) i do not believe in evidence for such a thing, and 2) evidence is not important in this discussion.
furthermore, burden of proof lies on those who wish to convince others of their position using scientific means. i have no desire to convince you of my position using science, nor logic. in matters of religion, i reject both science and logic as adequate tools of finding spiritual connection or belief. from my perspective, i have no more burden of proof than a man who claims that the sun exists. it is as clear to me, clearer in fact, that God is real in every sense of the word. it's not a matter of proving or disproving for me, and it never will be.
sadly, i think we have gotten off-topic. discussing this any more would only contribute to the degradation of the thread.
|
On July 08 2012 13:20 Kluey wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 12:16 Whitewing wrote:
Marriage requires one man and one woman? How about the thousands of years of history on this planet where it was quite common for a man to have many wives? That's not "one man one woman". How about the absurd amount of ancient civilizations where gay sex and lesbian sex were commonplace and not a problem at all? Have you ever read the Iliad? Yeah, Patroklus was Achille's gay lover, not his cousin as he's portrayed in the blockbuster film Troy.
Marriage is a religious thing isn't it? AFAIK, it is? That being said, the church/mosque/synagogue can choose who they wish to marry. I don't see why gays want a marriage anyways... I'm not too educated on the financial benefits or whatever but as far as just the fact that you're 'eternally related and loving couples from now on' is bullshit. Just love each other without a marriage... Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 12:16 Whitewing wrote:
When you can prove god made us (you can start with the tiniest shred of evidence, I'll wait), we can start talking about whether this is right or wrong based on that. Until then, stop trying to push your beliefs that lack any evidence at all on other people.
Atheists are even worse when it comes to religion. Most people blindly believe in evolution and natural selection and big bang because it's easier and makes you look smart. It's in 'in thing to do'. Religion does have a lot of evidence behind it. Hindu's worshiping cows and drinking their pee isn't religion. That is culture and rituals. A single creator that created this universe has a lot of evidence behind it. In short, here's the main points: - Something cannot come out of nothing. You can't have a universe or us without something being there first. - Thus, we introduce the God character. Why? Because something supernatural and something that we cannot recreate or even understand is a better explanation to the creation of the natural universe than something coming out of nothing. - God was not created because you can't have infinite chain of events. It has to stop somewhere. Why not stop at just the universe? Because a natural thing creating itself is less probable than a supernatural thing creating a natural thing. - Intelligent design. It's a cliche but it's one of the best arguments. Evolution simply has not had enough time on Earth. Especially if you're talking about Apes ~> Humans. There is a very small percentage of DNA difference between us and apes yet we are so advanced and they are living in trees, eating banana's. - Design indicated a designer which indicates a will. Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 12:16 Whitewing wrote:
And if you're predicting persecution for your church by the gay-rights lobby, it's because they completely deserve to be persecuted for bigotry and disgusting spiteful and hateful behavior. People should not have to hide who they are (yes, we have actual evidence that people are born this way and it's not a choice, you can argue against that when you have evidence of your own) just because other people think it's wrong or dislike it for their own religious reasons.
There is 6 billion humans on this planet. Why? Because we want to reproduce/sex. It's one of our needs along with water, air, food, and shelter. If you put 100 gays on a seperate planet, how long would they survive as species? Being gay isn't something you are born with, it's a choice. The straight, natural way of life is why humans have been so successful as species. Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 12:16 Whitewing wrote: You're entitled to think whatever you like about this issue, but as soon as you start talking about it, you're helping to make the lives of a lot of people miserable by attempting to crush their very identity, and that's NOT okay, not without a good reason, and a religious one does not qualify as a good reason.
Pull your head out of your ass and educate yourself before you start spouting your opinion around like it's fact. By forcing churches to marry gay couples, you aren't doing that much good either. Also, by making this gay-straight thing into a political matter is wrong. Gays are abused so badly right now. Any politician that wants votes will start supporting gays. Also, you have no proof that your words are a fact. Also, opinions aren't suppose to be facts, they are suppose to be supported by facts. (the way you start being really heroic and then ask us to pull our heads out of our asses is really cute)
You're clearly not very informed on the subject.
Marriage in todays society does not revolve around religion. It may, it just not necessitate it. I am atheist. I would like the option to get married someday.
Marriage, by the state, offers many benefits that if you are not married you would not receive.
Stating it's the "in" thing to do is utterly ridiculous. It's not remotely blind, and if you think it is such, you are truly ignorant. In fact, it's the exact opposite of blind. You can't possibly be anymore wrong.
You gave no evidence that being gay is a choice, and tried to somehow tie it in with the population dying out. Hilariously stupid.
Who the fuck is trying to force churches to marry gay couples?
Any politician that has the support of the right wing would lose the majority of his voter base if he started to support gays.
Your post, in its entirety, had nearly every single point wrong. I didn't realize it could be so bad.
|
United States7483 Posts
On July 08 2012 13:20 Kluey wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 12:16 Whitewing wrote:
Marriage requires one man and one woman? How about the thousands of years of history on this planet where it was quite common for a man to have many wives? That's not "one man one woman". How about the absurd amount of ancient civilizations where gay sex and lesbian sex were commonplace and not a problem at all? Have you ever read the Iliad? Yeah, Patroklus was Achille's gay lover, not his cousin as he's portrayed in the blockbuster film Troy.
Marriage is a religious thing isn't it? AFAIK, it is? That being said, the church/mosque/synagogue can choose who they wish to marry. I don't see why gays want a marriage anyways... I'm not too educated on the financial benefits or whatever but as far as just the fact that you're 'eternally related and loving couples from now on' is bullshit. Just love each other without a marriage... Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 12:16 Whitewing wrote:
When you can prove god made us (you can start with the tiniest shred of evidence, I'll wait), we can start talking about whether this is right or wrong based on that. Until then, stop trying to push your beliefs that lack any evidence at all on other people.
Atheists are even worse when it comes to religion. Most people blindly believe in evolution and natural selection and big bang because it's easier and makes you look smart. It's in 'in thing to do'. Religion does have a lot of evidence behind it. Hindu's worshiping cows and drinking their pee isn't religion. That is culture and rituals. A single creator that created this universe has a lot of evidence behind it. In short, here's the main points: - Something cannot come out of nothing. You can't have a universe or us without something being there first. - Thus, we introduce the God character. Why? Because something supernatural and something that we cannot recreate or even understand is a better explanation to the creation of the natural universe than something coming out of nothing. - God was not created because you can't have infinite chain of events. It has to stop somewhere. Why not stop at just the universe? Because a natural thing creating itself is less probable than a supernatural thing creating a natural thing. - Intelligent design. It's a cliche but it's one of the best arguments. Evolution simply has not had enough time on Earth. Especially if you're talking about Apes ~> Humans. There is a very small percentage of DNA difference between us and apes yet we are so advanced and they are living in trees, eating banana's. - Design indicated a designer which indicates a will. Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 12:16 Whitewing wrote:
And if you're predicting persecution for your church by the gay-rights lobby, it's because they completely deserve to be persecuted for bigotry and disgusting spiteful and hateful behavior. People should not have to hide who they are (yes, we have actual evidence that people are born this way and it's not a choice, you can argue against that when you have evidence of your own) just because other people think it's wrong or dislike it for their own religious reasons.
There is 6 billion humans on this planet. Why? Because we want to reproduce/sex. It's one of our needs along with water, air, food, and shelter. If you put 100 gays on a seperate planet, how long would they survive as species? Being gay isn't something you are born with, it's a choice. The straight, natural way of life is why humans have been so successful as species. Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 12:16 Whitewing wrote: You're entitled to think whatever you like about this issue, but as soon as you start talking about it, you're helping to make the lives of a lot of people miserable by attempting to crush their very identity, and that's NOT okay, not without a good reason, and a religious one does not qualify as a good reason.
Pull your head out of your ass and educate yourself before you start spouting your opinion around like it's fact. By forcing churches to marry gay couples, you aren't doing that much good either. Also, by making this gay-straight thing into a political matter is wrong. Gays are abused so badly right now. Any politician that wants votes will start supporting gays. Also, you have no proof that your words are a fact. Also, opinions aren't suppose to be facts, they are suppose to be supported by facts. (the way you start being really heroic and then ask us to pull our heads out of our asses is really cute)
Marriage is not necessarily religious, there are secular marriages by the state (a judge oversees the ceremony). I have no issue with particular religions turning away gay marriages, as long as they don't attempt to pass laws banning secular marriages. Further, as to why they'd want to? It has social value to be married, and it has sentimental value. Lots of legal and monetary benefits too.
A single creator that created this universe has a lot of evidence behind it. In short, here's the main points:
- Something cannot come out of nothing. You can't have a universe or us without something being there first.
Logical fallacy, what do you base this on? We know for a fact that the laws of physics as we know it break down before the big bang, and there is no evidence or proof this is true. Why couldn't something come out of nothing before the big bang? It might not seem possible to us now, and it's difficult to conceptualize given our perspective, but it's actually impossible to find proof that something cannot come from nothing. You also assume (incorrectly) that time existed before the big bang, thus, there is no such actual thing as "before" it, technically speaking. Thus, there is no 'nothing' from which the universe supposedly came, it quite possibly always existed in the state of the big bang up until it's occurance, or in some other state before collapsing. Further, this brings up the question of what created god, if he exists. This is a bad argument. Not evidence
- Thus, we introduce the God character. Why? Because something supernatural and something that we cannot recreate or even understand is a better explanation to the creation of the natural universe than something coming out of nothing.
Refuted above.
- God was not created because you can't have infinite chain of events. It has to stop somewhere. Why not stop at just the universe? Because a natural thing creating itself is less probable than a supernatural thing creating a natural thing.
This argument you make refutes the one you made above, this is silly. You are contradicting yourself. You just said something cannot come from nothing as if that was a fact, but you also say god came from nothing. Not evidence, and an AWFUL argument.
- Intelligent design. It's a cliche but it's one of the best arguments. Evolution simply has not had enough time on Earth. Especially if you're talking about Apes ~> Humans. There is a very small percentage of DNA difference between us and apes yet we are so advanced and they are living in trees, eating banana's.
You clearly don't understand evolution at all. Humans did not develop from apes, both species had a common ancestor at some point in the path and then evolved down entirely different lines. Your argument about not enough time is false as well, and I guarantee you don't have any evidence to back up that claim (guess what, the earth is not 6,000 years old. Dinosaurs were around as recently as 54 million years on the same planet, and we have evidence that mammals survived the extinction event that killed them. Guess where we evolved from?)
- Design indicated a designer which indicates a will.
Assumption not in evidence. This is an argument from language rather than one from actual evidence, you're harping on the definition of design. If you want to play it this way, the obvious retort is that there is no design rather than random chance with certain probabilities that lead to this result in which we live. The anthropic principle should answer this one easily enough.
So no, you don't actually have any evidence at all.
There is 6 billion humans on this planet. Why? Because we want to reproduce/sex. It's one of our needs along with water, air, food, and shelter. If you put 100 gays on a seperate planet, how long would they survive as species?
Being gay isn't something you are born with, it's a choice. The straight, natural way of life is why humans have been so successful as species.
You have no evidence of that, and all scientific testing proves you wrong. Sorry, you are wrong. And this argument is silly and a huge logical fallacy. Not every human is gay, and we have proof that many people in history were gay as well. I'm sorry, you're just wrong. And as I've said before, the natural argument is a very common logical fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
By forcing churches to marry gay couples, you aren't doing that much good either. Also, by making this gay-straight thing into a political matter is wrong. Gays are abused so badly right now. Any politician that wants votes will start supporting gays.
Also, you have no proof that your words are a fact. Also, opinions aren't suppose to be facts, they are suppose to be supported by facts.
(the way you start being really heroic and then ask us to pull our heads out of our asses is really cute)
I said above, if churches want to ban gay marriage as a matter of their faith, go for it, but stop trying to pass laws banning other religions from performing it, and stop trying to ban secular marriages. The church would be wrong to do it, but it's their perogative. I have scientific evidence and logic to support my arguments, so yeah, they are facts. This isn't an issue of opinion: an opinion is how you feel about something. This is a question of facts, which are either right or wrong. Your opinion is worthless, just as mine is worthless. It doesn't matter how I feel, what matters is what can be supported by evidence and reason. So yeah, you're ignorant and wrong. That's not an insult like calling you stupid would be, it simply means you are wrong and your arguments are bad. I'm basically telling you to step back and think about it some more, and do some reading and get an education on this subject. People aren't born knowing things, they have to learn it, so don't take that as an insult. But the hateful anti-gay attitude is really disgusting, and that I won't tolerate quietly. You can have your opinion, but keep it to yourself. You have the right to say whatever you like, but you have the responsibility to make sure you are informed before you start blabbering and hating on other people. I'm condescending to you only because you are sitting on your high and mighty throne handing out judgments of every gay person on the planet calling them sinners.
In the words of Willy Wonka, you lose, good day sir.
|
United States7483 Posts
On July 08 2012 13:35 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 13:21 Whitewing wrote:On July 08 2012 13:16 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 08 2012 02:57 ShadeR wrote: David Hume on the virgin birth.
"What is more likely: that the whole natural order is suspended or that a Jewish minx should tell a lie?"
(emphasis my own) a circular argument. you've started by assuming that Mary was a liar and a promiscuous girl. a more proper question, from the Christian perspective would be: is it more likely that God should lie, or that he should be fully capable of reworking his reality however he sees fit? of course, this too assumes that God is real and that he is good. the problem with such arguments then is that our conclusion must prove our premise, no matter how we look at it. you cannot assume Mary is a liar and then ask if she would lie and still claim a logical ground. just as i cannot assume that Mary was truthful and claim logical ground. logic has nothing to do with it. You missed the point. It isn't a question of assumptions at all, it doesn't matter what you assume. In fact, assume nothing, and take a perspective of pure probabilities. What is the probability that there is a god, who is also good, who wouldn't lie, who also told us this particular story as completely true, suspended the natural order of birth to create a virgin birth to have his son, versus the probability that Mary (or someone else at some point who had the power to do so) lied? If you want to be reasonable about this, you'd examine it from both perspectives (that of a believer and a non-believer) just for the sake of posterity. From the perspective of a believer, it seems ridiculous, because you're a believer and you already accept all of the requirements for this story as fact. At this point, it merely becomes a question of finding evidence to prove the story true, since you are the claimant (that it is true, burden of proof and all that). The non-believer would very likely find the probabilities drastically favor the lie or some requirement of god (if he exists) not to fall into place for this story to be true, and that's that, he doesn't have the burden of proof. there is no probability. or, more accurately, there is no possible way for you or I, or anyone else, for determining the probability. and the original quote was doing exactly what i accused it of, and more. it was not only begging the question, it was using purposefully loaded language. the problem with your next statement lies with your misunderstanding of my belief. at no point do i desire, or attempt to give, proof of my beliefs. belief is not about proof, and to desire proof is to desire exactly that which i am forbidden from desiring. thus, i have no desire to find any "evidence" for my belief in God, because 1) i do not believe in evidence for such a thing, and 2) evidence is not important in this discussion. furthermore, burden of proof lies on those who wish to convince others of their position using scientific means. i have no desire to convince you of my position using science, nor logic. in matters of religion, i reject both science and logic as adequate tools of finding spiritual connection or belief. from my perspective, i have no more burden of proof than a man who claims that the sun exists. it is as clear to me, clearer in fact, that God is real in every sense of the word. it's not a matter of proving or disproving for me, and it never will be. sadly, i think we have gotten off-topic. discussing this any more would only contribute to the degradation of the thread.
Thank you for stating for me everything that is wrong with the very concept of belief, and why it is an absolutely terrible thing.
Believing in things without proof or evidence is not a good thing. In fact, it's a hilariously stupid and bad thing. How in the hell do people convince themselves that believing in nonsense without evidence is good, and then they don't even seek truth anymore, but are happy with the made up stuff they believe in? Why should you believe in any one god over any other? Because you do? What kind of asinine reason is that? Meanwhile, you're making decisions on a day to day basis that influence other people, basing those decisions at least in part on your belief without evidence. That's so irresponsible I can't even begin to describe it. Do you realize how much discovery in history has been prevented or delayed because people decide they are happy with the whole "god did it" explanation and stop looking for the real answers?
|
If it's not broken, don't fix it. And if you try to fix things that are perfectly fine, then perhaps you're broken.
Stop viewing homosexuality as a negative thing and be a reasonable and respectful human being instead. That "holier than thou" bullshit has got to go. Don't judge people based on their harmless actions and personality traits.
On July 08 2012 13:45 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 13:35 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 08 2012 13:21 Whitewing wrote:On July 08 2012 13:16 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 08 2012 02:57 ShadeR wrote: David Hume on the virgin birth.
"What is more likely: that the whole natural order is suspended or that a Jewish minx should tell a lie?"
(emphasis my own) a circular argument. you've started by assuming that Mary was a liar and a promiscuous girl. a more proper question, from the Christian perspective would be: is it more likely that God should lie, or that he should be fully capable of reworking his reality however he sees fit? of course, this too assumes that God is real and that he is good. the problem with such arguments then is that our conclusion must prove our premise, no matter how we look at it. you cannot assume Mary is a liar and then ask if she would lie and still claim a logical ground. just as i cannot assume that Mary was truthful and claim logical ground. logic has nothing to do with it. You missed the point. It isn't a question of assumptions at all, it doesn't matter what you assume. In fact, assume nothing, and take a perspective of pure probabilities. What is the probability that there is a god, who is also good, who wouldn't lie, who also told us this particular story as completely true, suspended the natural order of birth to create a virgin birth to have his son, versus the probability that Mary (or someone else at some point who had the power to do so) lied? If you want to be reasonable about this, you'd examine it from both perspectives (that of a believer and a non-believer) just for the sake of posterity. From the perspective of a believer, it seems ridiculous, because you're a believer and you already accept all of the requirements for this story as fact. At this point, it merely becomes a question of finding evidence to prove the story true, since you are the claimant (that it is true, burden of proof and all that). The non-believer would very likely find the probabilities drastically favor the lie or some requirement of god (if he exists) not to fall into place for this story to be true, and that's that, he doesn't have the burden of proof. there is no probability. or, more accurately, there is no possible way for you or I, or anyone else, for determining the probability. and the original quote was doing exactly what i accused it of, and more. it was not only begging the question, it was using purposefully loaded language. the problem with your next statement lies with your misunderstanding of my belief. at no point do i desire, or attempt to give, proof of my beliefs. belief is not about proof, and to desire proof is to desire exactly that which i am forbidden from desiring. thus, i have no desire to find any "evidence" for my belief in God, because 1) i do not believe in evidence for such a thing, and 2) evidence is not important in this discussion. furthermore, burden of proof lies on those who wish to convince others of their position using scientific means. i have no desire to convince you of my position using science, nor logic. in matters of religion, i reject both science and logic as adequate tools of finding spiritual connection or belief. from my perspective, i have no more burden of proof than a man who claims that the sun exists. it is as clear to me, clearer in fact, that God is real in every sense of the word. it's not a matter of proving or disproving for me, and it never will be. sadly, i think we have gotten off-topic. discussing this any more would only contribute to the degradation of the thread. Believing in things without proof or evidence is not a good thing. In fact, it's a hilariously stupid and bad thing. That's obvious to those of us who don't have a faith based belief system. People who do have such a belief system, though, will immediately reject it and everything that's a threat to their shaky stance.
It wouldn't really bother me though if that BS didn't bleed into the agendas of lobbyists and full-out elected politicians. When you start thinking that anything goes if you believe it, you start doing things that are truly bad for the collective.
|
On July 07 2012 23:29 Praetorial wrote: Your name...oh the irony.
I don't see it. Can you explain the irony please?
|
Wow people still believe bieng gay is a choice (and it shouldn't matter if it was)? Ignorance is so fascinating.
|
On July 08 2012 13:45 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 13:35 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 08 2012 13:21 Whitewing wrote:On July 08 2012 13:16 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 08 2012 02:57 ShadeR wrote: David Hume on the virgin birth.
"What is more likely: that the whole natural order is suspended or that a Jewish minx should tell a lie?"
(emphasis my own) a circular argument. you've started by assuming that Mary was a liar and a promiscuous girl. a more proper question, from the Christian perspective would be: is it more likely that God should lie, or that he should be fully capable of reworking his reality however he sees fit? of course, this too assumes that God is real and that he is good. the problem with such arguments then is that our conclusion must prove our premise, no matter how we look at it. you cannot assume Mary is a liar and then ask if she would lie and still claim a logical ground. just as i cannot assume that Mary was truthful and claim logical ground. logic has nothing to do with it. You missed the point. It isn't a question of assumptions at all, it doesn't matter what you assume. In fact, assume nothing, and take a perspective of pure probabilities. What is the probability that there is a god, who is also good, who wouldn't lie, who also told us this particular story as completely true, suspended the natural order of birth to create a virgin birth to have his son, versus the probability that Mary (or someone else at some point who had the power to do so) lied? If you want to be reasonable about this, you'd examine it from both perspectives (that of a believer and a non-believer) just for the sake of posterity. From the perspective of a believer, it seems ridiculous, because you're a believer and you already accept all of the requirements for this story as fact. At this point, it merely becomes a question of finding evidence to prove the story true, since you are the claimant (that it is true, burden of proof and all that). The non-believer would very likely find the probabilities drastically favor the lie or some requirement of god (if he exists) not to fall into place for this story to be true, and that's that, he doesn't have the burden of proof. there is no probability. or, more accurately, there is no possible way for you or I, or anyone else, for determining the probability. and the original quote was doing exactly what i accused it of, and more. it was not only begging the question, it was using purposefully loaded language. the problem with your next statement lies with your misunderstanding of my belief. at no point do i desire, or attempt to give, proof of my beliefs. belief is not about proof, and to desire proof is to desire exactly that which i am forbidden from desiring. thus, i have no desire to find any "evidence" for my belief in God, because 1) i do not believe in evidence for such a thing, and 2) evidence is not important in this discussion. furthermore, burden of proof lies on those who wish to convince others of their position using scientific means. i have no desire to convince you of my position using science, nor logic. in matters of religion, i reject both science and logic as adequate tools of finding spiritual connection or belief. from my perspective, i have no more burden of proof than a man who claims that the sun exists. it is as clear to me, clearer in fact, that God is real in every sense of the word. it's not a matter of proving or disproving for me, and it never will be. sadly, i think we have gotten off-topic. discussing this any more would only contribute to the degradation of the thread. Thank you for stating for me everything that is wrong with the very concept of belief, and why it is an absolutely terrible thing. Believing in things without proof or evidence is not a good thing. In fact, it's a hilariously stupid and bad thing. How in the hell do people convince themselves that believing in nonsense without evidence is good, and then they don't even seek truth anymore, but are happy with the made up stuff they believe in? Why should you believe in any one god over any other? Because you do? What kind of asinine reason is that? Meanwhile, you're making decisions on a day to day basis that influence other people, basing those decisions at least in part on your belief without evidence. That's so irresponsible I can't even begin to describe it. Do you realize how much discovery in history has been prevented or delayed because people decide they are happy with the whole "god did it" explanation and stop looking for the real answers? Thanks for responding on my behalf. To be honest we need more honest theists like him. Believers like him are atheist making machines lol.
|
Baltimore, USA22222 Posts
Alright 17 pages for this little experiment is more than enough.
|
|
|
|