Re: The Fool [ported-over from Payments forum]

[falcon9]

[porting over the thread to d+d, intact; Re: The Fool]:

"So you agree that we can't prove God exist [sic] ... "

That's a two-part question.  Let's see if the thread can be moved out of the Payments forum over to d+d, (since the current context warrants it).
*ping*

Neither the existence nor, 'non-existence' of such a hypothetical being can be "proven".  That being the case, should a claimant initially propose that "g-d exists", the burden of proof, (providing evidence to support such a claim), rests with those claimants, (and not with those who challenge such a claim.  If different claimant initially proposes that "g-d doesn't exist", (which neither I nor, anyone in recent forums/threads has dine thusfar), then the same burden of proof would rest with them for making a 'positive assertion', (just as with the religious adherent's
'positive assertion').

The burden of proof requirement does not generally apply to making 'negative assertions' because of an inherent logical fallacy involved, (for example in a criminal case, the prosecution is required to establish the guilt of the defendant by providing substantiating evidence while it's incumbent upon the defense to _either_ rip-apart the prosecution's case by challenging evidence presented, establish "reasonable doubt" and/or present evidence which indicates that 'guilt/responsibility' rests elsewhere and not with the defendant).  The foregoing applies in a general way to establishing _who_ has the burden of proof; the "prosecution" making the 'positive assertion'/claim of "guilt" and having the burden of proof.

... and you can't prove how the world actually started it just wasn't God right?

Not precisely; there is no solid evidence to substantiate the initial unsupported claim that a "g-d created the world/universe".  Since it's been established that the burden of proof falls to those who claim/make such 'positive assertions', others remain awaiting evidence being presented to support it, (rather than being required to substantiate a 'negative assertion' made under an inherent logical fallacy).

[Cubboo]

Okbut as I said Christians don't claim that we can prove God exist we base our beliefs on faith... We don't try to prove God its our Job as Christians to spread the word of God and then let you make your own assumptions on the matter... Now what I'm saying is that you have to have some idea how you think the world was created... If not then you just are floating through life with no idea what you stand for and that makes you very weak... I get it I can't convince you that God exist... Now its your turn. Give me your explanation of how the world was created and prove it... If you can't then you're wrong also( being sarcastic because I know I'm right and God created the world) but there you go... That's my question... Dont come back at me with I can't prove God exist or blind faith none of that... Explain to me how you believe the world was created and show facts behind your claim

[Falconer02]

If not then you just are floating through life with no idea what you stand for and that makes you very weak... I get it I can't convince you that God exist... Now its your turn. Give me your explanation of how the world was created and prove it... If you can't then you're wrong

I imagine this thread is going to go like this-

"I believe in god and know he created everything. I don't know how, but he did. I can't prove it to you because you don't use blind faith. If you don't believe what I do, explain what created everything."

"I could bore you with credible science about how the world formed, but ultimately I don't know when it comes to the entire universe. Life is a mystery! I'm completely fine with that. It's fun and makes me proud to be aware of the mysterious universe around me. It makes me realize how precious life is and I don't tend to waste it wishing for an afterlife created by superstitious ancient people who knew nothing about the universe. I'm alive now in a time of reason, and I'll always be listening and attempting to find the truth through realistic means, even if I never find a conclusion to what I seek."

"You're wrong. I'm right. He created the planets, stars...the entire universe! And he hates gay people and meat on certain days."

[falcon9]

Okbut as I said Christians don't claim that we can prove God exist we base our beliefs on faith... We don't try to prove God its our Job as Christians to spread the word of God ... floating through life with no idea ... I get it I can't convince you that God exist... Now its your turn. Give me your explanation of how the world was created and prove it... If you can't then you're wrong

I imagine this thread is going to go like this-

"I believe in god and know he created everything. I don't know how, but he did. I can't prove it to you because you don't use blind faith. If you don't believe what I do, explain what created everything."

"I could bore you with credible science about how the world formed, but ultimately I don't know when it comes to the entire universe. Life is a mystery! I'm completely fine with that. It's fun and makes me proud to be aware of the mysterious universe around me. It makes me realize how precious life is and I don't tend to waste it wishing for an afterlife created by superstitious ancient people who knew nothing about the universe. I'm alive now in a time of reason, and I'll always be listening and attempting to find the truth through realistic means, even if I never find a conclusion to what I seek."

"You're wrong. I'm right. He created the planets, stars...the entire universe! And he hates gay people and meat on certain days."

Thanks, '02 - that's pretty much along the lines of how trying to refute a logical fallacy argument might proceed alright.  In that regard, I could add that not having all the answers does not mean irrationally accepting one that relies entirely on mind-blinding religious faith, (or any other specious replacement answer).  The "answer" isn't to stop looking for answers and claim that the 'invisible pink unicorn' and the 'book of the IPU' accounts for everything, (even if IPU adherents admit that's a matter of mind-blind faith and mental laziness or inability).

[falcon9]

Okbut as I said Christians don't claim that we can prove God exist we base our beliefs on faith... We don't try to prove God its our Job as Christians to spread the word of God ... floating through life with no idea ...

Basing a belief upon faith = believing despite the lack of evidence to support that belief, (which, in turn, means being selectively irrational - unless being irrational extends to the remainder of the "believer's" life).

Although not all xtians further belief that it's their "job as Christians to spread the word of God", it never seems to occur to the ones who do that such presumptuous evangelicizing is offensive to others.  Some speculate that such xtian evangelicists either never consider this or, just don't care that they're offending others.  For those who do find such evangelizing to be offensive, reciprocation seems fair enough.

[Abrupt]

[porting over the thread to d+d, intact; Re: The Fool]:

"So you agree that we can't prove God exist [sic] ... "

That's a two-part question.  Let's see if the thread can be moved out of the Payments forum over to d+d, (since the current context warrants it).
*ping*

Neither the existence nor, 'non-existence' of such a hypothetical being can be "proven".  That being the case, should a claimant initially propose that "g-d exists", the burden of proof, (providing evidence to support such a claim), rests with those claimants, (and not with those who challenge such a claim.  If different claimant initially proposes that "g-d doesn't exist", (which neither I nor, anyone in recent forums/threads has dine thusfar), then the same burden of proof would rest with them for making a 'positive assertion', (just as with the religious adherent's
'positive assertion').

The burden of proof requirement does not generally apply to making 'negative assertions' because of an inherent logical fallacy involved, (for example in a criminal case, the prosecution is required to establish the guilt of the defendant by providing substantiating evidence while it's incumbent upon the defense to _either_ rip-apart the prosecution's case by challenging evidence presented, establish "reasonable doubt" and/or present evidence which indicates that 'guilt/responsibility' rests elsewhere and not with the defendant).  The foregoing applies in a general way to establishing _who_ has the burden of proof; the "prosecution" making the 'positive assertion'/claim of "guilt" and having the burden of proof.

... and you can't prove how the world actually started it just wasn't God right?

Not precisely; there is no solid evidence to substantiate the initial unsupported claim that a "g-d created the world/universe".  Since it's been established that the burden of proof falls to those who claim/make such 'positive assertions', others remain awaiting evidence being presented to support it, (rather than being required to substantiate a 'negative assertion' made under an inherent logical fallacy).

So you are saying that your religion of atheism is on trial here?  That is what would be necessary for your criminal case and burden of proof argument.  This is the typical method used by atheists, attack Christianity (and other religions that believe in a divine power, but mainly Christianity) and then claim you are the defendant and the other is the prosecution.  I don't know why this fallacious and weak form of argument isn't obvious to everyone it is used against, but it just proves to me how zealous and irrational you devout atheists are.

[walksalone11]

Okbut as I said Christians don't claim that we can prove God exist we base our beliefs on faith... We don't try to prove God its our Job as Christians to spread the word of God ... floating through life with no idea ...

Basing a belief upon faith = believing despite the lack of evidence to support that belief, (which, in turn, means being selectively irrational - unless being irrational extends to the remainder of the "believer's" life).

Although not all xtians further belief that it's their "job as Christians to spread the word of God", it never seems to occur to the ones who do that such presumptuous evangelicizing is offensive to others.  Some speculate that such xtian evangelicists either never consider this or, just don't care that they're offending others.  For those who do find such evangelizing to be offensive, reciprocation seems fair enough.

I personally (our definition) have had literally millions of Relatives who were subjected, and are being subjected, to attempted forced assimilation actions by Christian supremacists. So yes, Falcon, you are dead on when you say that some find such evangelizing as not only very offensive but also take it as a direct attack on our Peoples and our culture.

If Christians, or anyone for that matter, finds comfort in their beliefs, then great, rock on, but don't be in my face trying to "comfort" me, I'm very well with my own ways thank you.

"Let me comfort you or die...." what kind of delusional bull *bleep* is that?

[falcon9]

So you are saying that your religion of atheism is on trial here? 

No, myself and others have established that atheism is not a religion, despite your futile attempts to force-fit skeptical disbelief into a religious mold.  Am online forum is not a courtroom, (although your irrational remarks seem to indicate that you view D+D as a 'kangaroo-court').

That is what would be necessary for your criminal case and burden of proof argument. 

This is the d+d subforum of FC, not your personal 'kangaroo-court' nor a putting of the non-religion of atheism on trial here.

This is the typical method used by atheists, attack Christianity ... and then claim you are the defendant and the other is the prosecution.

Firstly, challenging the unsupported claims of xtianity and xtians who initally made them is disingenuously being characterized as an "attack" in order to dodge the burden of proof responsibility for making such initial claims.  Since xtians are asserting their religious claims, the burden of proof to substantiate them lies with them, not with those challenging such claims.  This aspect of the 'debate' has recurred often enough that you are certainly aware of it and dishonestly continue attempting to shift the burden of proof onto those who challenge xtian claims.  It's a "fallacious and weak form of argument" and it's also unclear why you continue to pursue it.

I don't know why this fallacious and weak form of argument isn't obvious to everyone it is used against ...

It could be speculated that, (on the basis of posted evidence provided to these forums), that some religious adherents are being 'selectively irrational' in that regard - which is obvious to almost anyone but themselves.

... but it just proves to me how zealous and irrational you devout atheists are.

Your ad hom is completely unsupported by evidence while coincidentally providing substantiation for the 'selectively irrational' arguments made against those who are non-religious. In the immediately previous decade, the slang term for that was "epic fail". 

As a related observation; animals caught in hunter's traps will twist and turn and even chew off a leg to escape. It seems such a cruel practice, doesn't it?

[lfrazier1]

  my god is real

[falcon9]

my god is real

If such a 'being' exists outside of your imaginary, you'd be able to produce evidence supporting your claim of its reality, right?  No breath will be held awaiting such evidence however, if one listens closely chirping crickets may be heard ...

   *crickets chirping*

[Falconer02]

So you are saying that your religion of atheism is on trial here?

Trollololol

"Let me comfort you or die...." what kind of delusional bull *bleep* is that?

I think it's a failure to understand the other persons POV and that they don't want to hear about irrational and overpopular beliefs. Sometimes I think it's more of a maturity issue rather than a religious one. And yes, christianity's ultimate goal is to spread the word of "Submit to my god or burn for eternity" though they tend to word it differently to make it seem caring.

[walksalone11]

"Let me comfort you or die...." what kind of delusional bull *bleep* is that?

I think it's a failure to understand the other persons POV and that they don't want to hear about irrational and overpopular beliefs. Sometimes I think it's more of a maturity issue rather than a religious one. And yes, christianity's ultimate goal is to spread the word of "Submit to my god or burn for eternity" though they tend to word it differently to make it seem caring.

Many thousands of times, they literally murdered whole groups of people, simply for not assimilating to their beliefs. I don't know about anyone else but we call that genocide.

[Abrupt]

So you are saying that your religion of atheism is on trial here? 

No, myself and others have established that atheism is not a religion, despite your futile attempts to force-fit skeptical disbelief into a religious mold.  Am online forum is not a courtroom, (although your irrational remarks seem to indicate that you view D+D as a 'kangaroo-court').

And myself and others have established that it is.  Your claims that your cat is colorless because it is black argument does not work and never really did, it is just your attempt to deflect and obfuscate and redefine.  You brought up the courtroom and now wish to dismiss it because it was easily turned against you.  Rather typical weaseling from you isn't that.

That is what would be necessary for your criminal case and burden of proof argument. 

This is the d+d subforum of FC, not your personal 'kangaroo-court' nor a putting of the non-religion of atheism on trial here.

This is the typical method used by atheists, attack Christianity ... and then claim you are the defendant and the other is the prosecution.

Firstly, challenging the unsupported claims of xtianity and xtians who initally made them is disingenuously being characterized as an "attack" in order to dodge the burden of proof responsibility for making such initial claims.  Since xtians are asserting their religious claims, the burden of proof to substantiate them lies with them, not with those challenging such claims.  This aspect of the 'debate' has recurred often enough that you are certainly aware of it and dishonestly continue attempting to shift the burden of proof onto those who challenge xtian claims.  It's a "fallacious and weak form of argument" and it's also unclear why you continue to pursue it.

Why are you so afraid to admit you are attacking Christians?  It is rather obvious to most everyone here and I don't know why you refuse to be honest and admit it.  The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the defender.  You are accusing Christianity of being false and you cannot prove it, so instead you insist that they have to prove it to be true.  You know that you cannot prove your religion to be true and thus all you have left is to go on the offense.  The frequency of an event doesn't reduce its right/wrong qualities.  You admit here that you are challenging Christian claims and this place you in the position of accuser/prosecution, since they have never overtly challenged you on your atheist religion, except possibly in rebuttal.  Yours is the weak form of argument, relying on the inability of others to prove your positions by default when you are the one accusing the others of not being able to prove their positions in the first place.  That is a form of "begging the question" and is as circular as it gets.

I don't know why this fallacious and weak form of argument isn't obvious to everyone it is used against ...

It could be speculated that, (on the basis of posted evidence provided to these forums), that some religious adherents are being 'selectively irrational' in that regard - which is obvious to almost anyone but themselves.

... but it just proves to me how zealous and irrational you devout atheists are.

Your ad hom is completely unsupported by evidence while coincidentally providing substantiation for the 'selectively irrational' arguments made against those who are non-religious. In the immediately previous decade, the slang term for that was "epic fail". 

As a related observation; animals caught in hunter's traps will twist and turn and even chew off a leg to escape. It seems such a cruel practice, doesn't it?

This isn't 'ad hom' because it is truth.  Speaking of unsupported evidence, why don't you prove your religion?  You can't can you?  That is why you constantly go on the offense against Christians and claim that they have to prove their beliefs to you and that you don't have to prove anything as you are claiming the privileged of 'defendant'.  That doesn't work at all you know.

Fancy yourself the hunter now do you?  Is that a purple peacock father coming out of your cap that you are so smugly stroking?  Look down and realize that the only thing you have captured in your trap, is you.

[Falconer02]

Many thousands of times, they literally murdered whole groups of people, simply for not assimilating to their beliefs. I don't know about anyone else but we call that genocide

And not just the natives! Christianity has had blood on its hands for much longer than that. Though my previous comment was referring to the here-and-now with the believers of today, you're absolutely right. It's almost humorous when a believer gets angered at a person criticizing this religion (especially having to do with the subject you brought up). I'm one to believe that most christians are not christians, but are just uneducated fans of it.

[walksalone11]

Many thousands of times, they literally murdered whole groups of people, simply for not assimilating to their beliefs. I don't know about anyone else but we call that genocide

And not just the natives! Christianity has had blood on its hands for much longer than that. Though my previous comment was referring to the here-and-now with the believers of today, you're absolutely right. It's almost humorous when a believer gets angered at a person criticizing this religion (especially having to do with the subject you brought up). I'm one to believe that most christians are not christians, but are just uneducated fans of it.

Genocide is still happening very much today, maybe not out right murders so much, but then with the constant multitude of "disappearances" of our peoples, on and off Rez, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if there isn't still an aweful lot of murdering going on.
Yes, there may not be a population of non-christians since there was such thing as the doctrine that hasn't suffered some form and level of genocide from their hand. I'm not buying that "they weren't true christians" crap. Their good book has many advisories in it to annihilate any other cultures and individuals.