|
| | | | 
Which color would you like?
Master Lancelot, Kasteelean logic does not allow for a collection of history and parables and allegorical stories and poetry and letters in the same book...
It is either truth or fiction not both
I suppose it is against the secret Editor's Guild code. |
| |
| | | | not a single fact...nothing... you two make a mockery of christianity
"To know, is to know you know nothing."
-Confucius |
| |
| | | | | This is too funny! You accuse others of making a mockery of christianity while at the same time you mock christianity yourself!! |
| |
| | | | Why it would be funny for me to mock Christianity is beyond me. I am not a christian, in fact I am of a faith that many christians love to insult. It matters not to me in the least if you think I am wrong to be asking the questions I do. The fact is that these people here expect everyone else to believe what they do or go to hell. Yet they have no facts to back up what they try to tell us is god's word. I did not mock Christianity with anything in this post, I asked questions and I asked for their rebuttles. You on the other hand have insulted and tried to degrade the conversation by pointing fingers.
The fact that these people have decided that instead of responding in kind, they will ignore fact, shows any sane person that they have no evidence to offer other then their faith. Hell, even I could give scientific proof of biblical facts. If they cannot, then they don't give a shit about their faith, they only wish to cut anyone down who stands on different ground. So laugh at me all you wish, join the cast of misguided people who wish to follow the insults of those far to lazy to defend what they say is theirs.
"To know, is to know you know nothing."
-Confucius |
| |
| | | | The fact is that these people here expect everyone else to believe what they do or go to hell.
No one expects that but those who get their theology from the supermarket tabloids.
If you have a question, Kasteele (or anyone else), you have only to ask it. I'm sure there are any number of people that would be happy to help you with it. Now then, what is it that you would like to know about Christianity? |
| |
| | | | I asked it already and you ignored it. just prove anything in that video wrong.
"To know, is to know you know nothing."
-Confucius |
| |
| | | | That's not a question, Kasteele.
Do you have a question? If you like, formulate questions from the video. |
| |
| | | | Kasteele,
don't you see the hypocrisy in accusing others of something while doing that very thing yourself? THAT's what I find so amusing. |
| |
| | | | Atheism and the Burden of Proof...... full Thesis here... http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0310bt.asp
Take the case of atheists debating the existence of God. They will commonly assert that theists rather than atheists must bear the burden of proof, that it is they who must show reasons that God exists, not the atheists who must show reasons that he does not.
They might justify this claim by saying that theists should bear the burden of proof because everyone who has a belief—regardless of what the belief is—should have a reason for it. This argument has some appeal. There seems to be a basic human intuition that we ought to have reasons for our beliefs.
But it is a lousy argument for showing that theists rather than atheists should have the burden of proof. The atheist also has a belief (namely, "God does not exist" or "There are no gods"), and he too should have a reason for his belief. The atheist should share the burden of proof to the same extent as the theist.
Some atheists have asserted that the burden of proof is on the theist because he asserts something positive—namely, the existence of God. The atheist, by contrast, asserts something negative: the non-existence of God. It is "positive beliefs," this argument goes, that require one to shoulder the burden of proof.
But why should this be so?
After all, they are logically equivalent. "X exists" and "X does not exist" are convertible. Negate them and they switch places. They can be plugged into the same logical formulas.
Let me give a more concrete example: Why should the claim "I have a brother" be held to a higher standard of proof than the claim "I do not have a brother"? Surely, if I make either claim I should have a reason for it. But isn’t the memory that I did grow up with a brother on the same footing evidentially as the memory that I did not grow up with one? Wouldn’t the fact that a brother is listed in the birth records for my family be on the same level as the fact that one is not listed in them? Why should a claim of existence require more evidence than a claim of nonexistence?
The evidence used to argue the existence or nonexistence of a brother is the same: my own memory, the testimony of relatives and family friends, what is recorded in birth and medical records. What this evidence says should settle the matter. I don’t have to produce any extra evidence to argue that a brother exists than to argue that one does not.
Sometimes to defend the claim that they should not have the burden of proof, atheists appeal to a concept known as "the universal negative." A universal negative is a claim that nothing of a particular sort exists. For example, "There are no unicorns" or "There is no present king of France."
The argument is that no one should be asked to prove a universal negative because it is impossible to do so, and nobody can be required to do the impossible.
To prove a universal negative, one would have to have knowledge of the entire universe so that one could verify that the thing in question does not exist, and nowhere in the universe is a unicorn and nowhere in the universe today is a man who is the king of France.
This argument is unfair because it raises the burden of proof to a new level. No longer does it concern providing reasons for believing that the thing in question exists. It now requires universe-spanning, exhaustive proof of it. This is an important distinction.
It is easy to provide reasons that one should not believe in unicorns (e.g., they are claimed to be corporeal beings but you have never seen one with your own eyes; you can’t find photos of them in biology textbooks; biologists don’t hold them to exist; most people regard them as fictitious). It is another thing to scan all of creation and prove the point in exhaustive detail.
Similarly, one could ask the atheist to produce other reasons to think that God does not exist (e.g., most people believe God to be a fiction; there seem to be logical contradictions in the idea of God; there is an absence of any evidence of miracles in history; the universe does not appear to show traces of intelligent design). The atheist doesn’t have to scan the universe in exhaustive detail to offer such reasons. He simply has to appeal to the evidence at hand, and if the evidence at hand doesn’t allow him to make such claims, then it doesn’t offer us reasons to disbelieve in God.
Ultimately, the appeal to "universal negatives" doesn’t work, because in an ordinary discussion people don’t expect their opponents to prove their beliefs by scanning the whole universe. All they want them to do is look at the evidence that is available and make an assessment based on that.
have I proven anything with this....Nope, but I hope something was gleaned from it...I do not like c&p, but it moved me so, if it moves another, so be it, if it creates hate, that is to be expected too.
How do I explain "proof" when the "proof" flows through Me due to Faith, How do I explain "proof" when the embittered won't even take a chance? I Was embittered, and now according to some, (none here) I am weak...cuz I "got Religion". Now I am not embittered, now I try harder not to be angry, I dunno, what is it that is so bad about Faith. Why does it cause the grief it causes in so many. You know the reason I think Faith works in All the belief systems is because GOD touches each of us in a very different way. The difference only lays in Fanaticism and Faith. There is a Human factor in Questing for more and , we do seem to know right from wrong mostly.
Wan't Proof? On January 19th , 2006 I should of been Murdered, and not by Random Violence, but consequences of My past.
Was god in the Gun Powder, or is he whispering in My still ringing left ear?
Thats all the proof I have to offer, for now. I mean K-Man...You want Physical Proof of a Religion, well then we all Should be worshipping "RA" , that or some Incan, Mayan sort of way. It is too bad flesh, bone and paper will not hold up against time as Stone will. BUT, word of mouth and stories did. and as with all stories over centuries old, as each person told it it went differently. When it got back to paper, a few centuries ago it went differently, as each writer wrote differently. What was it I wonder that makes the stories of the Faiths continue to be passed on and on? Something that tugs at the heart maybe? I do not know I know how I was affected when I stopped being bitter. Hell , I still cling to bitter too, I was so used to being so. How do I as a Human PROVE to anyone anything regarding anyones faith?
If I came out of the Mountains tomorrow with a legit ark...(which I think is far fetched. BTW) , The Sword of Solomon, and Jesus , finally returned, Most would point and make vid's and papers disclaiming and disbelieving. when Real Proof appears a lot of people just won't believe it anyway. So while I DO go with what Yellow said, about "we'll just have to wait and see" is it ok that I think there is MORE for Me when I go to Ground? |
| |
| | | | Bree, you are right, it is not a question, it is several with the choice of which you could answer. We all know you are a very smart woman, there is no need for me to lead you down the garden path and single out questions for you. Or are you just getting lazy? We all know the answers are there, lets hear them.
Skywatcher, the hypocrisy with which I speak is fully intentional. By using such things I have found less degrading terms being used in my direction. Not to mention the fact that as questions, all these things have no true hypocrisy within them. And this is what I am doing, question although somewhat sarcastically. I do not expect anyone else to follow my reasoning or even like me for the way I do things. Sometimes, you have to bring out the vinagar to find the wine. Hopefully this makes sense to you, though my mind goes weird places when ideas strike.
"To know, is to know you know nothing."
-Confucius |
| |
|
|