# Burden Of Proof



## DJBoxhouse (Oct 22, 2009)

Discuss,

Burden of proof falls onto the one making the claim.

There is no such thing as a "burden of disproof".

Why can't theists comprehend this fact? aaannd GO!


----------



## Brazko (Oct 22, 2009)

DJBoxhouse said:


> Discuss,
> 
> Burden of proof falls onto the one making the claim.
> 
> ...


 
I believe Ricki White gave You a very discriptive answer to Proof (scientifically and Philosophically) NO Relgious concept Needed..., Use the Wisdom you already understand to Understand that it is Only Proof you need to Disprove what is Proof to You.. aaaannnnnd I STOP!!!


----------



## DJBoxhouse (Oct 22, 2009)

*Deduction within Reason.*
I have a ball - I am asked to prove the existence of this ball, following in suit therein I proceed to show the ball as factual evidence towards my claim.
The burden of proof dictates that the one stating the fact therefore must lay claim to the responsibility in proving it sufficiently and satisfactorily enough not for the other but for the essence of logic itself.

------------------------------------------------------
*Concluding without Sanity.*
I have a ball - I am asked to then prove the said existence of said ball, following suit I retort with the claim that it is not my responsibility but rather that of the audience of said discussion to lay bare the duty and therein burden of disbelief, in that it is there job to prove that the ball doesn't exist.


Do you Theists not appreciate the insanity within this, let us call it a 'subtle' difference in approach? Witness the shifts in logic and the severe and dire intellectual consequences and repercussions you barrel down upon those who would refute your claims:

Do your children argue, no, demand that you prove the monsters under there beds don't exist? Rather than you, the parent requesting them to prove they do? You even Harald to them, triumphantly as you open the closet, show them nothing there and lift up the mattress, to reveal all the dust bunnies of the months past. 
This is no different then the means which we ourselves defend, which we ourselves argue to your claims. We merely want equal proof, show us evidence of your claims.
Let me tell you something, you're no different then the children in this story, and we as the 'intellectual parents' in this scenario are merely asking you for proof of these 'boogie men.' 

How do you think you are any different then a child is acting? I'll give you a hint, there is very little.


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 22, 2009)

Good luck getting the point across. 
It's hard to explain 'burden of proof' to someone when their concept of proof is "Well, we don't know why X happened, so that proves God!"
It's highly unlikely that someone using that mindset could even consider the idea that "I have a God!" and "I have a ball!" both stand on equal footing when questioned, until evidence is provided to substantiate.


_Creationists love fossils. When there is a gap in the fossil record they proclaim this as proof of God. They love intermediate fossils even more. Drop one in a gap, and suddenly you have a gap on each side. More gaps = more proof of God! Win!_


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 22, 2009)

Braz is half right.... unintentionally. Religion cannot accept the parameters of Burden of Proof. 
How can a myth survive serious examination? It cannot.


----------



## sunshine17542 (Oct 22, 2009)

Proof is everywhere! You first need to understand what God is to find proof. That is something that needs to come from you.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 22, 2009)

You just need to know what proof means.


----------



## DJBoxhouse (Oct 22, 2009)

sunshine17542 said:


> Proof is everywhere! You first need to understand what God is to find proof. That is something that needs to come from you.


The ball is here, in my pocket. If you truly believe it is, I cannot show you for you are undeserving and I am not required to show you this ball: Simply believe in me and this ball and the ball shall therein exist. You should in contrast rather then question prove to me that the ball Isn't in my pocket at all. Prove if you dare question, that I never held it in the first place.

I've had enough of you, you're either truly pathetic or simply trolling me, nobody is this distressingly shabby.
You're a child, I said argue and show 'proof' 'evidence' within the parameters that I have set or don't bother at all.

Stop bothering me with your dribble you minds child.
Go play with your fleeting grasps and fluttering concepts some place else, as 'pretty' as you try to make your words the underlaying naivety rots the message to the core. Don't make me pity you any more than the next, because only then will I truly be sad. It even saddens me now that you cannot fathom the reason for this sadness, a never ending cycle of lamented amnesty for your foolish delusions.


----------



## Brazko (Oct 22, 2009)

SusnShine is My Proof, babs Is My Proof, Maui is My Proof, Doc is My Proof, Rose is My proof, CBo is my Proof, BigNut is My proof (that still makes me laugh), We Love is My proof, ad infintium.. You get it, We do not know each other.., nor did the Men back Then..., WE witness and Acknowledge for ourselves.. Then we Ourselves Acknowledge each Other.. One Thought.. reached independently through the Manipulated trials of Life

CJ, you are completely Wrong, unintentionally, because you cling to the Myth!! You are actually waiting for GAAaa*aWWdd to appear..to allow you a belief in a Physical Proof.., I said use your Own Wisdom,, Nothing is REal, Right!! Behold the Kingdom of Heaven is Before You Now..!! Nooo, not outside on the Horizon..,


----------



## Brazko (Oct 22, 2009)

DJBoxhouse said:


> I said argue and show 'proof' 'evidence' within the parameters that I have set or don't bother at all.


 
Nooooooo, You cannot set the Parameters of Rules for the Universe, you have to Follow them...


----------



## DJBoxhouse (Oct 22, 2009)

Brazko said:


> Nooooooo, You cannot set the Parameters of Rules for the Universe, you have to Follow them...


I'm not attempting nor implying I was or could.

I can however set the parameters in which I abide by through logic, deduction and reason. There are ways we conclude what is and what isn't within our shared reality, our shared existence. I can tell you now, god's side is looking pretty weak. The ball Brazko....please do not tell me it is there in your grasp and ask me to prove that it isn't when I can plainly see both your hands.... How can you not acknowledge the heavy burden you as theists carry upon your shoulders, you shoulder the great burden of truth... And you're simply casting it onto a side that need not shoulder it in the first place, it is not our job, not our place to prove your 'points' for you. Do not ask us to.


----------



## Brazko (Oct 22, 2009)

Box, I'm holding how many balls in my Hand, Can you See them..NO, that is Your Proof I do NOt have Them..,

Braz.. You have 10balls in Your hand Don't You.., Yep!! How do You Know? That is Our Proof!!


----------



## Brazko (Oct 22, 2009)

Logic, Deduction, Reason

Nooooooo,


----------



## DJBoxhouse (Oct 22, 2009)

Brazko said:


> Box, I'm holding how many balls in my Hand, Can you See them..NO, that is Your Proof I do NOt have Them..,
> 
> Braz.. You have 10balls in Your hand Don't You.., Yep!! How do You Know? That is Our Proof!!


You misunderstand the point of this, You cannot tell me you're holding a ball and not show them to me when I ask for proof. You cannot tell me I am undeserving nor can you say you are not required to present this in a manner or fashion accepting of logic while maintaining the guise of being reasonable. 

What I'm saying is, you are walking up to me, hands in the air, and saying you have 10 balls in your hand, and you want me to believe you have them? all 10 you say? Is this the logic behind what you call faith? Believe it's there until it is? 

Please, I thought you were more reasonable than that.

If this is what you're presenting me with, I'd rather do without seeing your hands at all please, put them back in your pockets where I can't see them, with this, your hands make me too sad to bare the sight of them..

*Please* tell me you're trolling, being sarcastic...it'd be a waste if you weren't in my opinion.


----------



## Brazko (Oct 22, 2009)

DJBoxhouse said:


> You misunderstand the point of this, You cannot tell me you're holding a ball and not show them to me when I ask for proof. You cannot tell me I am undeserving nor can you say you are not required to present this in a manner or fashion accepting of logic while maintaining the guise of being reasonable.
> 
> What I'm saying is, you are walking up to me, hands in the air, and saying you have 10 balls in your hand, and you want me to believe you have them? all 10 you say? Is this the logic behind what you call faith? Believe it's there until it is?
> 
> ...


You don't get it Bro'.., Many just don't get it.. Your Rules is Limited to your interpretation and the Interpretation of Misguidance.., It is the same interpretation just on Opposing ends..

Maybe I'm making My Balls to Hard for You..  I'll try to speak a little more simple....

How do YOu know Love is Real? You Experience it Yourself, therefore You are able to Acknowledge without being told by Others, This is Love..I'm not saying God is Love, but he Is... anyhow not to Confuse.. You want Science to give you Proof of That.., It can't until it builds a Device to Catch the Waves of Love that differ From any other Emotion.. however, that is not important because, We can All experience that Love and Acknowledge it Through Others because we have Acknowledge it Ourselves..

Science cannot Prove God.. You would have to Build a Maching to Scan Gods.., 

However, we already Have the Machine that was built from the Very Beginning of Time.. Some people do not know How to Work that Machine..

You want a Machine built by a Machine to Prove the Machine itself.. That is What you are Waiting on as For Proof..>?

Just wait for that Machine to Be Built for Your Proof.. Science is Not Proof of Anything.., but What the Machine Has evolved to Build to Acknowledge itself...

However, You already Have the Necessary equipment.., The Manuals have been scribed all across the World..., All Describe how to Use the Equipment you already have that was Already Present...but Still You don't even need the Manuals!! You can just toy with the Equipment yourself and Figure it Out..,

and now I'll put my hands Back, It's not my hands you need to See, but yours..


----------



## Brazko (Oct 22, 2009)

DJBoxhouse said:


> *Please* tell me you're trolling, being sarcastic...it'd be a waste if you weren't in my opinion.


 
No, everybody being sincere in their approach to explain to You all..., and you refute to understand them when they do because you all don't listen and repeat only what you want to know, wish to hear, wish to acknowledge, wish to see.. You can only know the things you Wish to Know,

If You are an Atheist, you don't believe in God, and Know there is No equipment that is in existence by your standards to Prove God..!! Yet, you (but all of You) flock to Every God Thread because you have some new insight That you wish to Test because the Last insight you had already proved God didn't exist, so now you wanna prove with your New insight that He doesn't Exist..., That's Not trolling, That's trying to Understand, Right?

Believers, Religious people you call them are now, Not only starting God Threads to entice Atheists to Refute claims and Bash them.. NOw, we are Trolling you All?  


CRusadeRS UnitE..PoWwoW, BAm, Bing, Ping, Poooong...


----------



## Brazko (Oct 22, 2009)

Yeah, I have Wasted my Time..

[youtube]H4NEcQsvXYU[/youtube]


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 22, 2009)

Braz can't be wrong... because he takes every position.


----------



## tom__420 (Oct 22, 2009)

Where's sunshine? He had so many good thoughts on this topic


----------



## Brazko (Oct 22, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Braz can't be wrong... because he takes every position.


Yes, I can be Wrong..., but I take every position of Truth..!!

and you still take Every position of An Lie..!! Except you Bandwagon with Science because "You Don't Know"
and nothing is Wrong with that.. Just wait for The Equipment.., I might decide to stay around and Watch and I might NOt.. Go figure that One Out, Too.. You probably already have the answer tho'... Science already proved there is no Heavenly Kingdom in The Sky, Right? ,,mmmm... I believe you are Right!!


----------



## Brazko (Oct 22, 2009)

and you imply I'm Right.., When I didn't claim to be Right.., But explained sincerely why the Proof we have is Proof enough.. 

and You wished to See, that Braz if always Right, because he take every position... I took every position in Two POsts.. That is what you Saw..

Told you it's always what You Wish to acknowledge, I can NOt make you see That.. You Do!!

Time, Effort, Sincerity... Wasted!!


----------



## DJBoxhouse (Oct 22, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Braz can't be wrong... because he takes every position.


hahaha, If I could rep you this soon again I would.

I had to simply stop responding. Went out for a smoke, made some phone calls I had to, came back pretty baked and laughed at the responses. 

Thread /closed]

Seriously though Braz, third person? every position? you have the opinion of everybody in this thread without retaining any understanding of anything said.

I think sunshine has it more correct then you do. Quite the shame, I thought from our previous discussions that you got things.



Brazko said:


> Ha, the only last Words, I have for you is Peace until You have time to Educate me Some More.. Hollar


https://www.rollitup.org/spirituality-sexuality-philosophy/259125-philosophy-life.html
I see now, that through all that you either saw nothing, or refuse to admit you understand what you seemingly did. 

I laminate the message to you that I presented before to all those previous holding the same vains.


----------



## Anonymiss1969 (Oct 23, 2009)

But doesn't everyone know that the Bible is the ultimate proof of GOD?? How can that evidence be refuted? It is the word of God, therefore it must be true, right?

Also, think about all the martyrs who have died for the God, such as Jesus and his disciples. Clearly so many people wouldn't have chosen to die to "trick" the rest of us, would they?

The Bible has also been _carefully_ translated from many different languages into what we have today, so its pretty safe to say that its pretty accurate right? (aside from the revisions in the 10 commandments the Catholic Church made)

About the Sabbath... Why would an all powerful, omniscient deity need to "rest" after only 6? And why would something/someone who is omniscient have any concept of time whatsoever?

Why didn't the Native Americans have prophets sent from the Christian God describing the Ten Commandments to them? Why is the Christian God the "real" god, whereas the many other "gods" aren't real?

WHY THE FUCK DID MY PARENTS PRETEND SANTA WAS REAL AND CAME FOR JESUS' BIRTHDAY AND ONCE I FOUND OUT HE WASN'T TRY TO CONTINUE THE JOKE THAT CHRISTIAN' BELIEFS ARE TRUE?

Just some questions.... But for some actual thoughts...

On the "love" thing stated by Brazko...
Even the feeling of love can be scientifically proven to exist, in a way. It activates parts of the brain (which can be seen in various scans of the brain) when a person is feeling different emotions, such as love or anger. Prayer or faith DO NOT show up in any way that is comparable to feeling love IN ANY SCAN WHATSOEVER. Furthermore, many studies have been done to show that praying DOES NOT increase the rate of recovery in any person that has undergone surgery. It betters the mental state of patients, but there is no divine intervention, which goes against the very well known statement from the Bible, "Ask and you shall receive", which, IMO, discredits the Bible, as does the fact that people supposedly lived to be 900 years old, the earth was flooded for 40 days and a man on a wooden ship got a vast majority of all the animals on board so he could repopulate the earth, and after the earth was flooded, Noah magically was able to change the color of skin of some of his children and spread them to the Americas (Native/South/Central Americans), Asia (Russians, Asians), and Africa (obviously Africans)

This may be an insane, nonsensical rant, but I just spent a number of days "evaluating" religious seminars where I had to hold back these thoughts on the matter. Feel free to bash what I had to say.
*Edit: ...so long as you have a way to make me sound wrong, unless your proof is something stupid, such as you feel God exists so he does.


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 23, 2009)

I dunno if it's intentional trolling, or he really doesn't get it, but you'll find that Braz likes to support himself with points he doesn't understand. 

It was pretty funny when he said that science can not prove god.
Well, duh. Obviously there's no proof without evidence.

He keeps arguing against science, but then has used science in his arguments, misunderstood what was being said, or phrased it so badly that it might as well have been gibberish.

It's like arguing with a parrot. Sure, the words are there, but the parrot doesn't understand the crap it's repeating.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 23, 2009)

Gee you picked up on that...... he holds every position but understands none of them!


----------



## krustofskie (Oct 24, 2009)

This is gonna turn into another thread just like the others, everyone will repeat their opinion over and over with the same people arguing the same old shit on multiple threads, lets hope not anyway.

But never the less I will give my opinion on the subject at hand, The burden of proof has to lay with the one making the statement. As in a court of law the burden of proof is to prove someones guilt not for someone to prove their innocents, I know its not like this but its supposed to be as which is why some is Innocent until proven guilty. I feel it is the same for anything, for example if CJ says there is no god I expect him to back up his statement with some evidence, the same if someone else say Babs claims there is a god, back it up with something credible (Not quoting you guys here just using your names for the hell of it)

I can gather that this thread is rearly asking where does the burden of proof lay with the claim of is there or isn't there a god. I would have to say the burden lays with the people who claim there to be a god. Most atheists do not claim there is no god, most will claim they do not believe in the man made religions god's but when it comes down to 'is there a god' (leaving the religions out of it) most would say they simply don't know, even Dawkins as you all know is probably the most famous Atheist there is has said "I can only rearly claim to be 9/10 Atheist, as It can not be proven there is no god but I lean to the inclination there is none." (Not correct word for word but that was his general jist) which I'm sure would fit in more with the Agnostic views, not much between the two as far as I can see, both sets tend to get put in the same basket. So as Atheists/Agnostics claim they simply don't know then surely it is down to the people of 'faith' to prove their claims of 'there is a god and its my god' (according to their faith/religion)


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 24, 2009)

One caveat..... stating no belief in an invisible guiding hand G*D is not an outrageous claim. It's a bit more self evident than the alternative.

Outrageous claims truly demands a higher level of proof. 

Again, I think the word atheist is a loaded term. You would find that most atheists won't simply decide that there can be NO G*D.... (I.E. creation point originator). 
Like in my case, it's much more likely the response would be ... I don't believe in the g*D of organized religion.. the personal G*D. 

Atheists believe in true free will. Thumpers do not.


----------



## Brazko (Oct 24, 2009)

The bible's story and all religious text portray a cognitive Meaning of truth from human observation and experience...You didn't need a microscope to see an atom, when you saw a body decompose ashes to ashes and dust to dust...we just evolved enough to produce equipment to watch the atom decompose into quantum physics and then into nothing... Santa Claus isn't real, but prove to me how lil boys and girls get gifts all around the world if he doesn't exist, this is the idiocracy of your approach to understanding the meaning of God.., and Science is proof of your still inherent incompetence...

My statement for the week, I really saw no reason to even make this one..Its not like any of you are competent to overstand it anyway...Silly Monkeys


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 24, 2009)

don't worry.... that didn't even resemble a statement.


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 24, 2009)

Act 1

Three men are standing near you on a street corner. One calls you over.

The first one says, "My name is Religion, and I have a god in my pocket."

The second one says "My name is Philosophy, and I don't have a god in my pocket, but it's something to think about."

The third one says "My name is Athiesm and there are no gods in my pocket." 

On who does the burden of proof lie the heaviest? It seems fairly obvious doesn't it?

-------

Act 2

You ask all three for proof.

Atheism turns out his pocket and shrugs. "See?"

Philosophy turns out his pocket, and says "It's entirely possible that I was incorrect about which pocket the god may or may not be in. Let's consider that some more, shall we?"

Religion says "I will not turn out my pocket. It's enough that we simply believe in and worship the god in my pocket. Here, take this book. It will tell you all about the god in my pocket and how real it is. It's also hungry and needs money. Just put it right into my pocket. A little to the left. More. Oh yes. You're under 16, right?"

----

Act 3

Religion enacts anti-blasphemy laws so that you can never question the existence of the god in his pocket again.

Philosophy and Atheism die in prison after refusing to fellate Religion for a pardon.

The End. ("No Rapture" Version)


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 24, 2009)

That's the modern version. It used to end with being burnt alive. For soul purification.... uh huh.


----------



## DJBoxhouse (Oct 24, 2009)

Iono, I wanted to discuss the concept, then everybody has there pieces and say on the things it implies about there beliefs.

You're all hot and ready pizza's.


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 24, 2009)

Okay, to answer the original question.

Theists don't understand 'burden of proof' because indoctrination instills them with the idea that no proof but the bible is needed, and looking for other proof is questioning God, which is a huge no-no.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 24, 2009)

What's to prove? G*D is not in evidence? well , that's easy enough!

Atheism represents what's already quite obvious.


----------



## Mauihund (Oct 24, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Braz can't be wrong... because he takes every position.



You said something similar to me on another thread. When someone starts explaining things that goes outside your little box of understanding, you try to mock them back into it..... so you can understand? I don't think so. "Hey! Who do you think you are, changing the rules I have for you!"


----------



## Mauihund (Oct 24, 2009)

Brazko said:


> SusnShine is My Proof, babs Is My Proof, Maui is My Proof, Doc is My Proof, Rose is My proof, CBo is my Proof, BigNut is My proof (that still makes me laugh), We Love is My proof, ad infintium.. You get it, We do not know each other.., nor did the Men back Then..., WE witness and Acknowledge for ourselves.. Then we Ourselves Acknowledge each Other.. One Thought.. reached independently through the Manipulated trials of Life



Preach it, brother! Whoop! Whoop!


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 24, 2009)

_"What's the highest point on Earth?"_
"Aunt Delores."
_"What?_
"Aunt Delores. Weren't you listening?"
_"Uh, yeah. Okay, prove it."_
"Sure, Mr. Ed is a horse."_
"What does that have to do with Aunt Delores being the highest point on Earth."_
"You can't comprehend it because you don't have a personal relationship with the truth, or the same degree of faith. I win."


Religious Proof. Causing rational thinkers everywhere pain.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 24, 2009)

In the end, they all abandon the Bible and lock arms..... one problem tho..... it doesn't help the recruiting rates for the myth.

It shows ur position cannot stand on its own merits.... 

Burden of proof failure.


----------



## DIAGORAS (Oct 24, 2009)

Now that would be the smartest thing they could ever do, abandon the bible, but that's like only 1 small step in like the last 3,000yrs. Might as well order pizza, it's going to be a long ride.


----------



## Woodstock.Hippie (Oct 25, 2009)

The concept of Gods was manifested long ago to explain what science could not. 

I believe I stand on a large ball, yet much of humanity believes I'm crazy because its collective intelligence informs me that in reality, the world must be flat.

I'm certain many people were tortured to death for believing in large balls.

When asked for proof, the answer provided by humanities collective intelligence is merely a reflection of its own mind.

I, for reasons others do not believe, say the world is round.

Things must first be thoughts.

You made me believe you had a ball your pocket because you first put the image in my mind. 

Now I must either believe you have at least one ball, or put my hand in your pocket and see if it is in there or not.


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 25, 2009)

Maybe I said I had a ball in my pocket because I wanted you to put your hand there.
Don't you feel dirty now?


----------



## Woodstock.Hippie (Oct 25, 2009)

Not at all.

Your pocket was clean.


----------



## PadawanBater (Oct 26, 2009)

morgentaler said:


> Okay, to answer the original question.
> 
> Theists don't understand 'burden of proof' because indoctrination instills them with the idea that no proof but the bible is needed, and looking for other proof is questioning God, which is a huge no-no.


 
Someone give this man a cookie!

They would *never *admit it though. Which shows lack of mental balls and lack of conviction in faith. 

Talk about a fucking coward eh Maui? There's your definition.


----------



## Mauihund (Oct 26, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> In the end, they all abandon the Bible and lock arms..... one problem tho..... it doesn't help the recruiting rates for the myth.
> 
> It shows ur position cannot stand on its own merits....
> 
> *Burden of proof* failure.



So, you get to set a standard (and give it a title) I had no say in making, then expect me to fulfill those expectations in order to fulfill it's requirements? I'm seeing more clearly how you try manipulate both sides of the argument. When people don't take the bait with your "questions", you conclude lack of conviction...... and therefore lack of Existence. 

It's a cowards argument. Your little understanding of something spiritual could be expanded by an honest question. Don't be shy. It'll feel cleansing. Promise.

A believer may get sucked into trying to prove anything to you..... probably more out of enjoyment of the subject...... or pity. We mean well, anyway. Who knows? You may just see the light.


----------



## Mauihund (Oct 26, 2009)

morgentaler said:


> Maybe I said I had a ball in my pocket because I wanted you to put your hand there.
> Don't you feel dirty now?



Is that a ball in your pocket? Or did you just see a plastic surgeon?


----------



## PadawanBater (Oct 26, 2009)

Mauihund said:


> So, you get to set a standard (and give it a title) I had no say in making, then expect me to fulfill those expectations in order to fulfill it's requirements? I'm seeing more clearly how you try manipulate both sides of the argument. When people don't take the bait with your "questions", you conclude lack of conviction...... and therefore lack of Existence.
> 
> It's a cowards argument. Your little understanding of something spiritual could be expanded by an honest question. Don't be shy. It'll feel cleansing. Promise.
> 
> A believer may get sucked into trying to prove anything to you..... probably more out of enjoyment of the subject...... or pity. We mean well, anyway. Who knows? You may just see the light.


Dude... how hard is it really? What don't you get about this concept that you are the one making the claim, so it is you who has to prove it. If I made a claim, I'd have to prove it too. It works exactly the same way. Thing is.. I'm not sitting here saying "God doesn't exist", what I'm saying is "I don't know if God exists", that is not at all a claim, it's a statement, it's an opinion. You're saying "God *does* exist", to that I say "prove it" - till you do, CJ's right, burder of proof *fail*.


----------



## krustofskie (Oct 26, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> Dude... how hard is it really? What don't you get about this concept that you are the one making the claim, so it is you who has to prove it. If I made a claim, I'd have to prove it too. It works exactly the same way. Thing is.. I'm not sitting here saying "God doesn't exist", what I'm saying is "I don't know if God exists", that is not at all a claim, it's a statement, it's an opinion. You're saying "God *does* exist", to that I say "prove it" - till you do, CJ's right, burder of proof *fail*.


Well said pal. It seems when someone disputes the beliefs of a religion they get labeled an Atheist, there are not many true atheists out there who are the ones claiming there is no god. 

I find most fit in to one of the agnostic brackets and there are many different levels of agnostic. What I feel as an agnostic is that I don't know if there is a god or not but I believe all religions are falsehoods created as a means to control man. 

So with this there is no burden of proof about a 'god', but I will add it does leave me with a burden of proving religions wrong, not very hard with the self contradictions that the faiths believers promote.


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 26, 2009)

I'm one of the true atheists. But not an adeist. There may be a creative force (or intelligence) beyond what physics and cosmology currently understands, but until there is evidence for it I'll remain agnostic in that regard.

I'm a true atheist because the gods of men are petty, shallow things, created from archaic beliefs, and each group of worshippers dismisses the validity of the other groups god. The burden of proof lies with religions to prove their gods exist, and if they can't convince each other they will certainly never convince me.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 26, 2009)

Mauihund said:


> So, you get to set a standard (and give it a title) I had no say in making, then expect me to fulfill those expectations in order to fulfill it's requirements? I'm seeing more clearly how you try manipulate both sides of the argument. When people don't take the bait with your "questions", you conclude lack of conviction...... and therefore lack of Existence.
> 
> It's a cowards argument. Your little understanding of something spiritual could be expanded by an honest question. Don't be shy. It'll feel cleansing. Promise.
> 
> A believer may get sucked into trying to prove anything to you..... probably more out of enjoyment of the subject...... or pity. We mean well, anyway. Who knows? You may just see the light.


How about I just throw you a flash light so you can find ur own way out of the darkness of the myth. 

You simply believe in the religion, but there is no proof. So don't get all huffy when folks point that error out to you. 

I'm not delusional about anything. I face my existence HEAD ON. I need no teddy Bear to comfort me. I'm a big boy.... 

The stories of the Bible are just that.... stories, nothing more. No source can prove itself, and yet that is exactly what your entire belief system is based upon. It's surreal and illogical, and totally subjective. So don't be offended if clear headed ppl scoff at it. Looking at it objectively, it's quite ridiculous.


----------



## PadawanBater (Oct 26, 2009)

krustofskie said:


> What I feel as an agnostic is that I don't know if there is a god or not but I believe all religions are falsehoods created as a means to control man.


Exactly. Quoted for truth! This single *fact* alone should be enough to show a thinking individual that organized religions were designed to control the population, that is it. An organization with a way to control what an isolated population sees, hears, reads (if they're even litterate), and believes has the power to manipulate the entire population. It's no different than todays society and mainstream media. History shows us shit like this happens all the fucking time, we witness it and record it, we have collected data in the record books of this exact same situation taking place time after fucking time all throughout human history... Someone in a powerful position realizes a way to manipulate the people they claim to represent in order to accumulate more wealth and more power for themselves or a select few at the expense of the rest of the population, the surfs, the bottom feeders... *us.* I was unpleasently reminded of this fact as I drove through my town today... almost everyone is just going through life day by day, working to pay the bills, not thinking to make mankind and existence better... 

This cycle we've found ourselves in is increasingly depressing...

/rant



morgentaler said:


> I'm one of the true atheists. But not an adeist. There may be a creative force (or intelligence) beyond what physics and cosmology currently understands, but until there is evidence for it I'll remain agnostic in that regard.
> 
> I'm a true atheist because the gods of men are petty, shallow things, created from archaic beliefs, and each group of worshippers dismisses the validity of the other groups god. The burden of proof lies with religions to prove their gods exist, and if they can't convince each other they will certainly never convince me.


I agree with this. I am so close to 100% certain in my own mind that no god mankind has thought up is real. There may be some force out there responsible for everything we have not discovered yet, who knows right, but this much is for sure, if there is a "God", it certainly does not give a damn what happens to anyone here on Earth, it does not intervene in anyones life at anytime, and doesn't care if you worship it or not, there is no place of eternal punishment or bliss...


----------



## sunshine17542 (Oct 26, 2009)

morgentaler said:


> Okay, to answer the original question.
> 
> Theists don't understand 'burden of proof' because indoctrination instills them with the idea that no proof but the bible is needed, and looking for other proof is questioning God, which is a huge no-no.


I surely know what burden of proof is. I am no fool. However my friend, no one forced me to believe in God I just kind of found Him. He is really everywhere. That is why I can say proof is everywhere. I cannot give you proof of Him, as in, here he is for all of you to see. For God is knowledge. You are certainly in-titled to find God in your own way, please look! The Bible is not the only place to look for God.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 26, 2009)

You mean myth..... no G*D has been proven to exist.


----------



## sunshine17542 (Oct 26, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> You mean myth..... no G*D has been proven to exist.


Well if God wasn't here, oh cause He is by the way.... there would be no freedom. Freedom - God = Slavery. Slavery + God = Freedom!


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 26, 2009)

How can you possibly know that?


----------



## sunshine17542 (Oct 26, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> How can you possibly know that?


LOL!!! Because I know of God! You can know too!


----------



## Brazko (Oct 26, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> How can you possibly know that?


 
Because he is NOt a Slave to Science.., but Science a Slave to Him..., Is this statement not True? Anybody


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 26, 2009)

You know of g*d because you just do ... very convincing.


----------



## sunshine17542 (Oct 26, 2009)

Brazko said:


> Because he is NOt a Slave to Science.., but Science a Slave to Him..., Is this statement not True? Anybody


I love science lol


----------



## sunshine17542 (Oct 26, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> You know of g*d because you just do ... very convincing.


Yes... and you don't? Don't worry God is in you too.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 26, 2009)

Sure ... fantasy becomes you.


----------



## sunshine17542 (Oct 26, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Sure ... fantasy becomes you.


I didn't know freedom was bad.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 26, 2009)

believing in the make believe isn't freedom. Try facing the world truly free of any made up controls.


----------



## sunshine17542 (Oct 26, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> believing in the make believe isn't freedom. Try facing the world truly free of any made up controls.


That's because not everyone has God.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 26, 2009)

It's not a popularity contest. Why does anyone need to believe besdes urself?


----------



## Brazko (Oct 26, 2009)

sunshine17542 said:


> I love science lol


Who said you didn't Love Science?


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 26, 2009)

> I didn't know freedom was bad.


Nice straw man argument.

If you find a tin man and cowardly lion to go with you, you're half way to finding the Wizard.


----------



## sunshine17542 (Oct 26, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> It's not a popularity contest. Why does anyone need to believe besdes urself?


Because God is good. Not just for you, but for everyone.


----------



## krustofskie (Oct 26, 2009)

sunshine17542 said:


> I surely know what burden of proof is. I am no fool. However my friend, no one forced me to believe in God I just kind of found Him. He is really everywhere. That is why I can say proof is everywhere. I cannot give you proof of Him, as in, here he is for all of you to see. For God is knowledge. You are certainly in-titled to find God in your own way, please look! The Bible is not the only place to look for God.


I would have thought the bible would be a place to find a collection of stories collated over time and presented to sheep by the masters of that time to control the masses through the fear of eternal damnation, yea thats a good place to find god.


----------



## sunshine17542 (Oct 26, 2009)

morgentaler said:


> Nice straw man argument.
> 
> If you find a tin man and cowardly lion to go with you, you're half way to finding the Wizard.


God is freedom


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 26, 2009)

More like enslavement


----------



## sunshine17542 (Oct 26, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> More like enslavement


You know of nothing. I ask you for mercy and what do you give me? Nothing.


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 26, 2009)

We don't demand that you burn in hell.
We just don't want to worship fairy tales.

Faith kills. Atheism just makes cutting remarks.


----------



## sunshine17542 (Oct 26, 2009)

morgentaler said:


> We don't demand that you burn in hell.
> We just don't want to worship fairy tales.
> 
> Faith kills. Atheism just makes cutting remarks.


You cause suffering.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 26, 2009)

Mercy from what? Don't ask me for mercy.... I do feel sorry that you need to be comforted by myth. Not all can make the trip to a reasoned life.


----------



## krustofskie (Oct 26, 2009)

sunshine17542 said:


> You cause suffering.


Just how is that exactly? Stop being vague with your words and spit out what you want to say.


----------



## sunshine17542 (Oct 26, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Mercy from what? Don't ask me for mercy.... I do feel sorry that you need to be comforted by myth. Not all can make the trip to a reasoned life.


I just want your kindness.


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 26, 2009)

sunshine17542 said:


> You cause suffering.


Reason makes the world a better place. Religion takes the credit.
(A scientist cures a disease, and the religious say God led him to the cure.)

Religion tells people to spurn or destroy any unbelievers, and then blames the non-religious, gay, or other religions for the trouble in the world.

If making you think causes suffering, it's just because your mind hasn't been getting the exercise it needs.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 26, 2009)

Ur implying I'm being mean ... I'm not. But as the thread topic indicates, this is about the burden of proof. 

U may be in the wrong thread.... saying you feel it isn't going to cut it here.


----------



## Woodstock.Hippie (Oct 27, 2009)

PadawanBater - 
Will you allow me to prove it to you through an image in your mind? 
Would you feel frustrated if I did not play by your rules as to how I place that image in your mind?
Can we all agree that a claim is just a statement of belief?


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 27, 2009)

If belief hadn't be co-opted by the religious in the same way that theory has been.

Confidence is now a better term to use, eg. I have high confidence this is true based on the evidence.
Whereas belief has been co-opted to equal faith, or the accepting of something without evidence.

A theory is a conclusion reached examining evidence that has been rigorously tested for that which makes it work, and that which breaks it.
Yet, in order to minimize the value of it, it's used by the religious to say "guess".

I can put an image in your mind too.
"Oprah in a thong, having pot butter smeared in the crack of her ass."

And I didn't even need psychic powers to do that to you.


----------



## Woodstock.Hippie (Oct 27, 2009)

A theory does not equal conclusion.

Period

Would you like to review my work, my peer, is to what you refer.

I believe knowledge to be peer reviewed work that is replicatible.

I believe that you indeed did use your mind to place an image in a far distant place. 

Your thought became a thing.

You just don't know for sure if my image is the same as you.

Remember that much of what I see when I interact with people are feelings.


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 27, 2009)

A theory does indeed equal a conclusion.
As new evidence becomes available you can revisit a theory and reach a new conclusion.

This is the scientific method.

Here's a nice definition:
As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.


----------



## Woodstock.Hippie (Oct 27, 2009)

A theory believes in an effort to explain the unexplainable.

A religion believes in an effort to explain the unexplainable.

Theory=Religion

Its all relative, my friend.


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 27, 2009)

Fucking your first cousin is relative. 

A hypothesis may attempt to explain the unexplainable, but to reach the point where it becomes a theory you must have evidence.

Once you have evidence supporting a hypothesis, the target is no longer unexplainable. You use the evidence to test the hypothesis, whether it is falsifiable*, and consistent.

You keep trying to introduce philosophy into science in your posts. Philosophy is fine, but it is not science.

You certainly aren't letting your brain atrophy with all that thinking though 




*(eg. I expect that adding A to B produces C, but if I leave out A then B must not produce C or the experiment is pointless)


----------



## Woodstock.Hippie (Oct 27, 2009)

Has anyone else thought of fucking your cousin?

What if they were a scientist?


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 27, 2009)

I have 50 cousins, and many of them have kids.
I'm sure at least one had sex with a scientist. And at least one IS a scientist
I haven't seen any papers on it though. I'll check PubMed, and see if they did a study on it.

That was funny though. Gonna rep you for that.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 27, 2009)

Foer a scientist, you seem unaware of the difference between a legal & layman "theory", and a scientific definition of a theory.

A scientific theorem is the strongest of all arguments. It does draw a conclusion, to which science is saying we believe this to be substantiated to the greatest degree possible.

Religion uses no such terminology. The legal definition of a theory is not nearly as strong a statement as a scientific theorem.


----------



## Woodstock.Hippie (Oct 27, 2009)

I define scientist as me.

Remember who I am.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 27, 2009)

I can only go by ur posts..... religion by definition can never attain a scientific theorem recognition, until a bearded guy shows up out of the clouds and brings back human sacrifice as a worship method....


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 27, 2009)

Woodstock.Hippie said:


> I define scientist as me.


Which university/college did you get your science degree from? 

You can define yourself as the consort of Alexander the Great as well. It doesn't mean anything.



> Remember who I am.


My suspicion is that you're one of the users involved in the atheism/faith argument just spamming faith based nonsense posts under a new nickname to dilute the forum, so until I see evidence confirming or disproving either I certainly won't be remembering who or what you are.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 27, 2009)

She's just trying to find her ground....  The hills can be steep.


----------



## Woodstock.Hippie (Oct 27, 2009)

what does it take to be a scientist?


----------



## DJBoxhouse (Oct 27, 2009)

Insanity, funny hair, and a good sense of humor.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 27, 2009)

Typically eight years of concentrated study in a particular area of science.

Lay ppl can be a naturalist without a particular rigor... but not a scientist.


----------



## krustofskie (Oct 27, 2009)

DJBoxhouse said:


> Insanity, funny hair, and a good sense of humor.


Like this then.


----------



## Woodstock.Hippie (Oct 27, 2009)

In one particular area of study you say?


----------



## DJBoxhouse (Oct 27, 2009)

I prefer, when referring to 'Scientists' to consider them less in the practical more modern fashion, and moreso in the 'Dr.Science' one.
Bill Nye with a twist of crazy maybe?

To be a passionately learned man of the sciences, joyfully tumbling down the hills of madness with no heed for moderation or other more seemingly reasonable impediments.


This is no time for such frivolities, there is more science at hand to be had!


----------



## DJBoxhouse (Oct 27, 2009)

So, 
following the current theme of the thread, to carry on: From what I've gathered, you theists don't seem to be able to 'play catch', at least where the burden of proof comes into play. I find this silly, especially when you insist on hinting that you have balls to join in on the fun. There is a parallel I'm noticing where 'Most' theists who are stubbornly smashing against a wall of misunderstanding have a reoccurring theme of close mindedness/unreasoning characteristics within what they present of themselves and what is said. So, Can I argue that the trick in comprehension at least where this pertains is being reasonable? I've been implying this the whole time, the fact that to not follow this deduction of logic is no different then an unreasonably fearful child in audience to there parents? All I ask as your circumstantially intellectual parent is you show me that there IS a boogie man. I will show you over and over that there is none, and will unfortunately I'm sure do so until you prove otherwise.
(_I say circumstancially Intellectual parent in the sense that I am an audience you have drawn to and intend to prove your claims to. Last I checked there was no boogie man, said room was fine and you were sleeping. ergo, burden of proof.
_)
Don't get this confused with me saying you'd do the later"_( I will show you over and over that there is none, and will unfortunately I'm sure do so until you prove otherwise.)_" I'm just saying another characteristic of being close minded and unreasonable is being stubborn. Heck, I'd be stubborn too if I literally thought as you. The trick is, I won't ever get to that point of certainty because I always employ reason and logic with an open mind.

'What is therein more probable?', I would say in your shoes to MY parents in this scenario. This question alone bares fruit; the exit to the never ending spiral I've noted above. Because, be it right or wrong, simply considering that question rather than not shows a mind of reasoning, question/which leads onto open mindedness and these only support the growth of not just logic, but properly formed logic at that. Hilariously enough right or wrong, it bares fruit to the qualities that bare fruit to the right answer in the first place.

Even if you don't get it, if you *GET IT* hell, second place is better then not being able to compete in the first place, and in this race, as long as you compete you get first prize anyways.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 27, 2009)

Well if one is smart and ambitious enough, more fields can be conquered in letters of degrees.


----------



## DJBoxhouse (Oct 27, 2009)

I should be a scientist in every major field.
I'd be so hax.


----------



## Woodstock.Hippie (Oct 28, 2009)

is the one that already lives in your mind.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 28, 2009)

That'd be a neat party trick if you could show ppl.


----------



## Brazko (Oct 28, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> That'd be a neat party trick if you could show ppl.


I can show you the boogey man with a sample of the hormones you released when you saw the boogey man in your head...

this is a FAct.., but pointless to the Point of the Thread..., 

nobody can prove anything to you, especially if you take the literal meaning of everything said to be true, and only to your understanding...

Theist - God is Real to Me

Atheist - Ok show me his Hand when he throws a Lightining Bolt...., 

No that is not a spiritual insight.., that is a lack of spiritual insight trying to prove something that is physical/Tangible...

and if you had the balls to admit that you lack spiritual insight.., Then you have gained your first spiritual insight..

don't get mad at people who try to instill spiritual insights, It is your fault, because you have equally rights to your own spirit..., but you have relinquished your rights to something that doesn't exist...Matter, Therefore your Spirit doesn't exist...., as only you choose to think it...


NOw,,. Look - you all can just skip that overhead paragraph., because it deals with the nature of Spirit.., And lacks any proof.. Just thought I'll help out on NOt wasting your time Reading it





I'm still waiting on C*J and I to come together in Locked arms to take down these corporate establishments that exploit, and make sheep out of weak minded people, for the benefit of wealth.... They are going down.. 

C*J and Brazko United.. Wonder Twin Powers - Activate..

btw..C*J, your the Chic'.. I'm just saying...


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 28, 2009)

Has no proof and yet posts it on "burden of proof" thread ... fail.


----------



## Brazko (Oct 28, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Has no proof and yet posts it on "burden of proof" thread ... fail.


bwahahahahahaha, bwahahahahahaha.

didn't BAbs tell you, Your 1 liners are starting to Stink...

bwahahahahahahaha, bwahahahahahaha..

I'll let you in on another Secret..., I have relinquished the authority of your words to meaningless.., You recognize it, Just like everybody else reccognizes it....


bwahahahahahahahaha, bwahahahahahaha,

I Am Your GoD, C*J

Kneel before your Master

iloveitiloveitiloveitiloveitiloveitiloveit

Now, I'm bored with you again..., 

Your GOd has to go Pee PEe now...


----------



## Woodstock.Hippie (Oct 28, 2009)

exactly.

Can we not all be our own?


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 28, 2009)

Still waiting on substantiation of the scientist claim.
What field of study is the degree in?

Does anyone else get the feeling this is Mauihund posting under a new nick? Uses the same pseudo-philosophical garbage like his "atheism cannot exist if 'God' is not real" tripe.


----------



## Woodstock.Hippie (Oct 28, 2009)

paranoid than I.


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 28, 2009)

Well, you're probably mentally ill, but that would necessarily make you paranoid.


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 28, 2009)

Of course you could also be a prolific Poe spamming nonsense to show that spirituality and religion are the worthless contemplation of intangibles.

If so, you are doing a fantastic job, and are very Poe-worthy


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 28, 2009)

The closest Brazko has ever gotten to saliency is in recognizing my post was only one line. It was of course 100% accurate, but that part he missed...


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 28, 2009)

Religion is like an abusive relationship.

It uses fear to keep you in line, but tells you that it's really just intense love.

"I love you baby, but sometimes I just get so angry and I have to hurt someone."

"God loves you, but sometimes you make him angry and he tortures you for eternity."

The best thing to do in an abusive relationship is get the hell out of it.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 28, 2009)

Someday, man will look back and be horrified by his religious ancestors. We are still very primitive and superstitious creatures.


----------



## DJBoxhouse (Oct 28, 2009)

If that's how you view god Brazko, golden. We need more figurative spirit warriors like that, but the fact is people aren't like that, and you aren't from what you've been saying, than again though, from what you've said, in contrast, you could also be like that. You never had a solid stance or a seemingly honest opinion in this thread.
good luck to it though.


----------



## Brazko (Oct 28, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> The closest Brazko has ever gotten to saliency is in recognizing my post was only one line. It was of course 100% accurate, but that part he missed...


I know you missin all the - FAAAAAAAME!! But along with celebrity comes bout seventy shots to your brain


You a - LAAAAAAAAME!!! - Had a spark when you started but now you just garbage, Fell from top 10 to not mentioned at All

But I know, the sun don't shine, the sun don't Shine...

That's why your - LAAAAAAAAAME!! - career come to an end, there is only so long a fake thug can pretend

So yeah, I sampled your voice, you was using it Wrong, You made it a hot Line, I made it a Hot Song

I know who I Paid God, Searchlite Publishing, use your - BRAAAAAAAAIN!!!

You said you've been in this for twelve (80,000 post/elite), I been in it for five (100 posts/me), Smarten up Guy - That's like one hot Post every 6,666 post average..., I can divide

And that's so - LAAAAAAAAME!! - Switch up your flow, your shit is garbage, but you try and kick knowledge..? 

(GTF!! outta here) You people gonna learn to respect the King..., don't be the next contestant on the Jerry Springer show ,

because you know who (who) did you know what (what), with you know who (yeah) but let's just keep that between me and You for now!! <<<<(that was vague)



A wise man once told me not to argue with fools., cause people from a distance can't tell who is who, Stop the Childish shit.., 
C*J I'm Grown
Please leave it alone, don't throw rocks at the Throne,
Don't bark up that Tree, or that tree will fall on You.., I don't know why your advisors didn't forewarn YOu, Please, Not "B", he's not for Play, - I don't slack for a minute, all that BS rappin and gimmicks, I will end it, all that Yappin will be finished..., 

You are not deep, you made your bed now sleep., don't make me expose to them folks that don't know you, Me, I know you well, all stolen *Jew-els (*knowledge), Twinkletoes you breakin my heart

You can't fuck wit me - go Play, I'm busy, - And all you other CAts throwin shots at Braz - you only get half a sentence - F*%k you Beeootches..

C*J, that was Jay Z^^^^^ - not Me

p.s. Your God STill Loves You  <<< That's Me


----------



## Brazko (Oct 28, 2009)

DJBoxhouse said:


> If that's how you view god Brazko, golden. We need more figurative spirit warriors like that, but the fact is people aren't like that, and you aren't from what you've been saying, than again though, from what you've said, in contrast, you could also be like that. You never had a solid stance or a seemingly honest opinion in this thread.
> good luck to it though.


NOpe, people aren't like that.., Religious or Not.. 

My stance is as Solid as the Ground I stand On.. My Opinion has always been honest!! I Am not here to Please your Opinion, Good luck on trying to get others to do the SAme...,


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 28, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Someday, man will look back and be horrified by his religious ancestors. We are still very primitive and superstitious creatures.


Even religious people are horrified by their religious ancestors who worshipped the same god and lived by the same rules.

Then they just attribute it to being a "different time back then" and not to the church having significantly more political power.


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 28, 2009)

If religion and spirituality get their own section, shouldn't atheism, rationalism, and education have a section?


----------



## SmokeyMcChokey (Oct 28, 2009)

sunshine17542 said:


> Proof is everywhere! You first need to understand what God is to find proof. That is something that needs to come from you.


 so essentially your saying that because something inside of you tells you there is a god it is considered proof? there is no proof of a God. not to get into some theological arguement but IMO it;s just a story to explain what at the time could not be reasoned. People took religion to the extreme and now more often than not it harms rather than helping.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 28, 2009)

Exactly Smokey ... just a story by primitives trying to figure out their environment without the benefit of science.

We don't need to pound our clothes with rocks any more, we have the washing machine... tyvm.


----------



## Mauihund (Oct 28, 2009)

krustofskie said:


> It seems when someone disputes the beliefs of a religion they get labeled an Atheist, there are not many true atheists out there who are the ones claiming there is no god.
> 
> I find most fit in to one of the *agnostic brackets* and there are *many different levels of agnostic*. What I feel as an agnostic is that *I don't know* if there is a god or not but I believe all religions are falsehoods created as a means to control man.
> 
> So with this there is no burden of proof about a 'god', but I will add it does leave me with a burden of proving religions wrong, not very hard with the self contradictions that the faiths believers promote.



Dispute the claims of religion all you want. And if you run out of complaints with one religion, theres an endless supply of them somewhere else for you to look at. Just know you aren't talking about God. 

Maybe if you didn't equivocate between God and religion you might have an easer time with the subject.

Agnosticism is the cowards coward for a belief system. At least an atheist is clear about their agenda, the removal of all references to the spiritual throughout the world. The agnostic waffles on the edge of meaning. Should I make a stand for what I believe, or tell everyone I'm not sure, yet. I need more proof first.

You ask for proof, but that's just how you play the game. As long as your searching, no one can really say anything bad. 


There will be no proof of God's existence. The burden is rejected. And therefore laid to rest. I'm sure you'll continue to think about it.


----------



## SmokeyMcChokey (Oct 28, 2009)

Brazko said:


> The bible's story and all religious text portray a cognitive Meaning of truth from human observation and experience...You didn't need a microscope to see an atom, when you saw a body decompose ashes to ashes and dust to dust...we just evolved enough to produce equipment to watch the atom decompose into quantum physics and then into nothing... Santa Claus isn't real, but prove to me how lil boys and girls get gifts all around the world if he doesn't exist, this is the idiocracy of your approach to understanding the meaning of God.., and Science is proof of your still inherent incompetence...
> 
> My statement for the week, I really saw no reason to even make this one..Its not like any of you are competent to overstand it anyway...Silly Monkeys


 
thats assuning that all accounts in the bible were recorded as fact. which we all know is simply not true. Some books were written hundreds of years after said events took place. the bible is a collection of stories that attempt to reform behavior more than anything else. Religion only began because of ignorance. Ancients didnt know why a volcano errupted so it must have been God. all im saying is for someone to take the bible as fact is in itself madness.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 28, 2009)

[youtube]H9t2pUn0xvs[/youtube]


----------



## Brazko (Oct 28, 2009)

SmokeyMcChokey said:


> thats assuning that all accounts in the bible were recorded as fact. which we all know is simply not true. Some books were written hundreds of years after said events took place. the bible is a collection of stories that attempt to reform behavior more than anything else. Religion only began because of ignorance. Ancients didnt know why a volcano errupted so it must have been God. all im saying is for someone to take the bible as fact is in itself madness.


Smokey, Santa Claus is not A Fact.., You get it, I get it..., What santa Claus stands for is REal..

The bible (which I did not state a literal fact) is a proponet of truth..., To say Religion began because of ignorance is Valid to the Point that Science began because of Ignorance..., All I'm saying is to only dispute the Bible as literal FActual is in itself madness..., ie as seen through the SAme light as the believer..,


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 28, 2009)

the bible is most definitely NOT a proponent of truth. One of the reasons why everyone has to cherry pick what THEY WANT from the bible. There's bunches of bigotry and racism and slavery and rape and pillaging and justification for killing those not like you.

Hardly a proponent of truth.... more like primitive thinking.


----------



## Brazko (Oct 28, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> the bible is most definitely NOT a proponent of truth. One of the reasons why everyone has to cherry pick what THEY WANT from the bible. There's bunches of bigotry and racism and slavery and rape and pillaging and justification for killing those not like you.
> 
> Hardly a proponent of truth.... more like primitive thinking.


 
So, by truth, You mean it should be lived by.., By Truth, I mean it is truth in likeness of Primitive Man.. and Yes, Man today... To know your history, is to prevent you from doing it again...., 

However, we still do what primitive Man done.. exploit, kill, Sheer Sheep...

No change in primitive thinking vs modern day thinking.. just the implemented technology in doing it.. More civilized We are..huh,  

but the Bible explains much more than that as well, you remember it is full of Stories.., not the STory.. just as all historical texts Are.. Voices of Truth..


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 28, 2009)

Mauihund said:


> Dispute the claims of religion all you want. And if you run out of complaints with one religion, theres an endless supply of them somewhere else for you to look at. Just know you aren't talking about God.


As long as you use the capitalized "God" you get lumped in with the Christians, as the word was subverted to monopolize the very concept and dismiss all others.

A rather sneaky, yet effective, ploy.

Deists need a word that hasn't been co-opted yet. Of course as soon as they come up with one, Christianity will claim that one too, and you're back to square one.


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 28, 2009)

Santa Claus was based on the actions of a dutch philanthropist who was good to children.

Santa Claus today is a corporate icon intended to make you spend money. It is not a force for good, but for indulgence.


----------



## Brazko (Oct 28, 2009)

so the implements denies the Truth of the Basis.., That is the arguementive Philosophy at it's root..

this can be said about all Things.. Goverment, REligion, Food, Corporate Business..,etc., etc., none of these things are a force of Good,, They are all indulgence for Evil..., You see, This Approach is Flawed!!


----------



## Woodstock.Hippie (Oct 28, 2009)

I once blessed A Friend of mine who was more learned in the philosophy of science than I with the title of scientist. 
Alas, he claimed, "There is no paper" and he was right, no scientist.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 28, 2009)

morgentaler said:


> Santa Claus was based on the actions of a dutch philanthropist who was good to children.
> 
> Santa Claus today is a corporate icon intended to make you spend money. It is not a force for good, but for indulgence.


I have had the pleasure of spending a few Xmas's in Adamtown. The first time I saw the original Sinterklaas and Zwarte Pieten ... it was very very kewl. A great place to spend Xmas.


----------



## Mauihund (Oct 28, 2009)

morgentaler said:


> As long as you use the capitalized "God" you get lumped in with the Christians, as the word was subverted to monopolize the very concept and dismiss all others.
> 
> A rather sneaky, yet effective, ploy.
> 
> Deists need a word that hasn't been co-opted yet. Of course as soon as they come up with one, Christianity will claim that one too, and you're back to square one.



Bahahahaha! You think I'm playing the "Prove God Exists" game. Stupid monkey. That is one *HUGE *wast of time.


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 28, 2009)

No. But you're reading comprehension is only slightly better than Babs.
You just know how to use the editor.

But you're right. Attempting to prove any god is a HUGE waste of time.
But there's an even bigger waste of time. Worship of something you can't possibly know exists.


----------



## PadawanBater (Oct 28, 2009)

Mauihund said:


> Bahahahaha! You think I'm playing the "Prove God Exists" game. Stupid monkey. That is one *HUGE *wast of time.


 
Might wanna check the title of the thread there buddy, that's the game your side has been playing the entire time... 

lmfao...


----------



## DJBoxhouse (Oct 28, 2009)

I love how all my thread did was gather people who wanted proof, and then gather people who, in retort argued that there balls were left in there other pants and, rather, instead continued to argue the semantics of the thread in relation to there own wan-tan unsupported beliefs.


Your beliefs either filter through the trickling system of proof in logical deduction, or you lose your place in the line of potential considerations of outcome. 

I can't keep maybes circling in thought if I have no way to prove them just because some of them sound pretty and had good intentions.

I really like earl gray, but that tea pot orbiting Jupiter I mention in threads past couulld have another *type* of tea in it. It will never really give me any solid conclusion for me to base a decision on. *siiigh* C'est la vie, such is life, and then I move on.


----------



## krustofskie (Oct 28, 2009)

Mauihund said:


> Dispute the claims of religion all you want. And if you run out of complaints with one religion, theres an endless supply of them somewhere else for you to look at. Just know you aren't talking about God.
> 
> Maybe if you didn't equivocate between God and religion you might have an easer time with the subject.
> 
> ...


I can and do separate the 'idea' of god away from religions. Religions are man made 100%, and if there is a god I don't think he would have anything to do with them either. If you have read any of my posts you would notice I never attack the concept of god, only the organisations that claim to be of a god. This is why I think the burden lays with the religions as they claim there to be a god and the same stands for the real atheist's who claim there is none. I'm not asking god to prove anything, I don't talk to people I don't think are there.

To say agnostics are cowards, hows that, I can admit I don't know about god but will call 'religions' bluff, I just call that being true to myself for admitting my own inadequacies but will stand up to bullies. 

I don't believe there is a god but I have no way of proving it, so with no proof I have no answers, quite simply don't know. I try to use logic in my reasoning and for me to claim or deny a deity without any facts defies my logic.


----------



## anhedonia (Oct 28, 2009)

Great thread. Hilarious that somone would rate such a good thread with 1 star.


----------



## Mauihund (Oct 28, 2009)

morgentaler said:


> No. But you're reading comprehension is only slightly better than Babs.
> You just know how to use the editor.
> 
> But you're right. Attempting to prove any god is a HUGE waste of time.
> But there's an even bigger waste of time. Worship of something you can't possibly know exists.



You've finally reduced your argument to its basic element. I'm a stupid poo-poo ca-ca. I get it. I get it.


----------



## Mauihund (Oct 28, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> Might wanna check the title of the thread there buddy, that's the game your side has been playing the entire time...
> 
> lmfao...




You're not the boss of me!


----------



## Woodstock.Hippie (Oct 28, 2009)

Must you define something before you prove it?


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 28, 2009)

Unless you define what you are attempting to prove, you prove nothing.


----------



## Woodstock.Hippie (Oct 28, 2009)

the existence of anything, I first must define that which I am disproving.

I await yours.

edit: I await definition of that which you are disproving.


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 28, 2009)

Await my what?
Why don't you just start posting blank messages and save yourself the typing.


----------



## DJBoxhouse (Oct 28, 2009)

hahaha. Good point. I do enjoy the random questions, they have some direction and guidance to them but they tend to draw unnecessary attention to idle thoughts aimlessly.


----------



## Woodstock.Hippie (Oct 28, 2009)

Very true.
Every crypt has a key.

edit: Remember how to dilute the Hippie quotient. 
Its all about the math.


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 28, 2009)

Hippies are best diluted with acid.

Lysergic, not Hydrochloric.

Though it would be cool to watch the latter on the former.


----------



## Brazko (Oct 28, 2009)

DJBoxhouse said:


> hahaha. Good point. I do enjoy the random questions, they have some direction and guidance to them but they tend to draw unnecessary attention to idle thoughts aimlessly.


 
I was embarrassed to say the exact same Thing... I get the cryptic messages.. I enjoy the thought provoking ?'s but I feel they come too often.., but maybe that's the Key..

idk.. I'm feeling really spent right now, I need to rest..

Thanks


----------



## Woodstock.Hippie (Dec 15, 2009)

Has anyone seen Alice?

She may be lost or trapped in someone's Reality.

THE QUEEN IS GONE FROM https://www.rollitup.org/toke-n-talk/282207-phat-white-rabbit-hole.html!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 15, 2009)

I find it amusing, but not stimulating. 

Like watching kids in a playground.....


----------



## jfgordon1 (Dec 15, 2009)

Don't you think it's funny that the "son of God" only had 12 followers. 

I have more followers on Twitter 

Jesus who ? lol


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 15, 2009)

The son of G*D was arrested, tried, convicted and crucified .....

Then the stories are written decades later by anonymous authors..... yah know bedrock truth from strange ppl who all copy from the original gospel of Paul, who never met the son of G*D. Never heard of Mary, Joseph, Bethlehem ...

tried convicted and crucified? 
OH, HE MEANT TO DO THAT!!!  Is there any more gullible group of ppl than folks who think the bible is a true story??!! 

LAWDY!!!


----------



## jfgordon1 (Dec 15, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Is there any more gullible group of ppl than folks who think the bible is a true story??!!
> 
> LAWDY!!!


Absolutely not. 

What gets me is that they pick and choose what to believe. I say if they know someone who has committed adultery.. they should stone them.. because that what the bible say to do. and that is GOD's word. God's word is perfect


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 15, 2009)

Were there miracles before man? 

5.995 billion years of waiting on us to show up???


----------



## PadawanBater (Dec 15, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Were there miracles before man?
> 
> 5.995 billion years of waiting on us to show up???


 
...But you forget, a day to God isn't the same as a day to us humans...


----------



## morgentaler (Dec 15, 2009)

Grilled cheese sandwiches were created by "God" 14 billion years ago, just so Jesus could appear on them.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Dec 15, 2009)

morgentaler said:


> Grilled cheese sandwiches were created by "God" 14 billion years ago, just so Jesus could appear on them.


WE all know it wasn't Jesus....
... it was Mary 

Jesus was on the potato chip


----------

