Burden of Proof

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by jcarl, Jan 1, 2004.

  1. SnakeLord snakeystew.com Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,758
    Now now, none of that deceitful, sly behaviour please. Seems you "forgot" to put the rest of the text that holds the relevance.. Nice guy that I am, i'll fill it in for you..

    7: "maintaining love to thousands, (strange, only maintaining love to thousands?), and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation."
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. jcarl Starving...Why Wait? Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    307
    My mistake. I only looked at verse 6 and verse 6 only. I now see my fault. Please accept my apologies.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,112
    Wow! You are so subtle.
    Either say something of worth, you coward, or shut up.

    Jan Ardena.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Godless Objectivist Mind Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,197
    Hey!! Jan only a quickie;

    I was born in Venezuela, brought up here in the states as a child, english is my second language, I have no accent when I speak english either, my accent is Texan good ol' country boy. My lack of education. 'Well I'm a high school drop out, I only attended till tenth grade, got my GED when I was 22, never attended a college. My complaining was the criticism I got from the grammar used in some discussions. You have too appease the critics sometimes.

    I've been rather busy, and this is why I've neglected on the illusion comcept of reality. however not even I have finished reading that ontological disscussion website I posted once.

    Godless.
     
  8. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,125
    Jan

    You are the one dissing education. Are you a proponent for ignorance? Would you rather the entire world's population read only the Bible? How can you say those things when it is education and science that got you the things you take for granted? Is that the kind of role model you wish to present?

    Please do get an education so that you too can eventually say something of worth.
     
  9. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,112
    (Q),

    You are the one dissing education.

    Point out to me, where i have dissed education.

    Are you a proponent for ignorance? Would you rather the entire world's population read only the Bible?

    Excuse me?
    Where's all this nonsense coming from?

    How can you say those things when it is education and science that got you the things you take for granted?

    Say what things? Did you read the post properly?
    I said nothing bad about education or science, only when it (education) is acquired by fools, people who through their ignorance misuse it and use it as a weapon.
    Don't you think it is possible for an educated person to be a fool?

    Please do get an education so that you too can eventually say something of worth.

    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Jan Ardena.
     
  10. jcarl Starving...Why Wait? Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    307
    How would that make you believe any more than you do now?

    Tell me, how does this statement help your argument in any way?

    God while being all powerful, will not force you to believe in Him. This is where free will come into play.

    Have you any methods by which to debunk their claims?

    If these people were insane, for lack of a better term, then others would have written so as to debunk them.

    Pot is pretty much freely available today, but does that mean that everyone uses it.

    Most, if not all, of the visions are prophecy. When Isaiah's vision talks of a virgin birth, it might of been bizarre; but sometimes that is the nature of prophecy.

    What are the signs of a lie?

    So are we to throw out ancient history, or history altogether for that matter, because some people might exaggerate?

    What would give it credibility to you? What constitutes credibility?

    Confucian social order and communism are two different animals. Communism requires the ideal setting to function; Confucian social order can work even in a less than ideal setting. But this is not the point: the point is that a system developed a long time ago can still hold relevance.

    The point is that we do not know the good that might come out of this tragedy.

    How so?

    My point is that Jesus was sent that all might have eternal life. That includes those who deny that He and/or God existed.

    Ok...Here's a site that explains it probably better than I can.http://www.carm.org/atheism.htm
     
  11. SnakeLord snakeystew.com Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,758
    It can be answered with a return question or two: What would make you believe in the giant invisible all-knowing turnip of planet oogle boogle? If you found an old book, would that instantly make it true?

    One more question: What would make you believe any more than you do now in all of the other gods/beings that have been written about, from Zeus to Quetzacotl?

    Would you concur that god is powerful and able enough to come down and tell me, be it in a dream, a vision, or via email as stated earlier? If he can, I'd rather take his excuse over yours.

    So he just killed my son instead, to remind me I have free will? What about my son's free will to live and grow up on this planet? Again.. there was a problem with sending an email?

    Many. The only one I really need to point out here, right now is this:

    A book, (of which there are many many millions), does not make something true, or even give credence to something as being true. Perhaps you're suggesting that I just start believing in vampires because Anne Rice says so... Well?

    The fact remains, you have no position with which to give any credibility whatsoever to this book. The same can be said of every other book, (I don't see you believing in the Hindu god, the Greek gods, the Roman gods, the South American snake Gods, the Aztec sun gods, the minotaur, time machines, or aliens). Why not?

    That's your return argument? lol. Common "belief" is that Moses wrote the majority of the early books. If it were true, wouldn't we agree that Moses never ever ever ever ever met Adam? Wouldn't we agree that Moses never ever ever ever ever met Noah? And yet, here would be one man, making claims about life several thousand years before he even existed.

    Furthermore, let's for the moment assume Mark Twain was 'insane'. Why would anyone debunk anything he'd written? If it's a story, it is not in a necessary postion to be debunked.

    I guess at least, you have the ability to ask them. Yes, that's right... You can walk up to them and say "hey dude, do you smoke pot?" Think you can do that with the ancient people you'll never know? You can't even tell me with anything other than personal assumption as to who these bible writers were..

    Reminds me of that guy on death row who had a 'vision from god' that told him to kill all the non-believers. Think you're in a position to state whether this guy had a 'real' vision? Obviously not, so tell me... what makes you think you're in a position to be confirming the 'visions' of people you'll never know?

    The problem being that the bible is not a day-to-day account of events. Can you confirm that anything that was written, was written before the 'fact'? Of course, you can't even confirm that anything in the bible is even based upon reality in any way, shape or form. Can you even confirm that someone had checked Mary's vagina to ensure she really was a virgin? If not, you're working on nothing of credibility, instead just stating that the book is real because the book says so.

    Fidgeting, scratching your ass, twiddling your thumbs, dilation of your pupils, etc.

    There are also other signs to recognise..

    The eyes will instinctively look upwards to access information stored in the brain, (it's an autonomic response). Depending on which side they look, (up-left/right), you can tell whether they're accessing the memory centers of the brain, or the creative centers of the brain. You can test this for yourself.

    Throw out? Absolutely not.. Believe every word 100% without so much as a molecule of evidence? Damn no. The historical value of the bible and every other ancient text is immense- the same as every historical excavation site, every dinosaur bone, etc.. But you don't ever just form an instant "truth" because of what you find.

    When I was a young man, of about 12, I found the remains of an animal. At that very moment I could have stated it was the remains of a giant octopus and been happy with that "truth". However, what it actually required was a long damn time of research, of fact finding. I compared it with other bones, got an invitation to the Natural History Museum, checked the 'teeth' to see if it was a meat eater or a veggie, in order to narrow the search, and so on and so forth until a definite conclusion was achieved, not based upon something one book said was true, but upon decades of evidence and the ability to 'see' it for myself.

    Much like I wouldn't now rely on your 'opinion' if you decided to tell me what it was. And yet for some bizarre reason, you're trusting the word of some unknown ancient guy without so much as flicking an eyelid.

    Facts. Of which the bible will never have any. Sure, I agree 110% that is such a shame we can't travel back in time and witness it all for ourselves, but the fact remains we can't.

    What modern day humans rely on in this issue, is a voice in their head. No offence, but there are a lot of voices, in a lot of heads, that talk a lot of shit. It has about as much credibility as using a mars bar to prove quantum mechanics.

    Unless of course... You have actually seen god? If so, my apologies, but I would ask that you inform me as to his appearance. Is he even a he?

    Did you ever read that book about Betty and Barney, (no, not the flintstones), who got abducted by aliens? Would you just believe everything they said, because they said it? Would you require a bit more than that to convince you? What would it require? Please, same question to you..

    good for who?

    While I fail to see the worth of god sending a mini-god down to kill himself just to be alive again 30 seconds later, (and as such hardly a 'sacrifice'), throughout the rest of the bible it says many different things, including the future possibility of burning in hell. According to that, us un-believers will end in the lake of fire. Your quote has no purpose, when I could just pick out another one to leave it meaningless.

    I've read the site, and it's laughable, (along with every apologetics website I've seen). There's the old contradiction

    "Nobody has ever seen god and lived" vs god saying "I speak to Moses face to face"

    Of which the apologetics guy, (a priest), said: "Moses wasn't speaking to the real god, but a in-between that god made to talk to him."

    Enough of apologetics sites please, they're pathetic.
     
  12. jcarl Starving...Why Wait? Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    307
    I stumbled upon this answer I had saved but obviously never sent. There's my excuse for being about 5 months late. I figure I'll just throw it out to yall

    To say that a turnip is on a planet already makes the assumption that it is within our time and our space. Further, your assigning this being the characteristics of a turnip even more-so confirms this idea. Therefore your statement would already assume that this thing is, for lack of a better term, natural. Anything that is natural is observable to some degree. Therefore, it ought to be observable, or at least the effects of it should be seen. This would be a case where absence of evidence would be evidence of absence. Just a random thought, but if it's invisible how do you know its giant?

    My claim that there is a Spiritual God that created the universe is not the same kind of claim. To say that something created the universe assumes that that entity is beyond that universe, beyond that realm.(This goes even further when I describe God as an unnatural being, that is a spiritual one.) To search within the universe for an entity that is claimed to be outside is as flawed as searching for a clockmaker in the gears of a clock.


    Zeus gives me no reason to obey him. Zeus could love me one moment, then kick me to the curb the next. He changes his mind. Heck, if God were really like Zeus, I'm not so sure I wouldn't be on your side.

    In contrast, my God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He loved me before I grew to love Him. He loved me so much that, even while I was dead in my own rebellion against Him, He came down as Christ and died that I might have the chance of living with Him forever. I can't lose that love, that grace. I have been given something I could not hope to gain by myself. This God won't put my bad on one side and my good on another and if they balance out I'll get into Heaven. If that were the case I wouldn't have a chance. Instead He took my place, took my suffering and in turn gave me hope. For that I am grateful, and thus feel it is my "duty" to dedicate my life to Him, because He dedicated His life for mine.

    That is why I believe in this God. Yes all the other proofs of God are great and I agree with them, but most only confirm that there's something out there, not necessarily anybody who cares about me or any of us for that matter. Whoop dee do, who cares about that?

    Your response to this will probably be nothing more than a yawn. That's fine.

    What makes you so sure that you would accept it? Why does God have to put on a virtual talent show for you to believe in Him? If He did show you, would you then be convinced?

    I really don't know. I can't read God's mind nor can I know all of His reasoning.

    (along with the one above): Yes. What makes you think that God, Creator of the Universe, would come to you when/how it's convenient for you?

    That I will give you.

    I'm guessing by that statement that you've never read a book then and believed anything, religious or otherwise. Does this statement apply to all genres of literature? If you read a book by Newton or Einstein on physics or whatnot, are you skeptical of what they say b/c perhaps you have not performed or seen performed experiments that they have? Burn all the history books, since the authors obviously could not have known Caesar, Bismarck, and Hitler. Are you going to limit yourself only to what you can observe for yourself, or does this only pertain to religious literature?

    Anne Rice is portraying vampires as fictional characters in her novels. The writers of the Gospels are portraying a historical figure according to eyewitness(esp. there own) accounts. There is a difference.

    Aside from the fact of the events/people in it being talked about by non-NT authors, specifically Josephus, Lucian, Pliny, and Thallus. Also, do you have anything to contradict what they said?

    Because these writings were not written by eyewitnesses and are not verified by outside authors.

    Herein lies the doctrine of divine inspiration. The idea--expressed in the Bible in places such as Jer. 1:9, Isaiah 59:21, John 16:12, and John 14:26. That God inspired the writings of the Bible is the only way one can explain how the writers could write of things to come and also of things past. Further, by your standard, a person could only write what they have personally witnessed.

    But that is fiction and portrayed as such; the Bible is not fiction and is therefore not portrayed as fiction.

    In this case, I'm not the only one assuming things.

     
  13. Alpha «Visitor» Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,179
    Quote from OP:
    I'd generalize that to: The burden of proof lies on whoever is making an assertion.
     
  14. jcarl Starving...Why Wait? Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    307
    Alpha what you're saying and what the AA statement says are two different things. I agree with your's, not their's. "There is no god" or "it can not be determined there is/isn't a god" are just as much potential affirmations of reality as "there is a God."
     
  15. Medicine*Woman Jesus: Mythstory--Not History! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,346
    *************
    M*W: jcarl, I have some questions for you. When you say "Spiritual God," exactly what do you mean? Please explain.
    *************
    *************
    M*W: Why do you think "something created the universe assumes that that entity is beyond that universe..."
    (This goes even further when I describe God as an unnatural being, that is a spiritual one.)
    To search within the universe for an entity that is claimed to be outside is as flawed as searching for a clockmaker in the gears of a clock.
    *************
    M*W: Maybe it means that nobody ALIVE has ever seen God. That would mean only the spirits of the dead can see God. You are correct. God is "spirit." But what if even Moses was a made up story? There's some skepticism about Moses' natural existence. Some scholars are now saying he was a fictional character. So, how do we really know what is true and what is untrue? Christians will say "by faith alone." And where does that leave those of us who feel we are so worthless that we need a dying demigod savior to secure heaven for us? It leaves us in the same place we've always been -- a member of humanity. Since humanity was created by God, we don't need saving. Our visit here on Planet Earth is proof of our "salvation" (i.e. our human existence). We would need no salvation otherwise, unless we are being saved from something we can't quite express. There is only one God, and we are humanity.
     
  16. Godless Objectivist Mind Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,197
    Moses might of existed, however the real question is were he the author of the Pentateuch?

    http://pages.zdnet.com/rwfortune/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/didmoses.htm

    Why the doubts about Moses’ authorship?

    Allen P. Ross says in “Lecture One: The Literary Analytical Approach.” The aim of higher criticism is to determine the date, authorship, composition and/or unity of the literary works in the Old Testament.



    Philosophically, higher criticism developed out of the Rationalism of Spinoza (1670) essentially he claims the following…

    1. All truth must stand before the bar of reason since only reason is universal in time and common to all humanity

    2. Therefore the Bible's claim of special revelation and inspiration is repudiated or renounced.

    3. Therefore, not all of the Bible can measure up to the demands of reason.



    This resulted in attempts to identify the main documents, which were sources behind the Pentateuch (assuming that Moses was not the author [under reason])



    Religious studies courses at many universities and seminaries teach that the Pentateuch is a composite work consisting of four (or more) literary strands. The four strands have been assigned the letters J, E, D, and P; each representing a different document or source that was woven into the fabric of the Bible. This set of assumptions has gone by a number of names including the documentary theory and the Graf-Wellhausen theory (as many as 70 different authors have been suggested for the five books in question)

    more info at the link provided.

    Godless.
     

Share This Page