God Bless!

  That wasn't aimed towards you oramac, sorry.  That was still part of my 'Frankie is a dork' tirade

shaZam! terry those were funny.   seriously though oramac could convert everyone with a pleasant argument like that....well done

indeed frankie indeed

God bless photobucket, always there when you need funny/offensive images

Invisible Pink Unicorns are a standard device used to illustrate the logical fallacies in many arguments use to justify belief or even "prove" the existence of god. 

IPUs are just silly.  Nobody believes in them.  But there's as much empirical data supporting their existence as there is for the existence of god. That is, zero.

I have no problem with people believing in supernatural beings, be they God, IPUs, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Vishnu, various Monarchs, or Nuggan.  I do have a problem with them trying to force their beliefs on others.  That, I'm sure everyone can understand. 

However, I also have a problem with their lack of reasoning ability when trying to justify their beliefs.  They make false statements, and don't realize that they're false (The fact that you're questioning god's existence proves his existence).  They don't understand the concept of the burden of proof (I believe in God because he hasn't been proven false). 

The burden of proof is always on the person making a claim.  That could affect everyone directly.  If I'm on trial, how can someone be trusted with my life when they don't understand that the burden of proof is on the prosecutor to prove guilt, and not the defense to prove innocence.  In fact, the defense technically doesn't have to do crap.  The defendant doesn't have to testify.  Yet there are people (at least one of whom I served with in jury selection) who think that failure to testify is an admission of guilt.  That can get innocent people killed.  That's why I attack people's arguments for belief and/or god's existence, but not the beliefs themselves (at least most of the time). 

+1


'flying spaghettit monster?!?!???!!!  Been watching a little south park have we???

Quote from: spcterry on July 16, 2007, 03:43:53 PM
+1


'flying spaghettit monster?!?!???!!!  Been watching a little south park have we???

No, Matt Stone and Trey Parker just read the news.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

And to clarify the "making the claim" part, If I say, "Invisible Pink Unicorns exist" then I are making a claim.  If you respond with, "I don't believe you" then you are not making a claim, you're simply refuting the stated claim.  The standard scientific position is to disbelieve any statement unless there is adequate proof to back it up.  Then, if the facts agree with the statement, then it is accepted as the most correct explanation until new facts force the change of the old position.  It's a great system, without which we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Quote from: Egaeus on July 16, 2007, 03:38:24 PM
Invisible Pink Unicorns are a standard device used to illustrate the logical fallacies in many arguments use to justify belief or even "prove" the existence of god. 

IPUs are just silly.  Nobody believes in them.  But there's as much empirical data supporting their existence as there is for the existence of god. That is, zero.

I have no problem with people believing in supernatural beings, be they God, IPUs, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Vishnu, various Monarchs, or Nuggan.  I do have a problem with them trying to force their beliefs on others.  That, I'm sure everyone can understand. 

However, I also have a problem with their lack of reasoning ability when trying to justify their beliefs.  They make false statements, and don't realize that they're false (The fact that you're questioning god's existence proves his existence).  They don't understand the concept of the burden of proof (I believe in God because he hasn't been proven false). 

The burden of proof is always on the person making a claim.  That could affect everyone directly.  If I'm on trial, how can someone be trusted with my life when they don't understand that the burden of proof is on the prosecutor to prove guilt, and not the defense to prove innocence.  In fact, the defense technically doesn't have to do crap.  The defendant doesn't have to testify.  Yet there are people (at least one of whom I served with in jury selection) who think that failure to testify is an admission of guilt.  That can get innocent people killed.  That's why I attack people's arguments for belief and/or god's existence, but not the beliefs themselves (at least most of the time). 

alright since youre making the point of there being no god. the burden of proof is up to you. correct? alright, ill read your expy tonight after work

Quote from: yamahonkawazuki on July 16, 2007, 06:09:58 PM
alright since youre making the point of there being no god. the burden of proof is up to you. correct? alright, ill read your expy tonight after work

Well... not really to be inflammatory, but the burden of proof is upon the person claiming there is a God. If I claim that gravity exists, and someone is skeptical, the burden of proof is on me. Same with God. I do, however, think it is a moot point since God is so many different things to different people, and there really is no one ultimate definition of God.

Quote from: yamahonkawazuki on July 16, 2007, 06:09:58 PM

Quote from: Egaeus on July 16, 2007, 03:38:24 PM
Invisible Pink Unicorns are a standard device used to illustrate the logical fallacies in many arguments use to justify belief or even "prove" the existence of god. 

IPUs are just silly.  Nobody believes in them.  But there's as much empirical data supporting their existence as there is for the existence of god. That is, zero.

I have no problem with people believing in supernatural beings, be they God, IPUs, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Vishnu, various Monarchs, or Nuggan.  I do have a problem with them trying to force their beliefs on others.  That, I'm sure everyone can understand. 

However, I also have a problem with their lack of reasoning ability when trying to justify their beliefs.  They make false statements, and don't realize that they're false (The fact that you're questioning god's existence proves his existence).  They don't understand the concept of the burden of proof (I believe in God because he hasn't been proven false). 

The burden of proof is always on the person making a claim.  That could affect everyone directly.  If I'm on trial, how can someone be trusted with my life when they don't understand that the burden of proof is on the prosecutor to prove guilt, and not the defense to prove innocence.  In fact, the defense technically doesn't have to do crap.  The defendant doesn't have to testify.  Yet there are people (at least one of whom I served with in jury selection) who think that failure to testify is an admission of guilt.  That can get innocent people killed.  That's why I attack people's arguments for belief and/or god's existence, but not the beliefs themselves (at least most of the time). 

alright since youre making the point of there being no god. the burden of proof is up to you. correct? alright, ill read your expy tonight after work

You missed my reply to spcterry, where I explained this, anticipating someone not understanding the concept of burden of proof:

Quote from: Egaeus on July 16, 2007, 03:56:01 PM

Quote from: spcterry on July 16, 2007, 03:43:53 PM
+1


'flying spaghettit monster?!?!???!!!  Been watching a little south park have we???

No, Matt Stone and Trey Parker just read the news.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

And to clarify the "making the claim" part, If I say, "Invisible Pink Unicorns exist" then I are making a claim.  If you respond with, "I don't believe you" then you are not making a claim, you're simply refuting the stated claim.  The standard scientific position is to disbelieve any statement unless there is adequate proof to back it up.  Then, if the facts agree with the statement, then it is accepted as the most correct explanation until new facts force the change of the old position.  It's a great system, without which we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Spoiler alert: do not read if you don't want to hear about christ.

In my opinion, not to be forced upon anyone,

The Bible contains historical facts in the Old Testament.  This is considered to be proof.  The New Testament records all kinds of miracles performed by Christ to be used as proof.  Its up to each individual as to if you believe or not.  Remember, Christ was not accepted as being king of the Jews and a savior, which lead to his death.  People back then did not believe in Christ but many did believe in god; just that Christ was not the son of god.  If people were not convinced then, when Christ walked the earth, how am I supposed to prove that he was?  I can't.  Religion is based upon faith simply that you believe even though you have not seen.  The bible says blessed are those who believe and have not seen.

I believe that Christ is who he said he was, the son of god.  In my life, I believe that god has given me enough signs and coincidences to where I am convinced.
If you don't think so, that's fine with me.  Everyone comes to their on conclusion.

The same scenario is used to prove Muhammad, Buddha, and many others.

The only reason Christians force their religion on others is because we are commanded in the bible to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ.

There is no way to tell someone about Christ and not offend.  The bible says we Christians will be persecuted just because of the name Christ.

Me, personally, I don't care who you worship or who you don't worship.  I just believe a certain way; many others believe or not believe a different way.

I don't know why people get so offended when I speak about Christ, but it reinforces my belief because the bible predicts that people will hate me because I use the words Christ and God the Father.

I only try to do to others what I would want done to me.  I only write this so that if someone reads it and wants to know more about what I believe, I can tell them.  If you don't agree as I know many don't, that's ok too.  I really am not trying to force you to believe.

I have met many people that I don't share the same views with.  It does not mean I will not be your friend, make fun of you, force my religion on you, call you names or won't go ride motorcycles with you.

As a funny side note, on MTV Jack@ss, they did a skit where someone dressed up in a satan costume and went out on the street campaigning about lies and slander spread about satan, and that satan was really a nice person who just gets a bad rap.  I thought it was funny.

Quote from: Reddog787 on July 16, 2007, 09:16:32 PM
The Bible contains historical facts in the Old Testament.  This is considered to be proof. 

Not facts, per se. This is merely documentation, or one perspective. You know what they say, "History is always written by the winners". Christianity happened to prevail, thus getting to write the history books. I'm sure there has been equally credible documentation citing "true" miracles, magic, witchcraft, demons, etc.

Quote from: Reddog787 on July 16, 2007, 09:16:32 PM
I don't know why people get so offended when I speak about Christ, but it reinforces my belief because the bible predicts that people will hate me because I use the words Christ and God the Father.

I don't get offended by people speaking about Christ as a belief. I do get offended when people try to prove facts by citing Christ (i.e. Rights & Wrongs of Homosexuality, premarital sex, creationism v. evolution, who's religion is right, etc.) and I get equally offended when Muslims, Jews and so forth do the same. It's not personal man, something classified as a faith just shouldn't be used to try and prove anything empirically truthful.

Quote from: Reddog787 on July 16, 2007, 09:16:32 PM
The same scenario is used to prove Muhammad, Buddha, and many others.

So if this does occur, does that mean anyone is particularly right or wrong? Or does this reinforce the notion that these are beliefs and cannot be used as empirical evidence to prove anything?

My bottom line: It's a belief, keep it that way. Religion is not something used to prove facts, it's a reason for why you live your life like you do. It is not something that should be imposed on anyone- such as being written into laws, or using taxpayer money.

Wow...re-reading this thread from way back was a good time, until I got to the new posts (aside from Casi and one or two selected others).


Please, you new guys...I'm fine with you adding what you want, but at least make it relevant and on par with the prior discussion, rather than simply slamming each other (as the initial post begs of you not to).  You don't need to drop down to that level in every thread.

Sorry   I have a tendency towards douchebagism