Really? I never noticed.

Quote from: Egaeus on July 16, 2007, 07:24:04 PM

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.

fair enough Eg. you didnt specifically say god does not exist. in this thread, so illback out of the burden of proof request.

"Bob" can Always Kick the Spagetti Monsters Ass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._R._%22Bob%22_Dobbs

Quote from: CasiUSA on July 16, 2007, 10:04:23 PM

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.

I agree on that, history is in the eye of the beholder.

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.

Quote from: CasiUSA on July 16, 2007, 10:04:23 PM
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.

You may not get offended but others do after they ask me what I believe!

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

Quote from: CasiUSA on July 16, 2007, 10:04:23 PM
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?

Since the 3 previously mention religions all worship the god of abraham, is it possible for all to be in the same heaven?  I guess that would be god's call.  I've always heard you will be surprised who is in heaven and who won't be.

Quote from: CasiUSA on July 16, 2007, 10:04:23 PM
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.

Once you decide on what to believe it grows until you incorparate it into everything - just look at the muslim extremist.

Quote from: Reddog787 on July 17, 2007, 09:56:25 AM
Once you decide on what to believe it grows until you incorparate it into everything - just look at the muslim extremist.

Yes! That's my exact point. Look at the Muslim extremist, and where religious fundamentalism has gotten them. That is the danger in religion- people take the "Word of God" literally, and all of a sudden, that is justification enough to kill, hate, destroy, ridicule, etc.
It's not just Muslims, look at the history of any Religion, especially Christianity, and the amounts of destruction that resulted from literal interpretations and claims to God.

Extremists are just that...no religion (of which I am aware), calls for anyone's destruction.  Old Testament writings allow "an eye for and eye" and "a tooth for a tooth".  However, God says "Vengeance is mine".  He will exact vengeance on those that are deserving.  

We as men are not to declare our own judgement on any other men.  We are to spread the word of God and Jesus Christ and let others choose.  As long as I am professing to you now of my beliefs, I am doing as the Bible has instructed you, but I can't force you to believe or to submit to the teachings of Christ, and I am instructed to love you no matter what your choice.  If you were forced or coerced into believing in God and Christ, that would defeat the purpose of faith.

It's not supposed to be easy to prove God's existence.  He wants you to follow His word and His law because it is right and good, and we should do it out of faith and love.  If there were solid proof, people would follow him out of fear, not because of a pure heart.  Kind of like when you speed unless you know the police are watching...you only follow the law because you are afraid of the repercussion.

You will find no proof of God except His word in the Bible, and the beliefs in the hearts of His followers.  

nowhere have i ever read in the bible that i should kill someone because because they will not believe.  The qur'an on the other hand...
In history christianity, did do the same thing though.  Its a black eye on my religion.  It all goes back to freewill.

Ummmmm...........you are aware that the koran, torah and old testament are almost identical right.  The old testament is riddled with cases of direction towards vengeance.........it was only in the new testament that peace was emphasized.

thats why i want to find scholars on the major religions, and talk with them for a while on these things. if anyone knows, they do

Terry, I acknowledged the violence in the old testament, and I also said that vengeance was God's alone.  Think of Sodom and Gamorah, the great flood, Joshua and the battle of Jericho, the parting of the Red Sea and the consequent drowning of the pursuing soldiers.  Those acts of violence were also acts of God.  Once again, however, Christians follow the teachings of the New Testament which is a new covenant.  The old laws were rewritten by Christ.

In the Jewish faith, the Jews believe they are a chosen people, and they are meant to endure hardships, not war over them. 

Islam has similar teachings of peace as brought forth by the prophet mohammed. 

The Old Testament, which is similar in all the aforementioned religions, took a more peaceful postion after the Ten Commandments were set forth.  Think "Thou shalt not kill."  It doesn't get any more clear cut than that.

Unfortunately, the christian faith has a much worse track record in maintaining these standards.  Christians/Catholics have killed more people 'in the name of god' in the last 10 centuries than this country has lost soldiers in EVERY military action it has engaged in.   I've read reports upwards of 5 million 'infidels' being killed during the crusades including a large percentage of christians by christians.  Sure, the Sunni's and the Shi'ites have their problems, but nothing compared to christianity.................

Quote from: spcterry on July 17, 2007, 07:27:16 PM
Unfortunately, the christian faith has a much worse track record in maintaining these standards.  Christians/Catholics have killed more people 'in the name of god' in the last 10 centuries than this country has lost soldiers in EVERY military action it has engaged in.   I've read reports upwards of 5 million 'infidels' being killed during the crusades including a large percentage of christians by christians.  Sure, the Sunni's and the Shi'ites have their problems, but nothing compared to christianity.................

question, where did you get your figures from if i may ask, ( wouldnt mind looking at them myself)

From a very heated and drunk, all-encompassing debate with a theology major I used to work with.  A bunch of us got him drunk as hell before he left for the peace corps.

interesting, lol always wanted to do that

I tried to stay out of the theology shaZam! that night, but when they brought up gun control, it was on!!!

went drinking with an instructor of mine from mmi i waited until he was drunk as all hell and this guy would answer questions motorcycle related like it was nothing. anyhoo i asked him after he was well lit, " where on an 883 sportster does the water pump go"  his answer " you know what? some day youll make someone a good pet"  lol it didnt even faze him

There's a list here:  http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm#European

Trying to estimate based on the estimations of others...  The author of the page totals the sources and estimates 1.5 mil.  Other sources estimate anywhere from 1 mil to 5 mil....  The trend seems to be that pro-christian sources say 1 mil (and sometimes less) and non-christian-based sources say 2-5 mil.

Yeah, the guy I was talking to was buddhist

I never said that Christians had a great track record.  But the ideals, if followed as they are taught, are sound.  Much like communism.  In theory, it's actually a great idea.  In practice, however, corruption makes it fail every time.