NBA: Westboro Baptist Church planning on protesting game 5 in OKC

[Blake]

What does that have to do with what I said? I mean, your comprehension skills are so good, you can read into something I never wrote. Perhaps you can provide a logical explanation of how you can derive your conclusions from that one single sentence I wrote.

you're right, you're not saying king James mistranslated a lot of it. I am.

Of course, I did, and I said that to W-Bk.

These are the results I found http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...urden+of+proof, and none of them shows me a useful example.

Sorry you're having trouble understanding burden of proof. Sucks for you.

[Woo Bum-kon]

Well, taking it straight from Thomas Aquinas:

The unmoved mover argument asserts that, from our experience of motion in the universe (motion being the transition from potentiality to actuality) we can see that there must have been an initial mover. Aquinas argued that whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another thing, so there must be an unmoved mover.
Aquinas' argument from first cause started with the premise that it is impossible for a being to cause itself (because it would have to exist before it caused itself) and that it is impossible for there to be an infinite chain of causes, which would result in infinite regress. Therefore, there must be a first cause, itself uncaused.
The argument from necessary being asserts that all beings are contingent, meaning that it is possible for them not to exist. Aquinas argued that if everything can possibly not exist, there must have been a time when nothing existed; as things exist now, there must exist a being with necessary existence, regarded as God.
Aquinas argued from degree, considering the occurrence of degrees of goodness. He believed that things which are called good, must be called good in relation to a standard of good – a maximum. There must be a maximum goodness that which causes all goodness.
The teleological argument asserts the view that things without intelligence are ordered towards a purpose. Aquinas argued that unintelligent objects cannot be ordered unless they are done so by an intelligent being, which means that there must be an intelligent being to move objects to their ends: God.

I already know what Aquinas's argument is.

But the social norms of biblical times were not the same it is now. It was the reflection of the societal norms, and the rules the Bible gives people to manage those social norms. The central idea of the Bible isn't to or not to have slaves, or how to punish those who violated certain socially acceptable behaviours.

Don't care. It's obvious that the social norms were different. I have more of a problem with God being in favor of the social norms.

I am not talking about lots of people, I am talking about you in particular. What have you done?

So, what I am getting from you is that if one doesn't do something to stop the government from doing anything that they disagree with at all, that person is condoning the government's actions. You have stretched the meaning of the word "condone" so far that it has become meaningless.

You have established a position that an all powerful God does not need slaves.

No, I didn't. Your terrible reason comprehension strikes yet again. My position is that a good, all powerful god would not allow slavery, because he's good and all powerful.

The original position is the existence of God, and you have misrepresented and distorted that version by quoting the Bible out of context, then arguing against the existence of slaves means there was no God.

This doesn't make any sense at all. My argument is that an all powerful, all good god wouldn't allow slavery. I'm not saying that that means that God therefore doesn't exist. You are just making up.

Don't you guys live in a democracy?

So? Just because laws can be change in theory doesn't mean that they will be changed in reality. And again, your position is illogical and impractical.

Which really has nothing to do with my lack of reading comprehension, but either your lack of reading comprehension (which I don't mind by the way), or you jumping to conclusions about my ability to read (which I sort of mind). As for God telling his followers to kill people, I can't explain it better than this article, so here you go:

at an article that justifies the murder of children. And that still doesn't explain why non-believers deserve death.

Switching religion is tough to do because it involves the mental state of mind.

No, it isn't.

Physical relocation is extremely simple. Millions of people immigrate yearly.

thinking that dropping all ties and finding a country one agrees with completely is easier than dropping a religion. You are absolutely ridiculous.

You are saying that it is easier to leave one's job, family, community, attachments, property, etc to find a country whose policies that they agree with 100%, than it is to simply look at a religion's tenets and reject them. That's moronic. You said yourself that you CHOSE to believe in God. I never CHOSE to be an American. That completely destroys your weak argument.

Whether a reason is acceptable or not is your own definition, I can't argue with it. And for the record, no, God hasn't commanded me, or anyone, to murder anyone. As for him commanding people to kill either in the act of war or through punishment, it hasn't happened since early in the Biblical times.

Yes, God has commanded his followers to kill people. It is in the Bible. It expressly says to kill witches, false prophets, non-believers, pagans, unruly children, etc. You can read those passages so hard that you can come up with completely different interpretations, but that doesn't change what they say.

They aren't, that's why there are still different schools of thoughts for and against the position.

Yes, it is common knowledge that people will argue for the position that they agree with. I'm sorry that you are so ignorant to that obvious fact.

Great, we will agree to disagree then.

Yeah, you're for murder and I am not.

Except God created everything is not the premise, the existence of God is the premise.

No, the existence of God is the conclusion that you are trying to arrive at.

Your argument is circular. You are saying that the evidence of God's existence is everything, which is silly. "God created everything because everything was created by God" is a circular argument.

How does that contradict with my claim that God hasn't met the burden of proof is agnosticism?

It's atheism, too. You brought up agnosticism because you were under the mistaken belief that the two were mutually exclusive. Either that or you having typing Tourette's, which makes you post random things for no reason.

You claimed that the burden of proof is shifted when one makes the claim that God doesn't exist, and I said that nobody made that claim. I'm not going to take your burden of proof. Sorry, but you still haven't proven the existence of God.

[LoneStarState'sPride]

Hey, Woo Bum- nuts.

STFU.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Hey, Woo Bum- nuts.

STFU.

That's telling him.

[Blake]

Hey, Woo Bum- nuts.

STFU.

smh aggy

[LoneStarState'sPride]

Thread had gone on long enough. Just picked the last poster to tell to shut up.

I get done, son.

[Blake]

Thread had gone on long enough. Just picked the last poster to tell to shut up.

I get done, son.

Bumping a thread is a great way to shut it down.

Smh aggy

[ambchang]

Point out the part that says logic is a subset of science.

Logical thinking is a subset of scientific thinking. I am surprised a person who preaches the importance of comprehension didn't read what I wrote correctly.

What is scientific thinking? At this point, it is customary to discuss questions, observations, data, hypotheses, testing, and theories, which are the formal parts of the scientific method, but these are NOT the most important components of the scientific method. The scientific method is practiced within a context of scientific thinking, and scientific (and critical) thinking is based on three things: using empirical evidence (empiricism), practicing logical reasonsing (rationalism), and possessing a skeptical at ude (skepticism) about presumed knowledge that leads to self-questioning, holding tentative conclusions, and being undogmatic (willingness to change one's beliefs). These three ideas or principles are universal throughout science; without them, there would be no scientific or critical thinking. Let's examine each in turn.

I absolutely agree with this part:

" Reading, writing, and math are the traditional methods that young people learned to think logically (i.e. correctly), but today science is a fourth method. Perhaps the best way is to do a lot of writing that is then reviewed by someone who has critical thinking skills. Most people never learn to think logically; many illogical arguments and statements are accepted and unchallenged in modern society--often leading to results that are counterproductive to the good of society or even tragic--because so many people don't recognize them for what they are."

Part of learning how to think logically is learning and understanding basic logical fallacies.

You've used a number of fallacies here in this thread. We've been pointing them out but you still don't get it.

You have been pointing out the importance of comprehension, but it's not like you are practicing it.

[Rick Santorum]

the Westboro Baptists are true prophets

Their protests should have been a warning sign to Oklahoma about what was going to come. Should have listened to the only REAL Christians out there

All hail Fred Phelps

[ambchang]

I already know what Aquinas's argument is.



Don't care. It's obvious that the social norms were different. I have more of a problem with God being in favor of the social norms.



So, what I am getting from you is that if one doesn't do something to stop the government from doing anything that they disagree with at all, that person is condoning the government's actions. You have stretched the meaning of the word "condone" so far that it has become meaningless.



No, I didn't. Your terrible reason comprehension strikes yet again. My position is that a good, all powerful god would not allow slavery, because he's good and all powerful.



This doesn't make any sense at all. My argument is that an all powerful, all good god wouldn't allow slavery. I'm not saying that that means that God therefore doesn't exist. You are just making up.




So? Just because laws can be change in theory doesn't mean that they will be changed in reality. And again, your position is illogical and impractical.



at an article that justifies the murder of children. And that still doesn't explain why non-believers deserve death.



No, it isn't.



thinking that dropping all ties and finding a country one agrees with completely is easier than dropping a religion. You are absolutely ridiculous.

You are saying that it is easier to leave one's job, family, community, attachments, property, etc to find a country whose policies that they agree with 100%, than it is to simply look at a religion's tenets and reject them. That's moronic. You said yourself that you CHOSE to believe in God. I never CHOSE to be an American. That completely destroys your weak argument.



Yes, God has commanded his followers to kill people. It is in the Bible. It expressly says to kill witches, false prophets, non-believers, pagans, unruly children, etc. You can read those passages so hard that you can come up with completely different interpretations, but that doesn't change what they say.




Yes, it is common knowledge that people will argue for the position that they agree with. I'm sorry that you are so ignorant to that obvious fact.



Yeah, you're for murder and I am not.



No, the existence of God is the conclusion that you are trying to arrive at.

Your argument is circular. You are saying that the evidence of God's existence is everything, which is silly. "God created everything because everything was created by God" is a circular argument.



It's atheism, too. You brought up agnosticism because you were under the mistaken belief that the two were mutually exclusive. Either that or you having typing Tourette's, which makes you post random things for no reason.

You claimed that the burden of proof is shifted when one makes the claim that God doesn't exist, and I said that nobody made that claim. I'm not going to take your burden of proof. Sorry, but you still haven't proven the existence of God.

Well, it's clear that we are arguing in circles, and it is pointless to repeat our respective points over and over.

Like I said, scientific burden of proof does not apply, as God is neither a scientific or mathematical en y.

Philosophical burden of proof has been repeated for centuries, whether you accept it or not is another question, and I can't force or convince you one way or another.

[Woo Bum-kon]

Well, it's clear that we are arguing in circles, and it is pointless to repeat our respective points over and over.

Like I said, scientific burden of proof does not apply, as God is neither a scientific or mathematical en y.

Philosophical burden of proof has been repeated for centuries, whether you accept it or not is another question, and I can't force or convince you one way or another.

If God affects the real world in physical ways, then scientific burden of proof definitely applies. And philosophical arguments for God are always poor.

Again, God hasn't met his burden of proof, so the only reasonable thing to do is not believe.

[ambchang]

If God affects the real world in physical ways, then scientific burden of proof definitely applies. And philosophical arguments for God are always poor.

Again, God hasn't met his burden of proof, so the only reasonable thing to do is not believe.

Untrue, that is why belief and faith exist.

[Woo Bum-kon]

Faith is belief for no reason. Religion has brainwashed people into thinking belief for no reason is a virtue, but it isn't.

[Splits]

God this thread sucks.

[ambchang]

Faith is belief for no reason. Religion has brainwashed people into thinking belief for no reason is a virtue, but it isn't.

Faith isn't belief for no reason, faith is belief that may not be based on proof. Business decisions are being made daily with no positive proof one way or another, but if people make decisions solely on scientifically proven methodologies, no decisions will be made (well, or very few).

[Woo Bum-kon]

Faith isn't belief for no reason, faith is belief that may not be based on proof.

In other words, belief for no reason.

Business decisions are being made daily with no positive proof one way or another, but if people make decisions solely on scientifically proven methodologies, no decisions will be made (well, or very few).

Business decisions are made based on various factors, generally. They aren't made for no reason, so they don't require faith.

[clambake]

business decisions based on nothing more than hope are called ventures.

[ambchang]

In other words, belief for no reason.



Business decisions are made based on various factors, generally. They aren't made for no reason, so they don't require faith.

The difference is the proof of which you require. My argument is that business decisions are routinely made on proof that is no more convincing than those required by religion.

Again, there are various explanations for the proof of the existence of God, just that they are not absolute and does not pass your requirements.

[Woo Bum-kon]

The difference is the proof of which you require. My argument is that business decisions are routinely made on proof that is no more convincing than those required by religion.

If somebody makes a business decision based on faith, they made a bad business decision (or a good decision for a bad reason). You are the one talking about scientific proof as if it's the only standard out there. A businessman can look at current trends and make decisions off of those. That's one example of believing something for an actual reason, which theists don't do when it comes to God.

Again, there are various explanations for the proof of the existence of God, just that they are not absolute and does not pass your requirements.

Then they aren't good explanations.

[hater]

God this thread sucks.

worst thread of the season IMO. just clicked to see what s was babbling about and got nausea

[Blake]

Logical thinking is a subset of scientific thinking. I am surprised a person who preaches the importance of comprehension didn't read what I wrote correctly.

Don't know where you are getting that from. Don't really care, tbh.

Logic is completely independent of science.

You have been pointing out the importance of comprehension, but it's not like you are practicing it.

You've been getting intellectually crushed in this thread.

it's unimportant to me if you ever figure that out, tbh.

Simply fascinating though that you keep coming back to this particular thread for more

[ambchang]

If somebody makes a business decision based on faith, they made a bad business decision (or a good decision for a bad reason). You are the one talking about scientific proof as if it's the only standard out there. A businessman can look at current trends and make decisions off of those. That's one example of believing something for an actual reason, which theists don't do when it comes to God.

I am not saying scientific proof is the only proof out there, as logical proof is another, and faith-based (gut-feeling) approaches are also present.

Then they aren't good explanations.

Very few proofs are absolute, even scientific ones.

[ambchang]

Don't know where you are getting that from. Don't really care, tbh.

Logic is completely independent of science.

I am getting at the comprehension skills you so desperately treasure. I personally don't really care much for it, as this is a basketball forum and I don't expect people to read every single word diligently. However, you do, and had been harping on it for a good portion of this thread, and yet you have failed it yourself.

You've been getting intellectually crushed in this thread.

it's unimportant to me if you ever figure that out, tbh.

Simply fascinating though that you keep coming back to this particular thread for more

LOL, declaring victory.

[Blake]

I am getting at the comprehension skills you so desperately treasure. I personally don't really care much for it, as this is a basketball forum and I don't expect people to read every single word diligently. However, you do, and had been harping on it for a good portion of this thread, and yet you have failed it yourself.

Wrong.

LOL, declaring victory.

LOL, easy victory