Reply With Quote
In that hypothetical? Iran opens the door.
Because Israel riled up the UN in an attempt to prove the existence of Iranian nuclear weapons.
You're using the court of law as some basis for metaphysical arguments. I'm just pointing out that it's flawed reasoning because someone else's "negative" can be someone's "positive." The dissenting opinion still needs a claim because someone's dissension is someone's else's ascension.
For example luis pasteur used an experiment to disprove spontaneous generation and prove bio-genesis, It was both a negative argument (for spontaneous generation) and a positive argument (for biogenesis)
In that hypothetical? Iran opens the door.
Because Israel riled up the UN in an attempt to prove the existence of Iranian nuclear weapons.
Mullah Uncle Tom straight outa Kenya yall better make way!
In that innocent scenario you're referring to, you're right, the burden of proof would be on OJ to prove his innocence. The only thing is that proving one's innocence isn't required to avoid jail time.
When people believe white boogie man in the sky is going to help them survive their own deaths and give them sky-mansions fit for a Columbian drug lord, it's not so hard to sell them on the Iranian boogeyman tbh.It's still a strong symbol that religion controls the Republican party so much that ejaculate and fecal matter can run a campaign around religion and become a serious candidate.
Christians 1
Atheists 0
If Rick Santorum wins the primary
more trashing religion tbh, i'm a christian but one of the first people on this board to coin the "iranian boogeyman" and laugh at people for believing in it tbh.
Me in another thread
Atheist are seen as dbags, because most of the time the only exposure they get is because atheist zealots are having a fit (see complaining about a cross beam at 9/11 memorial)
You're correct about the burden of proof in all of this, but are arguing it horribly if I'm honest.
Innocent, not guilty, not innocent, guilty... that's all semantics and has nothing to do with who is responsible for proving what in a courtroom. The burden of proof always lies with the prosecution because they need to prove that the defendant(s) committed whatever crime they've been accused of.
The prosecution is trying to prove an action (he/she/they have done _____). The terminology (he/she/they are _____) is something wholly different.
As it regards the OJ Simpson trial, his lawyers were never responsible for proving that he didn't kill Nicole Brown. Rather, they merely had to prevent the prosecution from proving that he did.
bible thumpers are the biggest believers in the Iranian boogeyman.
Since you keep saying you're a Christian, when was the last time you've been to Church?
I'm bad at arguing with people who love to play semantics in order to argue something that's wrong.
about a month ago. but that doesn't determine whether or not one is a christian so it's kind of irrelevant really.
...and you haven't supported your claim at all. On this thread, there are atheists being assholes (thats me) to christians (thats you) because you bring ignorant viewpoints that impede on the happiness of others without logic.
Then the christian responds by saying gays and atheists go to and that we know nothing about abortion when we really do...
You aren't proving . you're proving that you're one step above being mentally re ed.
Better start going more or you'll be off straight to !
lol i killed your argument and the one your agreeing with agreed with me in an earlier thread. You introduced the semantics btw
No you really didn't. Whatever happened in an earlier thread doesn't have anything to do with this.
So if I say the flying spaghetti monster exists, and then someone disputes that, it's their burden of proof since they're disputing it? I don't understand what the you're "argument" was.
are you some special breed of idiot or something? i have proved . i said that athiests are the ones who hate NOT VICE VERSA as the thread suggests, and an athiest AGREED with me. also you admit that the athiests are being assholes. Athiests are the ones here hating bro, get real. And it's pretty typical.
Yes they have to defend their claim, you expressed belief that the dissenting opinion needs no proof and can just yell out claims with no proof.
Your words
So if i saidThe burden of proof doesn't lie on the person claiming the negative.
"You're a ing idiot"positive
and the i said
"You're not ing smart at all in any way shape or form." That's a negative argument so by your own logic i can say that and I don't need to defend it at all.
Both arguments convey the same message, but by your definition one has to be defended and one doesn't
Last edited by Trainwreck2100; 02-07-2012 at 11:45 PM.
being assholes out of annoyance vs regulating the world and people of it based on dogma.... hmmm.... one causes death and impedes on happiness with racism, inequality, abuse, greed... etc.... while the Atheists hurt your feelings with their big brains... who's hatin more, brah? Methinks it be you.
Gentlemen,
Atheism is simply the lack of belief in any god. Some might assert it's a positive belief against the existence of a god, but then that would make Christians also atheists as they hold a positive belief against the existence of every god other than the Christian one.
No, atheism is not a rejection of belief. It's simply a lack of it. We can no more reject a belief in a god than we can reject a belief in the monitor in front of our faces, as belief is something that is compelled; we are compelled to believe what our minds cannot deny.
Christians mistakenly (some intentionally) equate an attempt at belief with belief itself, as can be seen by the acts of those who claim to believe. They claim to believe they are faced with an eternal fire if they behave and think in a certain way, counter to how their god has commanded them to think and behave, however they think and behave in this way regardless.
Take those same people in a bank hostage situation; a masked man puts a gun to the head of a teller and says "if you scream I will blow your brains out". The woman does not scream. The masked men tell the bank customers who are now hostages that they will all die if they do not obey. They obey. This ordeal lasts for 2 days. Not one hostage attacks the masked men. No hostage jumps up and begins a strip tease. No hostage casually walks out of the bank. Why? They do not want to die. They have a belief that the masked men will kill them. They act upon that belief. That belief does not leave their mind.
Now look at the Christian. He claims to believe in eternal fire, yet he does not do what he knows he must do to avoid it. A bullet to the head is but one quick death vs eternal fire which, by nature, is eternal. You would think a believing mind would never venture into that realm where it's even possible to go to , but they all do and except for the fictional character of Jesus of Nazareth, they all have and will continue to do so. Why? Because their belief is a meditation to attempt to believe. There is no true belief. Unless they are delusional, they cannot force themselves to believe something as fantastic as a supernatural, omniscient deity. All of their posturing and polished, well rehearsed retorts are just that, and under even mid level observation, do not hold up. The theist then becomes an intentional liar, skewing the truth to attempt to hold on to that shard of "perhaps" they have tucked deep inside their mind, and even the over educated theologians struggle with the existence of a god, many abandoning it completely for long periods of time.
The Christians have a couple thousand years head start on the excuse wagon of apologetics, however in just over a quarter of a century their house of cards has been exposed for what it is by a few thinking minds.
I once ventured to a planet outside our known universe to find Shakari, which I have since learned does not exist. Instead there was a bearded old dude who ed my friends up pretty bad. We wrestled and I was ed up too, but he's no god.
Peace out
Sy
Except I highly doubt that you are more intelligent than me (or even in the ballpark) and there's a certain athiest in this thread who would even agree. More proof of your bigotry tbh.
Probably because the two because asshats in history, Stalin and Hitler, were athiest.
Okay... caught on. I understand that you're just trollin trollin trollin
BINGO! And their entire reasoning behind what they did was due to them being atheists... how many history books have you read btw? I would assume none, and you heard this little story off the O'reilly factor. Amirite?
I was waiting for this, and you can't seem to learn from all the other god v science threads, it seems.
or he was trolling you
Nope. I wish he was, but I've run into him in the past on a similar thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
