Reply With Quote
^ mouse truth^
Not only Edison, but so did Westinghouse. They both screwed Tesla over to make a buck.
^ mouse truth^
This thread is about evolution.
You're not really into finding truth.
The genetic resemblance to other mammals isn't shocking at all. 99% is impossible to ignore
You call me out for lacking "Intelligent conversation skills," then you deliberately take one of my posts out of context.You are too stupid to realize how stupid you are.
None of the sayings that you posted in the last hour have made any sense. At all. You're terrible. Stop.
The only one who has to prove anything is the one making the god claim. That's it and that's all.
No there aren't. Either your God exists in reality or it does not. So far, neither you nor any other believer has provided a single compelling reason to believe that the former is true.Because there are more angles than just "there is or is not a God".
You call me out for lacking "Intelligent conversation skills," then you deliberately take one of my posts out of context.
None of the sayings that you posted in the last hour have made any sense. At all. You're terrible. Stop.
The only one who has to prove anything is the one making the god claim. That's it and that's all.
No there aren't. Either your God exists in reality or it does not. So far, neither you nor any other believer has provided a single compelling reason to believe that the former is true.
All of this and you are still in the same position as before;
no better than anyone else and no closer to "god" "truth" than anyone else either.
Pretty pointless actually - except you claim superiority and in doing so - define yourself as an idiot.
If nobody knows the truth, the reasonable thing would be to not believe until the truth comes out, right? Oh wait, "god is unknown and unknowable." Therefore, we should all just not believe, right?
Actually, the reasonable thing to do - at least in my opinion and in my experience -
is to enjoy every moment and every breath that you take.
The rest is for idiots to worry about.
Not only does this post lack any substance whatsoever, it also contradicts damn-near all your other posts on this forum. If you practiced what you preached, you wouldn't actually be having this discussion with me right now. If you practiced what you preached, you wouldn't be so caught up in your e-wars with half the posters in The Club. Until you stop saying one thing then doing another, you should stop giving out life advice.
Because you fail to understand simple logic dose not give your argument any more validity or basis in reality.You call me out for lacking "Intelligent conversation skills," then you deliberately take one of my posts out of context.
None of the sayings that you posted in the last hour have made any sense. At all. You're terrible. Stop.
The only one who has to prove anything is the one making the god claim. That's it and that's all.
No there aren't. Either your God exists in reality or it does not. So far, neither you nor any other believer has provided a single compelling reason to believe that the former is true.
Not trying to persuade you of anything. That is for you to do. And the only thing you will ultimately "believe" as being truth will be your own personal subjective experience. That, neither science, nor mysticism, nor philosophy, nor any of your senses, nor anyone's reasonable logic, will be enough for you. Only "your own personal experience" will suffice.
So sorry to inform you, but the theist has no more burden of proof than the atheist does. One is not mutually exclusive of the other. Nor does one view supersede the other.
And yes, there are many more angles than you are capable of understanding than a purely black or white perspective concerning "is or is not a God", there is much more gray area than you are willing to acknowledge because you first have to realize that nothing exists in reality that is solely and simply only one or the other. There are exceptions to every rule in the universe.
His response will be "at least I admit I'm a hypocrite!" as if that lets him off the hook for being one or makes the rest of us hypocrites in any way
Sorry, but theists are the ones putting forth the claim, therefore, theists have the burden of proof....
someone saw god in a screen door.
a screen door.
a
screen
door
Yes it does, because logic and reality are directly related.
My own personal experience doesn't dictate truth.Not trying to persuade you of anything. That is for you to do. And the only thing you will ultimately "believe" as being truth will be your own personal subjective experience. That, neither science, nor mysticism, nor philosophy, nor any of your senses, nor anyone's reasonable logic, will be enough for you. Only "your own personal experience" will suffice.
In regards to the god claim, yes they absolutely do. The one making the claim provides the proof. It's that simple.So sorry to inform you, but the theist has no more burden of proof than the atheist does.
Uh, yes they are. By definition, they are mutually exclusive.One is not mutually exclusive of the other.
No, there aren't any more angles. If you can show me something that both exists and doesn't exist at the same time, then I will concede your point. Until then, it is either one or the other.And yes, there are many more angles than you are capable of understanding than a purely black or white perspective concerning "is or is not a God", there is much more gray area than you are willing to acknowledge because you first have to realize that nothing exists in reality that is solely and simply only one or the other. There are exceptions to every rule in the universe.
stfu until you've seen god in a screen door.
a screen door
a
screen
door
Theists are no more putting forth the claim that there "is" a God, than atheists are claiming that there "isn't" one.
So the real truth is they neither have the burden of proof, or if you prefer, disproof.
Just because you say they do does not make it so. And the same is true that just because they may say it does, equally does not make it so.
Well, no, atheists aren't the ones who have to provide proof because we'd be proving a negative, tbh....
Due to the lack of physical, tangible, visible evidence of a god, as well as the existing evidence for things such as evolution, theists need to put forth actually compelling proof that a god does indeed exist in order to be taken seriously, tbh.... and no, Bible verses don't count....
Of course, atheists aren't putting forth the claim there isn't a god, because that's not what atheism is.
The default position is non-belief. Every single person who was ever born was born an atheist. The believer has chosen to not to take the default position, so they therefore have the burden of proof. That is literally what burden of proof is.
lug nuts from a Chevy would screw onto a Pontiac that doesn't mean they both evolved from a skateboard.
Similarities only confirm there was a common designer. Besides that if you was really intelligent you would not want to have any Ape in your DNA. Why are you so excited to have it?
Evolution is not a scientific law.
Darwin’s “Theory” is actually an hypothesis that falls quite beyond the pale of the scientific method (observation, experimentation, and verification).
Scientific disagreement
There are numerous laws, e.g., the laws of thermodynamics, genetics, etc., which contradict evolutionary assertions.
Evolution is “pseudo-science”
Many scientists dispute that evolutionary dogma is true science. Evolutionist Robert Jastow, for example, has conceded that belief in the accidental origin of life is “an act of faith,” much, he says, like faith in the power of a Supreme Being (Until the Sun Dies, New York: Warner Books, 1997, p. 52).
Burden of proof is the obligation on a party in an epistemically dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.
(Dictionary definition) (literary definition)
No where is it obligatory that either side has the burden of proof.
The only one claiming it is obligatory is "you". Thus it fails as does your logic in this regard.
And neither is it obligatory because one may have come about before the other. That too is solely because "you" say it is, and again because "you" say it does does not make it so.
More fallacious and convoluted logic on your part.
And lastly, it is so the definition of atheism, and not because I say it is so, but rather that is the definition: "the doctrine or belief that there is no God." (Dictionary)
Thus for the position of the atheist there is the belief that there is no God, whereas the position of the theist is that there is.
Neither has the burden of proof nor disproof.
Now if you choose to go against textbook definitions, that is your prerogative, and the province of your own personal experience, and then of course you enter the gray area that I spoke of that you also choose not to believe.
Atheists are the critics, theists are the ones asserting the claim that God exists, therefore theists have the burden of proof.....When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed".
We still can't create one living cell without borrowing DNA from another. Maybe one day...
No more so than the atheist is claiming the belief that God does not exist.
You want one to go first?
Then toss a coin.
Then you can have your pro and con and your burden of proof.
It is too easy for you to say the belief "in" is more or less compelling than the belief "against."
Both are equal in assertion.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions