57
   

Why do you suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?

 
 
bulmabriefs144
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 9 Oct, 2021 09:41 pm
@roger,
Okay correction, he did not say "God does not exist."

Quote:
If you think you can assert that a god exists...and have no burden of proof to bear...you are just not intelligent enough for a discussion like this.


He is instead saying essentially, "You cannot assert God exists without burden of proof. Also, you're an idiot for trying. (Nevermind that I will not accept any proof ever, and will call anything that you would say is proof not real proof)"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts#Logical_fallacy

But this is untrue.

It assumes a one-sided burden of proof. Rather it's something like this.

BatshitCrazyAtheism(2)<------Atheism(1)-----Agnosticism(0)-----Theism(1)------>Christianity/OtherReligion(2)

This poorly drawn line is a spectrum. At the far end is what I call Batshit Crazy Atheism because it not only includes atheism, but a number of other theories or mindsets like climate change, COVID hysteria, irrational loyalty to unreliable political leaders, fangirling about celebrities, etc. To which most of these things are "I'm gonna have to ask you to prove it." On the other extreme is what we call organized religion. It has not just belief in a God (usually), but a full-scale creed. I'd of course be asked to prove Jesus died on a cross and rose from the dead, Mary was a virgin, etc if my stance were anything besides straight up theism right now. So, theism and atheism both have burden of proof, but both are less than an organized religion (which Batshit Crazy Atheism basically is, a rival religion of sorts). Meanwhile, an agnostic can contently keep being agnostic all day long, with no theists bothering them ever.

With me so far? Well, this spectrum really should read like this.

BatshitCrazyAtheism(-2)<------Atheism(-1)-----Agnosticism(0)-----Theism(+1)------>Christianity/OtherReligion(+2)

You see, the burden of proof for an atheist is actually negative. This does not mean they doesn't need it, but instead of proving that something does exist, they have to prove that something does not exist. Unfortunately, in order to do such a thing, you have to actually verify that you've actually done any searching.

I can easily tell you my religious journey, and what led me to believe there is a God. It of course would not convince you (see Moving The Goalposts above), but the point is, testimonial evidence is technically allowed in most courts, even though it isn't as hard as physical evidence. This is positive proof. In order to sufficiently prove that God or a bigfoot or a unicorn or any else does not exist, you would have to either prove a conspiracy to create it (for example, a country trying to convince everyone that some disease is real, or that some prophet existed, or that they were oppressed when none of this happened) or show that in a test case nothing of the sort happened (a failed search). For example, "I know that this Muhammad guy wasn't real because I'm Robert Spencer and I wrote a book about numerous things that didn't add up about the timeline and locations of various aspects of Islam" or "unicorns were just invented to sell merch, actually they hunted narwhals for the same thing." In the latter case, you'd wind up with a similar testimonial about how you wandered the entire world, looking at a bunch of different religions, and none of them seemed to have even encountered God, or you prayed and prayed but God never let your 85 year old grandma live forever like you wanted (grow up!) so you knew that God doesn't exist. The problem with negative evidence is that while a theist only needs one or two freak events to happen to present a convincing case for theism (if you don't basically just say that's it's self-explanatory that a Creator would exist in a created world), the negative evidence has to widen their net to make sure they aren't missing something. Perhaps there are bigfoots but they live deep underground. Perhaps unicorns are on planet Kepler-452b. Perhaps God is within our souls (which you kinda sorta probly don't believe in). The point being that while these doubts are fine, they are hardly a big enough area to constitute absolute (dis)proof.

So, I've been watching, but I've never seen anything of the sort. Just alot of trash talk. Where is this failed search of yours? Because if you "knew since you were a child", I'm gonna call bullshit on that.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Oct, 2021 11:51 pm
@edgarblythe,
Bulmabriefs must have missed that one, if only Frank had been more clear.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Oct, 2021 05:14 am
@bulmabriefs144,
bulmabriefs144 wrote:

Quote:
If you think you can assert that a god exists...and have no burden of proof to bear...you are just not intelligent enough for a discussion like this.


You are correct, I do not have a burden of proof to bear. Because I am not bearing the burden of proof. You are.

You say that God does not exist.


I DEFY YOU TO FIND ME ASSERTING THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST. YOU MAY SEARCH MY POSTS HERE...AND IN ANY OTHER FORUM WHERE I HAVE POSTED FOR THE LAST 20+ YEARS. I HAVE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF POSTS...

...AND I DEFY YOU TO FIND EVEN ONE WHERE I ASSERT THAT GOD DOES (OR GODS DO NOT) EXIST.

Don't bother to search...you will NEVER find even one time I have asserted that...because I never have.

So start that blabbering of yours over.





Quote:
As far as you are concerned, I already know God exists, and I do not have to convince you of anything. It is you making the claim, but rather than defending the claim, you are passing the buck.


YOUR ARE THE ONE MAKING THE CLAIM. I AM NOT...AND NEVER HAVE.

So start that blabbering over again without that glaring mistake.

bulmabriefs144
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 11 Oct, 2021 07:22 am
@Frank Apisa,
So then, you saying God does exist?

You seem to be taking strong exception to this statement, yet you don't seem agnostic or theist, so this seems to me rather some semantics bullshit. Like eating veal, and telling me you've never eaten meat because veal isn't technically meat yet.

Either you know in your heart what you believe or do not, and anyone can infer what you are saying even if you do not use those words. Or you are trying to be intellectually dishonest.

So let's hear you say it. God exists? God does not exist? I don't know and should probably stick to agnosticism, which btw usually doesn't debate with believers because it knows it doesn't know? You need a position here. If you are really agnostic, then all of this is moot point. But I suspect you are actually atheistic or even anti-theistic. The day has come.

You need to say one thing or another. Otherwise, I'll decide that the real reason you are not making a claim here is because you think it excuses you from actually having to back up your notions.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Oct, 2021 11:34 am
@bulmabriefs144,
bulmabriefs144 wrote:

So then, you saying God does exist?


Are you nuts...are you stupid...are you both?

Quote:
You seem to be taking strong exception to this statement, yet you don't seem agnostic or theist, so this seems to me rather some semantics bullshit. Like eating veal, and telling me you've never eaten meat because veal isn't technically meat yet.


Obviously both.

Here is my take on whether any gods exist or not:

I do not know if any GOD (or gods) exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect that gods cannot exist…that the existence of a GOD or gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that at least one GOD must exist...that the existence of at least one GOD is needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction on whether any gods exist or not...
...so I don't.


(When I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST.)




Quote:
Either you know in your heart what you believe or do not, and anyone can infer what you are saying even if you do not use those words. Or you are trying to be intellectually dishonest.


What I am trying to do...is to have an intelligent conversation with a fellow poster in this forum.

I acknowledge that I am not succeeding with you.

Quote:
So let's hear you say it. God exists? God does not exist? I don't know and should probably stick to agnosticism, which btw usually doesn't debate with believers because it knows it doesn't know? You need a position here. If you are really agnostic, then all of this is moot point. But I suspect you are actually atheistic or even anti-theistic. The day has come.


Read my comments above. Make an attempt to understand them.

Quote:
You need to say one thing or another. Otherwise, I'll decide that the real reason you are not making a claim here is because you think it excuses you from actually having to back up your notions.


Yeah...definitely BOTH.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Oct, 2021 07:14 pm
The latest news from the Frank Apisa Agnostic/Atheist front:
Frank don’t know, and thinks you’re full of **** if you say you do.
More at eleven.
bulmabriefs144
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 11 Oct, 2021 08:40 pm
@snood,
Breaking news!

Frank will not give a straight answer! Featuring an exclusive from bulma.

(Although that one was at least somewhat clear. Yep, like I suspected all along Frank is an agnostic)

Also, how can you hate PSP?!?
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  2  
Reply Mon 11 Oct, 2021 09:55 pm
@roger,
roger wrote:

bulmabriefs144 wrote:


You say that God does not exist. As far as you are concerned, I already know God exists, and I do not have to convince you of anything. It is you making the claim, but rather than defending the claim, you are passing the buck.


Excuse me, but Frank has never said that in long as he's been on A2K.


I have to agree with Roger on this, he's right.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Tue 12 Oct, 2021 01:02 am
@glitterbag,
Well yes, the person in question isn't capable of having a rational conversation so they make **** up.
snood
 
  4  
Reply Tue 12 Oct, 2021 08:50 am
@izzythepush,
In MAGAworld, ‘Making **** Up’ is equal to or better than the scientific method.
izzythepush
 
  3  
Reply Tue 12 Oct, 2021 09:11 am
@snood,
It's the only thing they understand.
0 Replies
 
bulmabriefs144
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 13 Oct, 2021 05:39 am
@snood,
Hey, at least the conservatives understand what the scientific method is.

Scientific method means you form a hypothesis, you test results, then when repeated tests involving things like control group and careful conditions before calling it a theory. Then other scientists test it, to make sure the results are repeatable, and not circumstantial.

For example, I believe reptiles absorb moisture from their skin. So I have three groups of reptiles. One has a very shallow pool of water nearby them, mainly for drinking or keeping cool, the second only has a water dispenser, and the last is immersed in water up to its chest. Now, as a non-scientist, I would probably get the control group mixed up, but I'd at know that it isn't the group in the water. The nine reptiles that drown from my poorly run experiment, I can safelt say absorb water into their bodies. Some scientist retries my results, and finds it doesn't work for salt water. Or maybe one of my coworkers shows that I actually held the reptiles underwater to get the results I wanted. I get stripped of all scientific credentials which I didn't have in the first place (history major).
The point in all of this, is that scientists question results. They test results. When scientists do not do this, but instead declare there is "consensus" (as they have lately with climate change and with COVID), then you are no longer looking at real science. Religious ppl have a word for this. Dogma. Dogma is where you are told, this is how things are in this faith, and if you want to remain, you must believe in this. When dogma prevails, we no longer have science.

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/michael-crichton-explains-why-there-is-no-such-thing-as-consensus-science/

Quote:
Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.


Mock ppl who voted MAGA all you want, you still don't understand real science.
snood
 
  3  
Reply Wed 13 Oct, 2021 12:13 pm
@bulmabriefs144,
bulmabriefs144 wrote:


Mock ppl who voted MAGA all you want, you still don't understand real science.


Sometimes when we hear there is consensus in the scientific community it doesn’t mean that scientists have surrendered their independence and kowtowed to a political agenda.

Sometimes it just means that out of the totality of available peer-reviewed research, the overwhelming majority of scientists’ primary findings are similar and not contradictory.

When a body of knowledge reaches that point, that’s when it starts going into textbooks, and it gets taught around the world and to the upcoming generation.

The body of knowledge about man’s contribution to the climate change phenomenon reached that point. We don’t teach in schools that climate change is a hoax or a sham, we teach that it’s largely a man-made disaster that we must either try to control, or be destroyed by.

The body of knowledge about Covid 19 is not textbook-level settled, but there is overwhelming agreement that it’s an actual, deadly pandemic and that masking, isolation and most of all the FDA approved vaccines can win out over it.

I make fun of MAGATS because they will ignore what 90+ percent of scientists say, and tout the marginal theories.
That’s something that deserves mockery.

bulmabriefs144
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 14 Oct, 2021 07:11 am
@snood,
Actually, that's exactly what it means.

In order to have "scientific consensus" you have to have one of two things.

1) A small pool of asked scientists. That is, 100% or whatever, of the people we've asked agree with climate change. The people who don't, we haven't polled. This is usually the case with climate change. They aren't lying so much as omitting the people who don't. A guy who studied the Himalayas for years, and looks at the amount of ice there? Certainly nobody asks him anything. He serious about his work. Theorists who are in the pocket of those funding them? Oh yes, they're all in consensus. They agree that they want more money.
2) Or more troubling, you have a consensus because one is imposed. That is, follow the narrative about dinosaurs, or expect to be stripped of your position. Tell the people COVID is really a serious problem, or we'll send thugs to rough you up.

Talk of unity under people like Biden is disturbing to me, because I understand that we're not supposed ro be united as a species. Yes, God intended us to live together. No, he did not intend conformity.

Quote:
For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person's enemies will be those of his own household.


We misunderstand the "not peace but a sword" passage to mean literal violence. But usually it doesn't come to that. What God wants, is for each of us to do and believe what's in our hearts. Not to have consensus.

Earlier scientists got this. They were unafraid to challenge the status quo. They were free thinkers. Sorry, atheists, you've been a bunch of cowards and shills. I'm taking the freethinker title from you. People with strong beliefs tend to have strong convictions as well. People who believe in the physical world tend to buckle under for money.
NealNealNeal
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 14 Oct, 2021 04:00 pm
@bulmabriefs144,
So, scientists will ignore the truth due to their desire to avoid the truth?
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Oct, 2021 06:12 pm
See Frank?

nnn
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Fri 15 Oct, 2021 03:50 am
@bobsal u1553115,
bobsal u1553115 wrote:

See Frank?

nnn


Holy ****!

Never noticed that.

Thanks. That may help explain some things.
0 Replies
 
bulmabriefs144
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 15 Oct, 2021 05:52 am
@NealNealNeal,
Isn't that what atheists do?

Yep. This is what I mean.

I mean, you could do the "Theists are just the same" switcharound, but many theists actively thought God out, and before you say confirmation bias, at least one was a man name Lee Strobel, who actively sought to disprove Christianity, but found he couldn't through all his investigations. He actually became Christian first then a believer in God, since his investigation was originally on the crucifixion and the historical Jesus before trying to verify or disprove the existence of God. He's hardly the first either.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Oct, 2021 09:01 am
@bulmabriefs144,
bulmabriefs144 wrote:

Isn't that what atheists do?

Yep. This is what I mean.

I mean, you could do the "Theists are just the same" switcharound, but many theists actively thought God out, and before you say confirmation bias, at least one was a man name Lee Strobel, who actively sought to disprove Christianity, but found he couldn't through all his investigations. He actually became Christian first then a believer in God, since his investigation was originally on the crucifixion and the historical Jesus before trying to verify or disprove the existence of God. He's hardly the first either.


Nothing at all wrong with Lee Strobel blindly guessing that there is a god...or blindly guessing that the god is described in the Bible.

Nothing wrong with you making those same blind guesses.
bulmabriefs144
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 16 Oct, 2021 05:57 am
@Frank Apisa,
Uhhhh, he didn't blindly guess.

Lee Strobel is an investigative reporter. He interviewed a number of people, from medical experts (who told him that Jesus was indeed crucified, listing that regardless of their personal belief in Jesus, his death was medically consistent), to psychologists (who told him that there's no such thing as mass hallucination), and so on. The more people he asked, the more the report showed something he didn't like.

https://www.divinerevelations.info/pdf/the_case_for_christ.pdf

Some were theists, some were atheists who nonetheless conceded that certain points weren't so. In context, he was trying to deconvert his wife, who he felt was becoming distant from him, so he went on a quest to interview people and disprove Christianity. He lines all these points up together, though, and was forced into the opposite conclusion. Oh yeah, and while all this was going on, he was investigating a man accused of murder. The point of the latter is that like Jesus, the man accused was actually guiltless. This is largely why I say that he converted backwards. The idea of Christianity was the first thing he managed to prove, then later he tackled figuring out if there was a Creator or not.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 10/28/2021 at 01:15:25