God & The Burden of Proof

Doktor S wrote:

What sides?
We have a group that is trying to impose their will in the form of morality and thus strip certain people of certain freedoms, then we have 'the rest' that finds what they are doing not only outrageous but offensive.

so you're asserting then that there aren't any non-christians who try to legislate their personal and idiosyncratic morality into the government?

Can you show me in the Constitution of the United States that says anyone MUST or MUST NOT consider any certain thing when deciding what or who they want to vote for?

I submit we all have the exact same right. You vote your conscience, ethics, morals, principles, etc.

Do you agree?

hephzibah wrote:

Doktor S wrote:

What sides?
We have a group that is trying to impose their will in the form of morality and thus strip certain people of certain freedoms, then we have 'the rest' that finds what they are doing not only outrageous but offensive.

so you're asserting then that there aren't any non-christians who try to legislate their personal and idiosyncratic morality into the government?

No there is plenty. But they get shot down, as they should.
Christians, however, differ in that they have numbers, and ergo support to fly their wackjob propositions. Enough that they pose a real threat to peoples freedoms.
Personally I'm opposed to any law or legislation that takes away from a persons ability to do whatever the hell he/she wants, as long as in doing so they aren't infringing on someone elses property (including their body)

So, if you vote for something you believe is the right thing to do and I vote against it because I think it's the right thing to do, who is imposing on whom?

Although providing proof may not be that simple in certain circumstances, it makes complete sense to leave the burden of proof with the individual putting forth an assertion.

I challenge you right now to give me reason (without question begging) as to why it will get light in the *daytime tomorrow (*by "daytime" I assume those hours of the day that it typically gets light).

You realize this is an assertion you are making, right? Can you back it up?

Yet those who believe in the Christian god probably would not agree with you that he is ill-defined.

Heph, you don't get it.
There is no group called 'the non christians' going about trying to impose their 'non christian' morality onto everyone.

If you would vote to permit same sex marriage then to me you are promoting non-Christian morality according to the way that I believe.

Momma Angel wrote:

If you would vote to permit same sex marriage then to me you are promoting non-Christian morality according to the way that I believe.

You are 100% correct! if you believe that same sex marriages are non-Christian then someone who votes for same sex marriage is against your sense of morality.

However this is exactly the same thinking that allowed the Nazis to murder 6 millions Jews in just a few years. Their moral doctrine (and let's not forget Hitler was a very religious Christian and had the support of the church) was that all Jews must be exterminated.

Can you show me in the Constitution of the United States that says anyone MUST or MUST NOT consider any certain thing when deciding what or who they want to vote for?Do you agree?

Heph, you don't get it.
There is no group called 'the non christians' going about trying to impose their 'non christian' morality onto everyone.

Momma Angel wrote:

Can you show me in the Constitution of the United States that says anyone MUST or MUST NOT consider any certain thing when deciding what or who they want to vote for?Do you agree?

There is noting that prohibits freedom of thought, however I guarantee you that the Constitution in combination with the laws of the land do not allow you to vote for death to all Christians.

Implicator wrote:

Although providing proof may not be that simple in certain circumstances, it makes complete sense to leave the burden of proof with the individual putting forth an assertion.

I did not say it did not make sense to place the burden of proof on the individual making the assertion. But the recipient of the assertion may suspend their requirements. The reasons for this might be: for the sake of argument, if it is understood to already be agreed, or if it is common knowledge.

As far as the common position that the burden of proof must always fall on the owner of the assertion, it is nowhere near that simple, nor should it always be the case.

Implicator wrote:

I challenge you right now to give me reason (without question begging) as to why it will get light in the *daytime tomorrow (*by "daytime" I assume those hours of the day that it typically gets light).

I accept the challenge, I up the ante & bet you 100 million dollars. I will prove it tomorrow morning.

Implicator wrote:

You realize this is an assertion you are making, right? Can you back it up?

As mentioned I cannot prove a negative but I can say I am not aware of any evidence or anyone putting forth verifiable evidence, plus I just asked god for some evidence and he did not comply.

Implicator wrote:

Yet those who believe in the Christian god probably would not agree with you that he is ill-defined.

They may well not agree with me that the Christian god is ill-defined, but millions of people over thousands of years have murdered each other over the definition of a Christian god.

The thread is way past the point at which Miss Eppie replied to me, but i intend to respond to her reply. It is not with christians of your stripe that i have a beef. I find it highly rational that you have the sense to see the futility of attempting to interfer in the lives of others whose few decisions you deplore, but who are otherwise law-abiding citizens. I applaud that attitude on your part.

It is with those christians (or members of any confession) who would impose upon others that i have a complaint. However--for your part, you are asserting an argument made here before, which runs to the effect that one side wants one thing and the other side wants something different--implying that the two positions are equivalent. But they are not. Those who attempt to legislate against consensual homosexual relations, who attempt to prevent homosexual marriage, who attempt to prevent abortion, who attempt to inject ID into science curricula, are imposing on others. Those who object to and oppose such agendae, are supporting the freedom of people to act freely in any manner they choose which does not constitute a public danger. That is quite different. It has been stated within these fora that allowing such behavior is an imposition upon others because these things are offensive to them. One cannot, however, reasonably allege that it endangers society that someone's nose is out of joint about what others choose to do. The social contract seeks to render the greatest good to the greatest number, and the least harm to all members of society. It does not seek to protect anyone from being offended by behavior which otherwise is innocuous.