Karma reasons for concrete message



    Posts: 14162
  • Darwins +475/-40

Theism is the defense position, atheism is the prosecution making the accusation against theism.

Regardless of whether or not this is true --- you do admit, then, that you were 100% wrong regarding the burden of proof being related to who made their claim first?

It's important to be honest about these sorts of things.

You wouldn't know honest if it came up and kicked you in the groin.  Do you admit that you twist people's words to make them into what you want them to say? 

So you don't admit that you were wrong about this?  It's a yes or no question, about which you can either decide to be honest, or not.  Slinging insults at me won't change what happened.

And if that is true in our universe, then why is it a stretch that there is plenty of stuff in the supernatural universe "that cannot be so readily experienced first-hand."

In the what universe?  You've not established that such a realm exists in the first place.  It is, in itself, a stretch.

Also, the things I was alluding to in our natural universe can be detected.  Just not always first-hand by the unaided senses.

Like the back side of the moon does not exist, because I've never seen that either, so based on your logic, there might as well not be a back side of the moon.  Or the inside of the sun.  I've never seen that either, so it must not exist either, right?

The motion of the moon would be different if it was a half-sphere or something like that.  The sun would rapidly degenerate if there was nothing inside it.  These are very easily detectable effects.  Or are you saying that the inside of the sun, and the back-side of the moon, are supernatural?

So making claims about the moon having a backside and the sun having an inside is profoundly dishonest?

Making claims in the absence of the information to make the claim, is dishonest.  This is because the claimant is pretending to have information that (s)he does not actually possess.

You do this all the time.

I've never seen Russia first-hand.  Would I be dishonest to make claims like "it is cold this time of year in Russia" or "people in Russia speak Russian"?  If I follow your logic, then it would be so.  I couldn't read something about it and then tell you about it, because that would be dishonest?

I am not sure whether you are lying about my logic, or unable to understand it.  It's one or the other.  I tend to give peoples' intelligence the benefit of the doubt in these cases.

It is a fault shared by all - period.

It is shared by all, period.  It is a fault, except for when it is embraced as a virtue.  Then it gets called "faith".
Changed Change Reason Date
Hatter23 at least calling on out on his lies December 29, 2013, 08:12:55 AM