RE: Ceteloguing the Tricks Theists Play
June 2, 2015 at 2:09 pm
(This post was last modified: June 2, 2015 at 2:13 pm by Longhorn.)
Oh I'll bite. I'm sure it's going to end great 
Nuuupe. It's an interesting idea-putting the burden of proof on god himself-but within the constraints of logic, the person making the positive claim is the one with the burden of proof. It's just how it works.
OTOH we have theits saying that you need to seek god to find evidence for him-as he 'reveals he truth' to you-and when you mention you have sought it, you are just told you didn't seek hard enough.
The word 'morality' has little to no meaning at all. It tries to describe a bunch of vague ideas, but on its own has no substance. I would argue that moral codes within societies are not so much 'designed' and rather that they evolve on their own over time....isn't it ironic that we have this created/evolved argument again?
This 'science is same as faith' thing is so tired and bullshit....
I like the way Tim Minhin put it:
![[Image: 717a4ceaa9ee1d05482d8c7f6f2b10d7.jpg?w=700]](https://somuchandsomuch.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/717a4ceaa9ee1d05482d8c7f6f2b10d7.jpg?w=700)
(June 2, 2015 at 1:47 pm)Drich Wrote: Ah, no. The 'burden of Proof' is on God. However it is on the non-believer to do what God says to obtain the 'proof' He offers.
Nuuupe. It's an interesting idea-putting the burden of proof on god himself-but within the constraints of logic, the person making the positive claim is the one with the burden of proof. It's just how it works.
OTOH we have theits saying that you need to seek god to find evidence for him-as he 'reveals he truth' to you-and when you mention you have sought it, you are just told you didn't seek hard enough.
(June 2, 2015 at 1:47 pm)Drich Wrote: I've never done that. I simply point to how the word 'morality' suits whatever society wants. Which in most cases is designed to exclude behavior God has sanctioned, but hypocritically ignores similar accepted behavior in society.
The word 'morality' has little to no meaning at all. It tries to describe a bunch of vague ideas, but on its own has no substance. I would argue that moral codes within societies are not so much 'designed' and rather that they evolve on their own over time....isn't it ironic that we have this created/evolved argument again?
(June 2, 2015 at 1:47 pm)Drich Wrote: I would say the same about atheists, but rather than 'god' in your truth statement substitute 'science.'
This 'science is same as faith' thing is so tired and bullshit....
I like the way Tim Minhin put it:
