Posts: 726
Threads: 15
Joined: February 18, 2014
Reputation:
17
RE: Completely skipped this section.
February 19, 2014 at 5:59 pm
(February 19, 2014 at 5:51 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: (February 19, 2014 at 4:10 pm)Quantum Theorist Wrote: no religion has met their burden of proof
You mean YOUR burden of proof 
Since the theist is the one making a positive claim...how does your shifting of the burden of proof make any sense...I guess it's up to you and I to show that pixies didn't sneeze the universe into existence if someone presents that claim, right?...
If the hypothetical idea of an afterlife means more to you than the objectively true reality we all share, then you deserve no respect.
Posts: 14259
Threads: 48
Joined: March 1, 2009
Reputation:
80
RE: Completely skipped this section.
February 19, 2014 at 6:11 pm
If someone made that claim, sure.
Religion doesn't make any scientific claims, because science is another subject. Do you have any non scientific claims made by religion for me to confirm your statement?
Posts: 726
Threads: 15
Joined: February 18, 2014
Reputation:
17
RE: Completely skipped this section.
February 19, 2014 at 6:17 pm
Bingo.
Presenting god as a answer is a positive claim, and is superfluous to our understanding of how the world works in the modern era.
Thus where the burden of proof lies, with the one making the positive claim. Not meeting your theology's burden of proof means rationalist types won't buy what you're selling.
If the hypothetical idea of an afterlife means more to you than the objectively true reality we all share, then you deserve no respect.
Posts: 14259
Threads: 48
Joined: March 1, 2009
Reputation:
80
RE: Completely skipped this section.
February 19, 2014 at 8:10 pm
(This post was last modified: February 19, 2014 at 8:11 pm by fr0d0.)
The theologies burden of proof is fully met.
And it's pertinent in the current era.
You still haven't produced any non scientific claims for us to check out this claim your making.
As your dismissal appears to be grounded on science, I must conclude that you've been barking up the wrong tree.
Posts: 7085
Threads: 69
Joined: September 11, 2012
Reputation:
84
RE: Completely skipped this section.
February 19, 2014 at 10:00 pm
(This post was last modified: February 19, 2014 at 10:00 pm by rexbeccarox.)
Welcome, Mike
Nolite te bastardes carborundorum.
Posts: 726
Threads: 15
Joined: February 18, 2014
Reputation:
17
RE: Completely skipped this section.
February 19, 2014 at 10:14 pm
(This post was last modified: February 19, 2014 at 10:18 pm by MJ the Skeptical.)
(February 19, 2014 at 8:10 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: The theologies burden of proof is fully met.
And it's pertinent in the current era.
You still haven't produced any non scientific claims for us to check out this claim your making.
As your dismissal appears to be grounded on science, I must conclude that you've been barking up the wrong tree.
The theology proves itself huh? Circular reasoning isn't meeting the burden of proof. Sorry pal.
I made no positive claim (if you even know what that is). You theists are the ones with the claims that you shift the burden of proof onto those who don't buy into your unproven, unscientific notions of an intelligence that didn't need to be created itself.
If the hypothetical idea of an afterlife means more to you than the objectively true reality we all share, then you deserve no respect.
Posts: 726
Threads: 15
Joined: February 18, 2014
Reputation:
17
RE: Completely skipped this section.
February 20, 2014 at 9:44 am
(This post was last modified: February 20, 2014 at 9:50 am by MJ the Skeptical.)
(February 20, 2014 at 1:02 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Yet still you can't tell me what the claim is?
You can't accuse me of circular reasoning until I produce a reason that is circular. If you're going to make my argument for me then that's a sure way to win 
Excuse me, but you said the theologies burden of proof has been met, when it clearly hasn't. That is circular reasoning and begging the question.
Your claim is that a god exists, is it not? let's not be dishonest. That's why you tried to shirk the burden of proof onto me.
This can't possibly be civil if you're going to pretend you aren't advocating for your Christian sky daddy.
You claim I have the burden of proof. To prove what exactly? thus my pixie example.
I gave my opinion that religions haven't met the standards of evidence to meet the burden of proof.
How exactly is that not acceptable unless you don't understand the burden of proof...
If the hypothetical idea of an afterlife means more to you than the objectively true reality we all share, then you deserve no respect.
