I don't like the way this is set up. Not because it is invalid, but because I just don't think it is in what one might call 'good faith'. You have challenged people to prove not only that you are wrong, but that they are right, which is hard to do at the best of times. I would much prefer if the challenge had been a little more pointed, like to a specific topic, than an amorphous proposition.
Perhaps make one that was a challenge to convince you of the historical accuracy of the bible? Maybe the existence of a soul? Something a little less encompassing than this. While the burden of proof is upon people trying to persuade us that something exists, we should go in steps, because it would be unpleasant if we start Gish Galloping the opposition when we know how fucking irritating it is.
Perhaps make one that was a challenge to convince you of the historical accuracy of the bible? Maybe the existence of a soul? Something a little less encompassing than this. While the burden of proof is upon people trying to persuade us that something exists, we should go in steps, because it would be unpleasant if we start Gish Galloping the opposition when we know how fucking irritating it is.
I would more generally advocate that one only leave one entrance into their mind(reason), and keep the rest of it rather closed, as it is one hell of a lot easier to shovel shit in than it is to get it out.
If the evidence and reason for you to believe something isn't really any better than the reason you should believe some rural farmer from Arkansas got anally probed by interstellar visitors, then you probably shouldn't.
If the evidence and reason for you to believe something isn't really any better than the reason you should believe some rural farmer from Arkansas got anally probed by interstellar visitors, then you probably shouldn't.
