Burden of proof
8 November 2005 by Sean
This has come up a few times recently, and I want to be up front and clear on the subject, without any condescension.
In my simple mind, burden of proof is the concept that, should you make a claim that is not immediately apparent to the naked eye (ie: aliens abducted your dog last night, rather than he went looking for some bitch in heat), the burden of proof is on you to prove such an unlikely claim, not on me to disprove it.
Wikipedia has a curiously short piece on the concept.
It ends with the following:
Outside a legal context, “burden of proof” means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say “you can’t disprove this”.
Taken more generally, the standard of proof demanded to establish any particular conclusion varies with the subject under discussion. Just as there is a difference between the standard required for a criminal conviction and in a civil case, so there are different standards of proof applied in many other areas of life.
The less reasonable a statement seems, the more proof it requires. The scientific consensus on cold fusion, for example. The majority believes this can not really work, because believing that it would do so would force the alteration of a great many other beliefs about thermodynamics.
A classic example comes from Criswell’s final speech at the end of Ed Wood’s Plan 9 from Outer Space: “My friends, you have seen this incident, based on sworn testimony. Can you prove that it didn’t happen?”. Considering that the incident in question involved grave robbers from space, the burden of proof is being incorrectly assigned.
8 November 2005, on 9:13 am
it is not sufficient to say “you can’t disprove this”.
Which is EXACTLY why atheism does not require faith. “Faith” is believing in something you can’t prove; not something you can’t disprove. If all evidence points to the non-existence of something, it’s only logical NOT to believe it.
Should we believe everyone who makes a claim because we can’t disprove it?
Sylvia Browne says she can talk to dead people. She will not submit to a DBT. Therefore, it is safe to say she is full of shit until she fucking proves it.
I say Jeebus was a homosexual axe-wielding serial killer. Can you disprove that?
8 November 2005, on 9:27 am
If only the pirates that attacked the cruise ship off Somalia could pay a little visit to Sylvia’s psychic vessel, we might have a news story worth reading:
http://www.sylvia.org/home/index.cfm
8 November 2005, on 10:49 am
Yes I can disprove jeebus’ homo axe killings…
He came to me in a dream and said that he never did that …instead it was more like a magic show… he was the performer and the apostiles were the “behind the scenes guys” that made the tricks look real and got the crowd sucked in. They worked together like a team and cleaned up, he said. They got money and pussy of biblical proportions, as far as he said. Anyway, that’s what he said so disprove that!
8 November 2005, on 11:04 am
No, you’re wrong. Jeebus AND gawd came to me while I was awake and told me that Jeebus really was an axe-wielding serial killer. Since gawd came too, I”m right. Force field + 2. Disprove that!
8 November 2005, on 11:16 am
Well, I failed to mention that it was gawd, jeebus AND the holy ghost that came to me… so there!
8 November 2005, on 11:19 am
“Which is EXACTLY why atheism does not require faith. “Faith” is believing in something you can’t prove; not something you can’t disprove. If all evidence points to the non-existence of something, it’s only logical NOT to believe it. ”
Depends on how you define faith.I have “faith” that my family will always be there for me. I have “faith” in myself. But these things are based on past events and experiences. (if you can think of a better word to use, I’m all ears.)
Sky-pixie worshippers, on the other hand, have only blind faith. Faith with absolutely no proof, justification or reason whatsoever.
8 November 2005, on 12:48 pm
I have “faith” that my family will always be there for me…(snip). But these things are based on past events and experiences.
How about “know”? Like you know your family will always be there because they have in the past (evidence) and you can be reasonably sure they will in the future (prediction based on observation)?
I’m using definition 2 for the word.
8 November 2005, on 2:13 pm
Lya:
How ’bout “trust”? Trust is based on previous experience, not blind faith.
8 November 2005, on 2:21 pm
Faith always seems to imply belief without reason to me …usually if you have faith in something you’re sticking your neck out.
Blind Faith = Ignorance. …unless we’re talking about the band… that was genius!
8 November 2005, on 3:43 pm
What does DBT stand for?
8 November 2005, on 4:17 pm
Dena:
Double Blind Test. Typically the most valid method of testing claims.
8 November 2005, on 4:18 pm
Know and trust. I’m using those from now on. (thanks, btw)
Sorry to derail here but – what do you say when someone sneezes? “bless you” is clearly wrong.
8 November 2005, on 4:33 pm
I say “gesundheit”, which means, I think, “good health.”
8 November 2005, on 4:48 pm
Always a pleasure, Lya!
Many cultures say “health” when someone sneezes. Germans say “gesundheit (ga-ZOON-tight)”, while Hispanics say “salud (sa-LOOD)”.
8 November 2005, on 4:54 pm
Sean wins
8 November 2005, on 5:19 pm
The most basic burden of proof is to formulate your claim in meaningful, coherent sentences. Christians can’t even do that. When I ask them to explain what their nonsense words like “god” or “supernatural” mean, they go round and round in circles.
8 November 2005, on 5:25 pm
Is Atheism viable?
Atheism is, essentially, a negative position. It is not believing in a god, or actively believing there is no God, or choosing to not exercise any belief or non-belief concerning God, etc. Which ever flavor is given to atheism, it is a negative position.
In discussions with atheists, I don’t hear any evidence for the validity of atheism. There are no “proofs” that God does not exist in atheist circles; at least, none that I have heard — especially since you can’t prove a negative regarding God’s existence. Of course, that isn’t to say that atheists haven’t attempted to offer some proofs that God does not exist. But their attempted proofs are invariably insufficient. After all, how do you prove there is no God in the universe? How do you prove that in all places and all times, there is no God? You can’t. Besides, if there were a proof of God’s non-existence, then atheists would be continually using it. But we don’t hear of any such commonly held proof supporting atheism or denying God’s existence. The atheist position is very difficult, if not impossible, to prove since it is an attempt to prove a negative. Therefore, since there are no proofs for atheism’s truth and there are no proofs that there is no God, the atheist must hold his position by faith.
Faith, however, is not something atheists like to claim as the basis of adhering to atheism. Therefore, atheists must go on the attack and negate any evidences presented for God’s existence in order to give intellectual credence to their position. If they can create an evidential vacuum in which no theistic argument can survive, their position can be seen as more intellectually viable. It is in the negation of theistic proofs and evidences that atheism brings its self-justification to self-proclaimed life.
There is, however, only one way that atheism is intellectually defensible and that is in the abstract realm of simple possibility. In other words, it may be possible that there is no God. But, stating that something is possible doesn’t mean that it is a reality or that it is wise to adopt the position. If I said it is possible that there is an ice cream factory on Jupiter, does that make it intellectually defensible or a position worth adopting merely because it is merely a possibility? Not at all. So, simply claiming a possibility based on nothing more than it being a possible option, no matter how remote, is not sufficient grounds for atheists to claim viability in their atheism. They must come up with more than “It is possible,” or “There is no evidence for God,” otherwise, there really must be an ice cream factory on Jupiter and the atheist should step up on the band wagon and start defending the position that Jupiterian ice cream exists.
At least we Christians have evidences for God’s existence such as fulfilled biblical prophecy, Jesus’ resurrection, the Transcendental Argument, the entropy problem, etc.
But there is another problem for atheists. Refuting evidences for God’s existence does not prove atheism true anymore than refuting an eyewitness testimony of a marriage denies the reality of the marriage. Since atheism cannot be proven and since disproving evidences for God does not prove there is no God, atheists have a position that is intellectually indefensible. At best, atheists can only say that there are no convincing evidences for God so far presented. They cannot say there are no evidences for God because the atheist cannot know all evidences that possibly exist in the world. At best, the atheist can only say that the evidence so far presented has been insufficient. This logically means that there could be evidences presented in the future that will suffice. The atheist must acknowledge that there may indeed be a proof that has so far been undiscovered and that the existence of God is possible. This would make the atheist more of an agnostic since at best the atheist can only be skeptical of God’s existence.
This is why atheists need to attack Christianity. It is because Christianity makes very high claims concerning God’s existence which challenges their atheism and pokes holes in their vacuum. They like the vacuum. They like having the universe with only one god in it: themselves.
8 November 2005, on 5:41 pm
Yes, all roads lead to the intangible… the only tangible evidence they can ever produce could have resulted by chance. It’s like having a conversation with a child: I like candy because it’s good!
8 November 2005, on 6:55 pm
Lya – I always seem to have the same problem after people sneeze and such. After watching Dogma as a strong Catholic, I kind of had the fear of not saying “god bless you” when someone sneezes. So now it’s habit. However, I spent 6 months in Brasil and picked up “saude” (saw-ooo-gee), which means health in Portugues. You will probably continue to say bless you for a while, as I still do on occasion, but saying it in another language is more fun.
8 November 2005, on 8:48 pm
ub4war: and here I was hoping after your nice arguments that you were an agnostic. But you’re a Christian? You think pretty rigidly for somebody who believes in an invisible sky daddy. Everything you said was pretty right-on (I personally believe agnosticism is starting to win me away from the atheist position… I usually just say I’m atheist because it is a political stance against a frighteningly theistic world… But it may be indefensible and agnosticism may be the only way — I will wait now while Bob and Rockstar and others jump all over me for saying that).
But, dude (or dudette, whichever you are), you totally lost me when you said this:
At least we Christians have evidences for God’s existence such as fulfilled biblical prophecy, Jesus’ resurrection, the Transcendental Argument, the entropy problem, etc.
Say freakin’ what? You have proof of Jebus’ resurrection and proof of fulfilled Biblical prophecy? Produce it! You can’t even prove Jebus ever even existed. What are talkin’ about??
8 November 2005, on 11:30 pm
If a crime was committed, and there were many witnesses, perhaps thousands. Lets say that the police were only able to interview four different people, and asked them to write down what they had witnessed. All four were very similar, but may have had some differences with respect to the place they happened to be when the event happened.
The police saved these written testimony’s, but the person that committed the crime was not caught and brought to justice until many years later. By this time all the witnesses have died, but the police still have the eye witness’ testimony’s.
We would not say that these testimony’s are any less valid than they were when they were first written, whether that has been a year ago, or 2000 years ago.
8 November 2005, on 11:36 pm
Sean, there is more proof being unearthed by prioners as we speak, that Jesus is God.
I would like to complement you on your pick of graghics on this post, it’s really a good one.
9 November 2005, on 1:07 am
Thanks, Sable, for the compliment on the graphic. Just a little Googling.
Unfortunately, your police eyewitness analogy doesn’t work well for me. I know a little something about police work and forensics. Eyewitness testimony is considered to be probably the most unreliable form of evidence there is.
Check it out.
Snippet:
… numerous psychological studies have shown that human beings are not very good at identifying people they saw only once for a relatively short period of time. The studies reveal error rates of as high as fifty percent — a frightening statistic given that many convictions may be based largely or solely on such testimony.
These studies show further that the ability to identify a stranger is diminished by stress (and what crime situation is not intensely stressful?), that cross-racial identifications are especially unreliable, and that contrary to what one might think, those witnesses who claim to be “certain” of their identifications are no better at it than everyone else, just more confident.
Besides, who are your witnesses? A bunch of guys with no last names, no fingerprints, no social security numbers, no way whatsoever to prove that they were even separate individuals, that they lived during even remotely the same era, or that they are even telling the truth.
Besides, there aren’t just a few contradictions between the various gospels, there are a hell of a lot.
Some of the best scholarly ideas center around the notion that they wrote the gospels with the intention of starting a religion, not just to testify about what they had seen. How is that any better than L. Ron Hubbard writing “Dianetics”?
[Rumor has always been that Hubbard started Scientology on a bet, but even Snopes.com has no entry on "Scientology." Why? Because those fuckers are so powerful, they sue the shit out of anyone who messes with them, and often win through sheer brute force. So we may never know the truth behind that story... And, um, just like your gospel writers, many of the key characters are dead... Although, remarkably, Hubbard continues to write books from beyond the grave.]
Tell you what, Sable. I have decided to join a religion, but it is a toss-up right now between Islam, Judaism, Christianity and Scientology. Why should I join your religion? Why is it the right one and the others are wrong?
9 November 2005, on 1:43 am
“After all, how do you prove there is no God in the universe? How do you prove that in all places and all times, there is no God? You can’t.”
I agree. However, I could just as easily ask how do you prove there is a God in the universe? How do you prove that in all places and all times, there is a God? You can’t. Look at the title of this thread. It’s called burden of proof. Like you argue, atheism is a reaction against religion. If religion didn’t exist, there would be no atheism. Therefore, since Christianity is making the initial claim, the burden of proof lays with Christianity. Atheists merely point out why they think Christians are wrong.
“It is in the negation of theistic proofs and evidences that atheism brings its self-justification to self-proclaimed life. There is, however, only one way that atheism is intellectually defensible and that is in the abstract realm of simple possibility. In other words, it may be possible that there is no God. But, stating that something is possible doesn’t mean that it is a reality or that it is wise to adopt the position. If I said it is possible that there is an ice cream factory on Jupiter, does that make it intellectually defensible or a position worth adopting merely because it is merely a possibility? Not at all.”
I fail to see how this is different from Christianity’s position. Other than the possibility that there could be a God, what other evidence is there? “At least we Christians have evidences for God’s existence such as fulfilled biblical prophecy, Jesus’ resurrection, the Transcendental Argument, the entropy problem, etc.” Oh that’s right. Jesus’s resurrection is accepted fact. We have proof of it. The interpretation of a text is little more than one possible reading. I would chalk it up to nothing more than wish-fulfillment. Furthermore, religion isn’t necessary to explain entropy. Ask Chenua Achebe, things fall apart.
“At best, the atheist can only say that the evidence so far presented has been insufficient. This logically means that there could be evidences presented in the future that will suffice. The atheist must acknowledge that there may indeed be a proof that has so far been undiscovered and that the existence of God is possible.”
I would agree to that point. However, we again return to the burden of proof argument. Christians are making the primary claims. Atheists merely refute the claim. If Christians are making claims, by which they want the rest of us to adhere to, it is up to them to prove to us that they are right, not merely the possibility that we may be wrong.
9 November 2005, on 2:17 am
-ub4war-
That was a killer post!
9 November 2005, on 2:41 am
Tish: but did you bother to read how full of shit he was in the midst of his arguments? I am willing to give that he said some intelligent things about the provability of atheism. Of course, it could be argued that we are not claiming anything, except that your claims are ridiculous… So again, the burden of proof is not on us.
But he sounds logical most of the way, and then he says this amazingly stupid shit:
At least we Christians have evidences for God’s existence such as fulfilled biblical prophecy, Jesus’ resurrection…
I am sick of the horseshit. Prove it. I fucking dare you to prove either of those statements. No more selective arguments. No more cop-outs. Prove to me that those two statements are true. I throw down the gauntlet. PROVE IT.
9 November 2005, on 3:04 am
Now remember, built into their argument is the idea that they don’t NEED to prove anything, which in itself acts as a type of proof in their eyes. In other words, by God NOT proving his existence, he proves his existence. How can we argue with such stunning evidence? Oh wait, that doesn’t make any sense…
9 November 2005, on 6:01 am
ub4war’s reply: the abridged version
Where is your proof for atheism? At least we chrisitans have proof — IN JESUS!
THE END
9 November 2005, on 6:05 am
ub4war’s post is a perfect example of theistic misunderstanding. God is not some constant observable feature of our world but a highly improbable idea/myth. It was not an idea that came about through careful, objective observation but as part of a religious system of belief. Christians would probably give ancient Greek or Roman deities any thought or similar respect, but why not?
It does not undermine atheistic beliefs to admit that a God or, and here is the key point, JUST ABOUT ANYTHING cannot be fully disproved. Again, you misunderstand where the burden of proof falls. Pull your head out of your ass and take a good, fresh, look around. Try and put yourself in the place of someone like me. I have not been spoon fed and indoctrinated into Christian beliefs throughout my life. To them, unfettered by the unshakeable bounds of religious belief, the idea of a God is highly improbable. By its very nature it cannot yet be disproved, but as it has not been observed and is akin to supernatural ideas of ghosts etc there is no reason to believe in it. There is even less reason to then base a whole set of codes and ideas out of this, believing that they are the word of this mythical being.
So, to me, not holding Christian beliefs there is no reason for me to believe in a God. You assert that you, on the other hand, actually have strong evidence. Fact is, you don’t. None of your chosen examples have any impression on me. If they were so conclusive I highly doubt that so many people throughout the world have no belief in God. Please outline how they are reliable and conclusive evidence. And reliable means not from a religious source, just to be clear.
‘The atheist position is very difficult, if not impossible, to prove since it is an attempt to prove a negative.’
Here is your problem. We cannot entirely prove a negative. We do however see no reason to believe in God, entirely in the same way most people are doubtful of ghosts and fairies. The only logical conclusion from your argument is that we should then believe in these because I can’t entirely disprove them. It is also fine to establish a whole set of rules based on what some mythical/supernatural being supposedly meant.
In the 21st century we have a far superior knowledge of the world around us than those 2000 years ago. We do not need a God as they did then to explain our universe. We now know what the stars and planets in the sky are. We now know how life came about and how our environment is in its present shape.
‘atheists have a position that is intellectually indefensible.’
No. You do. Those who doubt UFOs are in an intellectually defensible position. I am too.
‘The atheist must acknowledge that there may indeed be a proof that has so far been undiscovered and that the existence of God is possible.’
I acknowledge that. So?? That is irrelevant. One must argue things as they stand now. To hope that further proof will arrive shows how your position is based on faith. Are we to stand around until scientific evidence, against all the odds, arrives to assert the credibility of 2000-year-old myths?
‘They like having the universe with only one god in it: themselves’
To be honest, I don’t. But religion is illogical dishonest. For a start, which one could I choose without my parents having decided for me? Your point is irrelevant because I could just state the converse;
Theists like having a universe with their comfort blanket God despite the massive leap of faith this requires. They also like to use religion as a justification for their opinions on we should live our lives’.
‘At best, the atheist can only say that the evidence so far presented has been insufficient. This logically means that there could be evidences presented in the future that will suffice. The atheist must acknowledge that there may indeed be a proof that has so far been undiscovered and that the existence of God is possible. This would make the atheist more of an agnostic since at best the atheist can only be skeptical of God’s existence.’
So? That does not affect the discussion. ANYTHING might suddenly be proved by future evidence.
9 November 2005, on 8:04 am
ub4war -thanks for the cut and paste apologetics. Do you have any thoughts of your own?
Figures Tish would like it. It was full of shit.
9 November 2005, on 9:38 am
Here’s the deal, kids:
No, we can’t disprove gawd. We also can’t disprove invisible magic gremlins floating around. We can’t disprove invisible gnomes that live in our asses. Belief in god/gods is as logical as believing in either of these, so theists: where do you draw the line in what you bleeve in with no proof??
There is no proof of gawd. Kinda like my Muck-Muck comparison. If you look over into the corner and see nothing, why believe there’s anything there to begin with? Atheists apply Occam’s Razor, which in logic basically means don’t make shit up and don’t put a fairy on top.
Atheism is not about disbelief in god/gods. It’s the necessity of the supernatural in the universe. We know the universe exists. God/gods are not needed in our model of the universe – they just don’t exist. Therefore, we can be certain there is no god/gods until it’s proven otherwise.
Can my mind be changed? Absolutely. Prove to me the supernatural exists and I will cease being an atheist. Don’t believe gawd can be proven by science? That depends on your answer to this question-
True or false: Supernatural beings can produce observable effects.
9 November 2005, on 10:13 am
“observable effects” will be the problem here …goddam xians think the motherfucker does everything. “I had a fart and it felt good so I know it was jeebus who relieved my bowels”
You are trying to teach Calculus to a first grader!
9 November 2005, on 10:22 am
I’m just trying to show that gawd can be proven by science if you answer true to that question. If Xians answer “true”, then they believe gawd can be proven. It’s basically to silence that argument.
9 November 2005, on 5:57 pm
Sean,
I don’t really think that God can be proven by science. Science can help us understand how the heart beats, show us how it developed and why it stops beating….but why it beats, Science can’t tell us that, or prove God.
How about plain old human history…you don’t like religion. Sorry that does not make it go away. Can we learn from history…you can’t if you don’t want to understand it.
Islam, Judaism, Christianity and Scientology
If I was picking I would pick Christianity, I would not walk into any Christian Church, because there are bad ones. A good Christian Church should teach the Word of God only, what is that? It is the Holy Bible. I have a hard time reading the NKJ, I like NIV. I think that what ever version you read will have the same meaning. Read the Gospel of John first, than Acts, than Romans. Rent the movie “Gospel of John” it’s at Blockbuster.
You already know that Scientogy is a brainwashing money making scam.
Judaism, Christianity, Islam,
Jesus is right in the middle, Jesus is a Jew, but the Jews rejected Jesus, because he rebuked the Jewish leaders, the Jews are still waiting for their Christ to come and rule the world like a great leader. Jesus was humble, and they just didn’t see it.
The crime…He said he was sent by God as the son of God. In fact that made Him God…and he was willing to die to prove it. So they killed him. The testamony’s from the four witnesses say that Jesus was who he said he was, because of the things he said, and did in there presents over three years, they knew him very well. I don’t think this kind of evidence should be tossed out. Jesus is a real person, he didn’t just blow in from the desert, we know where he is born and who raized him.
Islam from my understanding, has simular beginning as Judaism and Christianity, there is a split with Abrahams two sons, Islam follows Ishmael and Christianity follows Isaac.
Jesus was just a profit, not God. Some how in the Islamic faith the God that was in Jesus was lifted out of Jesus while on the cross, in a sence not really dieing for our sin, If you are Islamic you need to be a really good person, if you are not…there will be Hell to pay..their is a loop hole, go to heaven free if you kill yourself in a holy war. I don’t know a lot about the Islamic religion, that is my understanding of it. I think that most Islamic people are trying to be good people.
This is a real good book to help you with your decision.
http://www.parable.com/1551779/item_0736912630.htm
9 November 2005, on 6:28 pm
I have read the gospels, thanks. Please don’t accuse me of not wanting to understand history. I happen to be a lifelong student of history. Except I get my history from actual history books. The Bible is not a history book. It has no sources other than itself. That’s not how history is written, studied or taught.
Thanks for trying to explain the mind-boggling concept of Jesus being God, sending himself to save us from himself and then killing himself to prove that he was saving us from… himself. If he was God, then he invented sin and gave it to us in the first place. So what is with this schizophrenic behavior of his?
Also, I don’t believe in the concept of “sin” as your religion defines it. And I certainly wasn’t born sinful. I was born an innocent baby, like everybody else in history. And there is no heaven, and there is no hell. And Islam and holy wars? I have serious issues with militant Islam and jihadist ideals, but as you said, the majority of Muslims, like the majority of Christians, really are not engaged in holy war, so let’s be careful there… Islam wasn’t responsible for the Crusades, either. There was a time when Christianity had a monopoly on the idea of holy wars.
10 November 2005, on 9:29 am
I don’t really think that God can be proven by science.
Do you people read what we answer when you ask questions???
sable chicken:
Whether or not god/gods can be proven by science depends on your answer to this question-
True or False: God produces observable effects.
Now pull your fingers out of your ears and answer that.
10 November 2005, on 12:58 pm
Rockstar Ryan,
“Do you people read what we answer when you ask questions???”
Come on! Give me a break! I have to read through every single insult of yours! How many times do I need to hear “your a big dumby head” before your words become meanless to me…I have gone over this before! If the whole point is to piss me off…Ryan…than what is the point. If you want me to understand your point of view on the world…do you really think that it can be done with all your insults…for crying out loud!
Sean, we might be more on the same page then you or I realize, at this point. If I look at Christian history it makes me sick. But this is also human history, The Bible is a piece of human history, although it has been translated over the years, it’s meaning is still the same. There is way to much boreing history in the Bible to be a good read. Doesn’t everything have history, even a brand new baby has the history of his parents. So we go back, farther and farther, to find out where is it we can from.
Holy war…I don’t like it, I don’t believe that we should be in a war at all, but it is a fact of life…and when I look at the Bible I read about more wars…it makes me sick..I don’t want a God like this…I don’t have a choice….I can make up my own god. If I did that I would feel so powerful and make a ton of money off of stupid people, because I wouldn’t really give a crap about anyone but myself…because I am my own god.
Sean I don’t think that you were born sinful, I don’t think I was born that way either. But we are born into a sinful world, it is hard for me to think otherwise. I look around and see that we still need laws or there will be total anarchy. So is the solution to think at there is no Heaven or Hell? That is just to empty for me, I have to lay down my own ego to even try to begin to understand this God of ours. I have some old school history books myself, Jesus is in them, he is a real person. If we remove Jesus from history would that not be as deceiving as removing the Holocast. It would be a lie to leave things out, as well as dangerus. Personal I think that, there should be an over all review of all religions in our schools. I think that in America, we need to understand each other. We are the melting pot…we could still be the leader in the world when it comes to understanding, or we could continue to insult people by insulting there god.
I know that Christianity is not about to compromise when it comes to believeing that there God is the one and only true God…but side by side with that is the next most important thing to the Christian…Love your neighbor as your self. If a Christian is making war with his neighbor this is not Christianity even if they call it that.
Jesus is the man on trial here, here is the catch…when we die Jesus will be our Judge as well as our advicate. Do you not owe it to yourself to consider all the evidence.
Please rent the video “The Gospel of John” it is very well made. It was produced by people that want to make it as close to the Gospel as humanly possible.
http://www.gospelofjohnthefilm.com/
10 November 2005, on 2:32 pm
“do you really think that it can be done with all your insults…for crying out loud!”
It’s frustration that produces insults. No doubt he’s had to go over these extremely simply points a million times while hearing the same flaccid and silly “arguments” from theists over and over again.
“Do you not owe it to yourself to consider all the evidence.“
Already have done. It points to no silly sky-pixie.
“Please rent the video “The Gospel of John” it is very well made. “
Or, if you fancy a slightly more entertaining evening, Sean-, we could take you out back and poke you with a cattle prod in tender places.
10 November 2005, on 5:13 pm
I have to read through every single insult of yours! How many times do I need to hear “your a big dumby head” before your words become meanless to me
Please provide evidence I said this. In fact, where did I insult you at all? You ARE putting your fingers in your ears if you don’t respond. You’re being dishonest.
If the whole point is to piss me off…Ryan…than what is the point. If you want me to understand your point of view on the world…do you really think that it can be done with all your insults…for crying out loud
You said I don’t really think that God can be proven by science. All I did was ask a question – True or False: God produces observable effects. It’s not my “point of view”. It’s the way things are.
I know you are upset because I’m right. The natural religioso defense is to say “why are you persecuting me????”
I asked a question. I don’t expect an answer – it’s tough to admit you’re wrong.
10 November 2005, on 5:25 pm
Or, if you fancy a slightly more entertaining evening, Sean-, we could take you out back and poke you with a cattle prod in tender places.
That sounds hot. Let’s do it!
We have no cattle prods here in the big city. Well, maybe there are, but I don’t attend the BDSM club where they lie in abundance.
Hey, ya know what? I realize now that this is my second post titled “Burden of Proof.” I will have to call the next one something else, like “Bullshit Artists: Shut the Fuck Up.”
10 November 2005, on 6:31 pm
Sable: I disagree.
Many forward-thinkers, like Howard Zinn, refuse to believe that war is part of human nature and a fact we will always have to live with. Hey, but if you believe in evolution, you believe we were descended from ape-like creatures, and anybody who has observed a mountain gorilla in its habitat knows they are the gentlest of beings. They only fight when attacked. And it is usually a non-fatal outcome, even among two alpha males.
Wish I could find his full essay online, but it is in the Zinn Reader. This article refers to it.
If you have ever met him or heard him speak in person, he returns to this theme over and over.
Pessimist: “War is just human nature, and it will be with us forever.”
Optimist: “They said that about slavery, they said that about the oppression of women, they have said that about a lot of things that at least, in Western culture, we have resolved.”
Pessimist: “Oh. Yeah. I have never thought of that. Does that mean there might be a time when there is no war?”
Optimist: “I’d like to think that, yeah.”
Pessimist: “Wow. Cool.”
10 November 2005, on 11:57 pm
Optimist: “There really is a God.”
Pessimist: “I’d like to think not, yeah.”
I hope you all have a good time a the ok corral, on cattle prod night.
11 November 2005, on 8:54 am
“Optimist: “There really is a God.”
Pessimist: “I’d like to think not, yeah.”
Optimist: According to the available evidence, there is no god. So there’s also no hell. You have control over you life not some masochistic “god” with a plan! Hooray!
Pessimist: Burn in hell forever for questions god’s eternal love!
11 November 2005, on 9:26 am
Optimist: “There really is a God.”
Oh, oh! Can there be magic geese that fly out of my ass and shit gold nuggets too?! That’s optimistic, no?
11 November 2005, on 9:41 am
Optimist: “There really is a God.” — Nice quote from Nietzsche on this: “The concept ‘God’ has hitherto been the greatest objection to existence. [...] We deny God; in denying God we deny accountability: only by doing that do we redeem the world.” I guess this would also explain the t-shirts from our store.
19 November 2005, on 3:36 am
Most theists aren’t worried about the burden of proof. (It should be noted that it is the one who makes the claim has the burden of proof, be it “God Exists” or “God does not Exist.”) Theists usually reason in some form like:
“I need something that I can live and die for–we are just quarks, leptons, and force carrriers after all. There seems to be no meaning in life, and indeed there may not be. What I will do is believe in something–something which may turn out to be wrong. But if I’m wrong, it didn’t matter anyways. The athiest is in no better place than I, believing that things like sunsets give meaning to life (talk about faith!), or that there may be no meaning at all. If god doesn’t exist, then what does it matter what I believed in?”
19 November 2005, on 3:03 pm
Well said James.
22 March 2006, on 7:49 am
sean you ignore all the historic evedence
go look it up its your soul that will burn so its your responsabilty to find out—-ignorance will not be an excuse to keep you from hellfire–thats what the bible says
but here is on historian you moght want to look up for your Proof
falvious–the jewish historian
22 March 2006, on 8:38 am
ub4war: Just wake up from a long hibernation?? You make less sense now than you did five months ago. Maybe you should play some sort of educational tapes while you sleep in your cave… Keep your brain learning even when you’re dreaming.
26 March 2006, on 6:10 pm
thanks sean, I never ment any harm to you web site so i can not understand the personal attacks
simply put so even you can understand fuck you, dipshit… you’re the one who thinks the bibble is a genuine history book, with all the proper citations it needs—–The writings of Josephus mention many biblical people and places nobody ever said nobody in the bibble, nor any of its events or places, ever existed. the point is it is NOT A HISTORY BOOK. and it is filled with fantasy. how come we aren’t seeing people parting entire bodies of water with magic now that there are video cameras around? how dumbass can you believers be?
This next chunk of plagiarized bullshit has also been removed. If you wanna read such crap, go here:
http://www.blog.churchwebstop.com/facts-on-atheism/
There, that’s a helluva lot more charitable than any Xian blog would be, huh?
- Sean
26 March 2006, on 6:13 pm
To read the bullshit history he plagiarized here, go to this link:
http://www.carm.org/questions/Josephus.htm
ub4war: copy and paste here again and I will ban your ass.
- Sean
26 March 2006, on 6:24 pm
He ub4war: You cut and paste with the best of them, don’t you?
http://www.blog.churchwebstop.com/facts-on-atheism/
26 March 2006, on 6:35 pm
sean you may be lost but i have to give you this much —you posted my reply and even left in the link–thats pretty stand up of ya
26 March 2006, on 7:44 pm
I put in the link to show that you hadn’t written a single word of it. If you’re gonna plagiarize, at least give credit where credit is due.
We’re pretty much into free speech. It’s a thing we atheists often embrace.
But don’t call me “lost” — you don’t know me from Adam. (hehe)
And don’t proselytize to me. For that I will nix you, because it violates our site policy.
26 March 2006, on 7:44 pm
PS: Why are you still coming back to this thread nearly five months later?
26 March 2006, on 11:43 pm
ok what ever i could care less if i came back here anyway
you are a lie and you edit out what people say and add your garbage
you are not into free speach and i can see your father the devil is quit mad and as his son you are in complete agreement with him and i say that because you act like a child with foul language and verbal attacks i can smell your rotting soul from here
may Christ soften your heart befor it is too late
GOODBYE!
26 March 2006, on 11:44 pm
ok what ever i could care less if i came back here anyway
you are a lie and you edit out what people say and add your garbage
you are not into free speach and i can see your father the devil is quit mad and as his son you are in complete agreement with him and i say that because you act like a child with foul language and verbal attacks i can smell your rotting soul from here
may Christ soften your heart befor it is too late
GOODBYE!
plagerize? funny as you said cut and paste
i never took credit for it but i am glad to promote carm
27 March 2006, on 12:14 am
God gives different gifts to his sheep
i will stand by my statement that i did not plagerize
in fact in the article that you obliterated there was a link that takes you too Carms home page!
carm gives the rite to use their articles and in fact i took it off their cut and paste page
all i have to to is use it in its as written
if you feel so sure i am wrong please send transcrip too carm and see what they think—–i do admit i wish i had said ”and here sean for you reading pleaure is an article from carm but i did not and thats my bad but i did not plagerize and i never took credit for the articles
27 March 2006, on 4:37 am
[...] Well, there was some interesting stuff tonight in the moderation queue, and it shared a bit of an overriding theme, so I thought I would post it. For those who don’t follow the RSS feeds, these comments might get buried in the deluge (the ones from “ub4war” are in relation to a post almost five months old). [...]