But what if you are wrong?

[Darth Wong]

True, but then you also have to prove that it's not true. So burden of proof is on both sides.

Wrong. Burden of proof is always on the person arguing for a positive existence of phenomenon or entity.

[haas mark]

True, but then you also have to prove that it's not true. So burden of proof is on both sides.

Wrong. Burden of proof is always on the person arguing for a positive existence of phenomenon or entity.

Blahblahblah......you just can't see that there may be a possibilty of metaphysics.

[salm]

Says you.

yes. and the burden of proog is on their(your?) side.

True, but then you also have to prove that it's not true. So burden of proof is on both sides.

wrong! you set up a statement, you prove it. not the other way round. it would be the same as: god exists and as long as you dont prove that he doesnt exist he exists.

[kheegster]

but reincarnation is not after mortal life, it´s a new life.

if you´re saying that there is a afterlife between the lives, that would make sence.

Okay, then, but there is a new life after this one life. Therefore, it CAN technically be called an afterlife.

well, you can but it doesnt make sense. let´s say you die. you go to the afterlife in gods realm.
then you´re reincarnated but dont remember anything. for you it´s the same as living your first life. therfore the life you´ve had before is irrelevant.[/list]

Exactly...even if your actions have an influence on your future life, once you get reincarnated, you will have no memory of it, and you will be a completely different person. Hence, essentially there is no difference to having your fate governed by randomness in the first place.

It was essentially this point that make me break away from Buddhism: if I partake in the ritual of Buddhism and it turns out that reincarnation does not happen, then there will be a whole load of wasted time there. On the other hand, if reincarnation does exist, by living my life according to secular morals, I will still get a good deal...sounds good doesn't it?

KG

[haas mark]

yes. and the burden of proog is on their(your?) side.

True, but then you also have to prove that it's not true. So burden of proof is on both sides.

wrong! you set up a statement, you prove it. not the other way round. it would be the same as: god exists and as long as you dont prove that he doesnt exist he exists.

God doesn't exist as long as you don't prove he doesn't exist. Same idea.

[Darth Wong]

True, but then you also have to prove that it's not true. So burden of proof is on both sides.

Wrong. Burden of proof is always on the person arguing for a positive existence of phenomenon or entity.

Blahblahblah......you just can't see that there may be a possibilty of metaphysics.

Read: Philosophical bullshit.

[haas mark]

Wrong. Burden of proof is always on the person arguing for a positive existence of phenomenon or entity.

Blahblahblah......you just can't see that there may be a possibilty of metaphysics.

Read: Philosophical bullshit.

Why do you have to be so condescending? Just because you can't find an explanation to something that may or may not exist gives you no reason to use such horrible language against me. And personally, I don't like the idea of philosophy (even though it happens to govern our lives; read: morals), but I have to go with what I believe. I can't back it up, but I am certainly not going to change my stance unless there is some scientific evidence that proves it is wrong: which there is not.

[salm]

True, but then you also have to prove that it's not true. So burden of proof is on both sides.

wrong! you set up a statement, you prove it. not the other way round. it would be the same as: god exists and as long as you dont prove that he doesnt exist he exists.

God doesn't exist as long as you don't prove he doesn't exist. Same idea.

no, because the statment "god existst" came up first and without this statement the statemen "god doesnt exist" wouldnt have come up at all.
same with people who can read your past life.

[Darth Wong]

Read: Philosophical bullshit.

Why do you have to be so condescending?

Because you are building a wall of ignorance. It is a basic axiom of logic that you cannot demand proof of a negative, because proof of a negative is impossible even in principle. The line "you can't prove it doesn't exist" is nothing more than a tautology. This has been pointed out repeatedly, yet you insist on ignoring those concerns and using the line over and over.

Just because you can't find an explanation to something that may or may not exist gives you no reason to use such horrible language against me.

Verilon, you are barking up the wrong tree if you expect me to apologize for my use of language. I consider stubborn ignorance far more offensive than harsh language, but I have tried to be patient with you while we went through seemingly endless circular arguments in which you repeated the "you can't prove it doesn't exist" argument and person after person explained why that was wrong. Invariably, you simply ignore the explanation and repeat the line. This is, quite frankly, far more annoying than any conceivable use of so-called foul language.

And personally, I don't like the idea of philosophy (even though it happens to govern our lives; read: morals), but I have to go with what I believe. I can't back it up, but I am certainly not going to change my stance unless there is some scientific evidence that proves it is wrong: which there is not.

The lack of evidence for its existence is the evidence that proves it an irrational belief. The principle of parsimony is a logical principle, whether you admit it or not; extra terms make a theory inferior.

Now, if you're willing to admit that your belief is entirely irrational and exists without a shred of evidence, and that you cling to it on the flimsy thread of a chance that it exists anyway and the feeble sophistry that no one can prove it doesn't (just like we can't disprove Santa Claus), then go ahead. But when you pretend that there is some kind of poor reasoning on the part of people who deny the existence of a phenomenon for lack of evidence, then you are arguing a lie. It is not poor reasoning, and it is not faith; it is simply the logical conclusion based on all available information.

[salm]

Blahblahblah......you just can't see that there may be a possibilty of metaphysics.

Read: Philosophical bullshit.

Why do you have to be so condescending? Just because you can't find an explanation to something that may or may not exist gives you no reason to use such horrible language against me. And personally, I don't like the idea of philosophy (even though it happens to govern our lives; read: morals), but I have to go with what I believe. I can't back it up, but I am certainly not going to change my stance unless there is some scientific evidence that proves it is wrong: which there is not.

no one expects you to change your views on anything. but you cant argue with personal beliefs. believe what you want to but dont try to prove things because it´s your belief. you can belive in the ´good old pink unicorn as long as you dont use it as argument for anything.

[haas mark]

no one expects you to change your views on anything. but you cant argue with personal beliefs. believe what you want to but dont try to prove things because it´s your belief. you can belive in the ´good old pink unicorn as long as you dont use it as argument for anything.

I don't mean to try and prove it.

And Wong, like I said, show me one piece of evidence that it doens't exist, and I'll be happy to change my views. Otherwise, Sorry for building up a wall....I don't notice it happen when I do.

[Darth Wong]

And Wong, like I said, show me one piece of evidence that it doens't exist, and I'll be happy to change my views. Otherwise, Sorry for building up a wall....I don't notice it happen when I do.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I have pointed out repeatedly that proof of a negative is impossible even in PRINCIPLE. You are demanding an impossible form of evidence and acting as though there is nothing irrational about believing in something simply because there is no proof that it does NOT exist.

Tell me, what would constitute proof of nonexistence? I'm very interested to know what kind of evidence could possibly prove nonexistence.

[salm]

no one expects you to change your views on anything. but you cant argue with personal beliefs. believe what you want to but dont try to prove things because it´s your belief. you can belive in the ´good old pink unicorn as long as you dont use it as argument for anything.

I don't mean to try and prove it.

And Wong, like I said, show me one piece of evidence that it doens't exist, and I'll be happy to change my views. Otherwise, Sorry for building up a wall....I don't notice it happen when I do.

you´re not trying to prove it?`so why are you arguing?

[haas mark]

And Wong, like I said, show me one piece of evidence that it doens't exist, and I'll be happy to change my views. Otherwise, Sorry for building up a wall....I don't notice it happen when I do.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I have pointed out repeatedly that proof of a negative is impossible even in PRINCIPLE. You are demanding an impossible form of evidence and acting as though there is nothing irrational about believing in something simply because there is no proof that it does NOT exist.

Tell me, what would constitute proof of nonexistence? I'm very interested to know what kind of evidence could possibly prove nonexistence.

Good point. *bashes head into keyboard* Sorry about that one...like I said, when I build a wall, I sometimes don't recognize it. Maybve you should read all of my post?

[Antediluvian]

What I would say to Yaweh on Judgement Day:

"Fuck you."

Nice and simple.

Then when he started saying something, I would go "What?!"

"What?!"

"What?!"

[salm]

Good point. *bashes head into keyboard* Sorry about that one...like I said, when I build a wall, I sometimes don't recognize it. Maybve you should read all of my post?

[/quote]

[haas mark]

no one expects you to change your views on anything. but you cant argue with personal beliefs. believe what you want to but dont try to prove things because it´s your belief. you can belive in the ´good old pink unicorn as long as you dont use it as argument for anything.

I don't mean to try and prove it.

And Wong, like I said, show me one piece of evidence that it doens't exist, and I'll be happy to change my views. Otherwise, Sorry for building up a wall....I don't notice it happen when I do.

you´re not trying to prove it?`so why are you arguing?

Read above and below.

[Shinova]

Are we talking about whether God exists or not?

[haas mark]

Salm: haha. We knew that I had given up quite a while ago.

[Slartibartfast]

And Wong, like I said, show me one piece of evidence that it doens't exist, and I'll be happy to change my views. Otherwise, Sorry for building up a wall....I don't notice it happen when I do.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I have pointed out repeatedly that proof of a negative is impossible even in PRINCIPLE. You are demanding an impossible form of evidence and acting as though there is nothing irrational about believing in something simply because there is no proof that it does NOT exist.

Tell me, what would constitute proof of nonexistence? I'm very interested to know what kind of evidence could possibly prove nonexistence.

Just find some guy that can't look thru past lives. Then ask him "are you looking thru past lives?" he'll say "nope". There, proof of a negative

[Sea Skimmer]

I have seen quite a few of you "open minded" scientific types proclaim that there is no God.

My question to all of you is this: "What if you are wrong? What will you say to Him on Judgement Day?"


Just curious.

Fuck you your immoral ass hole. You've directly and indirectly slain tens if not hundreds of millions.

I'd already be going to hell so I don’t have much reason to hold back.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I have seen quite a few of you "open minded" scientific types proclaim that there is no God.

My question to all of you is this: "What if you are wrong? What will you say to Him on Judgement Day?"


Just curious.

Well, I'm a lapsed catholic who still technically believes in God - officially, I consider myself to be a Deist these days (I'm actually better off than those people who take the sacrament without being sincere about it) - And technically I haven't committed any of the Straight Down to the Pit sins, I think. So I'd probably just spend a long, long time in purgatorio.

[Darth Wong]

Well, I'm a lapsed catholic who still technically believes in God - officially, I consider myself to be a Deist these days (I'm actually better off than those people who take the sacrament without being sincere about it) - And technically I haven't committed any of the Straight Down to the Pit sins, I think. So I'd probably just spend a long, long time in purgatorio.

Go all the way, Marina. Don't waver on the edge ... take the plunge and join us atheists in Hell. We'll have good music and lots of sex orgies; much better than the other place.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Well, I'm a lapsed catholic who still technically believes in God - officially, I consider myself to be a Deist these days (I'm actually better off than those people who take the sacrament without being sincere about it) - And technically I haven't committed any of the Straight Down to the Pit sins, I think. So I'd probably just spend a long, long time in purgatorio.

Go all the way, Marina. Don't waver on the edge ... take the plunge and join us atheists in Hell. We'll have good music and lots of sex orgies; much better than the other place.

I'm much to 19th century for that; I like a nicely ordered universe with a theoretical creating entity at the top. Considering all the Platonic and Aristotlean influence on Christianity, there's no reason not to call it "God". Ultimately, though, Taking The Plunge would require saying something on the subject; and what's the point? Believing in God was my default position; I've cut out all the unnecessary stuff, which is... Everything else.. And I'm to intellectually lazy to bother with a final commentary on the matter. Perhaps that is one, however!

[haas mark]

Well, I'm a lapsed catholic who still technically believes in God - officially, I consider myself to be a Deist these days (I'm actually better off than those people who take the sacrament without being sincere about it) - And technically I haven't committed any of the Straight Down to the Pit sins, I think. So I'd probably just spend a long, long time in purgatorio.

Go all the way, Marina. Don't waver on the edge ... take the plunge and join us atheists in Hell. We'll have good music and lots of sex orgies; much better than the other place.

Some of us, believe it or not, have morals that (A) prevent us from doing that, or (B) make us feel really bad afterwards. Otherwise, I might have done a lot of things that I haven't done.....or done one thing that (in my eyes) I SHOULDN'T have done.