Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But if there is no way to prove something doesn't exist, doesn't that apply to god also?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. But once again "Burden of proof".
The fact is, I can't prove god doesn't exist. However I can prove that everything god is attributed to could have come about by other means and/or just plain didn't happen. The fact is that the existence of god is ridiculous on its face. As patently ridiculous as Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. Thus, the burden is on anybody asserting god exists to prove it. Until you do, I'll have to assume he doens't. Much the same way I will assume that things will fall down and the sun will rise in the east.
Which is fine by me. You have the right to believe as
you wish. What you don't have is the right to tell me
my beliefs are 'patiently ridiculous'. However I guess the day
we die will answer everything or not. If you are right then
I'll never know I was wrong. If I'm right...when you die you
will. So ask me who's better off?
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you trying to tell me that the AID epidemic in africa is caused solely by dirty needles and blood transfusions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You said absitenence would mena noone would get AIDS. You were wrong.
I did? Where did I say that? But think about it for a moment.
The only reason I know of to catch aids other than the direct
exchange of body fluids is through needle contaminated by
HIV tainted blood or a transfusion with said blood. If absintence takes care of the unprotected sex then where
does the contaminated blood come from? Pre existing cases?
Maybe but not to gnereate the levels of an epidemic. Canabalism? Possible but again not in a great amounts. So
where would it come from?
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem with that is that those values had to come from
a religious source.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. Animals exhibit moralistic behaviour all the time. It is entirely possible for the morals and values we hold to be totally derived from biological pressures, and there are quite a few studies supporting this.
Granted, we haven't seen a society develop morals without a religon of some kind, but we also haven't seen any society develop from scracth without a religion. However, it should be noted that societies such as Native American, Oriental and others have all managed to have moral people in them without paying lipservice to the Abrahamic diety.
I never said it wasn't possible the point is.. it didn't.
Sorry mutli-diety religions are still religions so my statement
holds true.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's the main crux of the problem if you combine it
with the inability to let others beleive as they wish. I
have that problem with those that do it myself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, answer me this:
The pope issues a statement condeming antibiotics. He calls them evil and says that all good Christians should refrain from using them.
Is this wrong? Or is it just him exercising his beliefs?
There are groups that still believe that in the world by the
way.
IF it was his view then yes he can say that but there's a difference between his view and the view of the church.
You seem to be operating on the beleif taht he can say what he wants and it is taken as the holy word. Which isn't the case. It takes a lot of resrearch and debate among
theologists and priest to come to a religious consensous
on a subject. Then it's given to the pope for review and
approval or disapproval I think.. not sure on that part.
Anyway i'll answer the rests then drop out. I'm not as good at
debating as the rest of you and it's showing so better to quit
while things are on relatively good terms.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But if there is no way to prove something doesn't exist, doesn't that apply to god also?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. But once again "Burden of proof".
The fact is, I can't prove god doesn't exist. However I can prove that everything god is attributed to could have come about by other means and/or just plain didn't happen. The fact is that the existence of god is ridiculous on its face. As patently ridiculous as Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. Thus, the burden is on anybody asserting god exists to prove it. Until you do, I'll have to assume he doens't. Much the same way I will assume that things will fall down and the sun will rise in the east.
Which is fine by me. You have the right to believe as
you wish. What you don't have is the right to tell me
my beliefs are 'patiently ridiculous'. However I guess the day
we die will answer everything or not. If you are right then
I'll never know I was wrong. If I'm right...when you die you
will. So ask me who's better off?
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you trying to tell me that the AID epidemic in africa is caused solely by dirty needles and blood transfusions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You said absitenence would mena noone would get AIDS. You were wrong.
I did? Where did I say that? But think about it for a moment.
The only reason I know of to catch aids other than the direct
exchange of body fluids is through needle contaminated by
HIV tainted blood or a transfusion with said blood. If absintence takes care of the unprotected sex then where
does the contaminated blood come from? Pre existing cases?
Maybe but not to gnereate the levels of an epidemic. Canabalism? Possible but again not in a great amounts. So
where would it come from?
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem with that is that those values had to come from
a religious source.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. Animals exhibit moralistic behaviour all the time. It is entirely possible for the morals and values we hold to be totally derived from biological pressures, and there are quite a few studies supporting this.
Granted, we haven't seen a society develop morals without a religon of some kind, but we also haven't seen any society develop from scracth without a religion. However, it should be noted that societies such as Native American, Oriental and others have all managed to have moral people in them without paying lipservice to the Abrahamic diety.
I never said it wasn't possible the point is.. it didn't.
Sorry mutli-diety religions are still religions so my statement
holds true.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's the main crux of the problem if you combine it
with the inability to let others beleive as they wish. I
have that problem with those that do it myself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, answer me this:
The pope issues a statement condeming antibiotics. He calls them evil and says that all good Christians should refrain from using them.
Is this wrong? Or is it just him exercising his beliefs?
There are groups that still believe that in the world by the
way.
IF it was his view then yes he can say that but there's a difference between his view and the view of the church.
You seem to be operating on the beleif taht he can say what he wants and it is taken as the holy word. Which isn't the case. It takes a lot of resrearch and debate among
theologists and priest to come to a religious consensous
on a subject. Then it's given to the pope for review and
approval or disapproval I think.. not sure on that part.
Anyway i'll answer the rests then drop out. I'm not as good at
debating as the rest of you and it's showing so better to quit
while things are on relatively good terms.