Do you really not see a difference between a jury saying "the prosecution couldn't prove his guilt" vs. "the defense proved his innocence"?
What would convince you?
- Thread starter VitalOne
- Start date
Do you really not see a difference between a jury saying "the prosecution couldn't prove his guilt" vs. "the defense proved his innocence"?
But that's not what it actually says, it says guilty or not guilty.
Not in Scotland - they have "Not Proven" (or words to that effect) - meaning they couldn't prove the guilt - not that the person is necessarily innocent.
Rational thought and logic are not synonymous with the legal system of the US.
In many cases rationality and logic aren't even followed in the courts. It's not what is about logical / rational / fair - it is all about what you can convince someone else of.
The jury doesn't say that, they say guilty or not guilty, plus the court system is designed so that you're innocent until proven guilty, or in other words false until proven true (an argument from ignorance) in order to protect the rights of people so that you can't accuse someone of murder and get them the death penalty if they're innocent...
There really is NO difference between "I lack belief in God" and "I don't believe God exists" unless you neither believe nor disbelieve in God...
It's not really incorrect, it's what atheists like Dawkins and others say, religion is for primitive people...
So you're basically saying evidence causes something to become true...no reason to believe the Earth revolved around the Sun until there was evidence, until then the Sun revolved around the Earth because it appeared so...right?shaman_ said:
You can't even give me an example of what would be evidence that would indicate it's existence yet you say this...the ignorance of these atheists amazes me...it's like someone saying there's no evidence for the many-worlds interpretation and I can't tell you what would be evidence, so it indicates that the many-worlds interpretation is false...shaman_ said:
No I can't, which is why I say that it is (currently) unverifiable, meaning there's no way to know if it's true or false....atheists say it's unverifiable so that means God doesn't exist...shaman_ said:
No only certain religious figures say the samethings...you know Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, Lao Tzu, etc...and I'm not talking about morals or anything generic I'm talking about how they explain reality to be...shaman_ said:
I don't really see much differences.....I'm sure there's truth to most of them...shaman_ said:
What are the contradictions? Ra was likely an Egyptian pharaoh....shaman_ said:
No you are making an absurd generalization. What you are saying is no different from me saying that all theists think that they are superior to atheists. Can you see a problem with this VitalOne? How basic do I have to get before you will understand?
Could you please show me where Dawkins said that by the way?
Are you actually reading my points or just scanning? We were in agreement on that point. As we were in agreement, your bizarre conclusion must apply to you as well.
I have given you examples
I answered your question on the first page of this thread which was actually the second time I answered. Can you see why people get frustrated with you VitalOne? Please take the time to read what you are responding to. I am trying to explain how difficult it is to prove that something doesn’t exist -or to provide evidence of absence, as you like to put it. Your ramble about the many worlds intepretation is irrelevant here.
But atheists don’t necessarily say that God doesn’t exist. You know this but truly accepting it would give you less to rant about.
I am just curious what you would accept as evidence that god doesn’t exist as this is the (illogical) reverse of your challenge to the atheists. You seem to think that it's possible to produce this evidence.
..Which confirms my point. Only certain religious figures say "similar" things, not most.
You are discarding what you don’t want to see. Those stories are vastly different. Do I need to post them again an analyze them?
There are contradictions in the creation myths and you still believe in Ra and Yahweh. You just keep telling yourself that they are “similar” and that the two religions can co-exist with no problems at all.
What experience have you had with elves?
Last edited:
if peoples lost limbs grew back and the sick all got well, the blind, deaf, and dumb, all could see, hear, and speak.
that would convince me of a loving god.
Devildriver_rocks
Registered Member
you want know what would be good evidence if god actually came out of heaven and fixed all the problems with this hellish planet. god does not qualify as supernatural he qualifies as dogma supernatural is like ghosts or aliens or big foot the simple fact is that evolution happened the world is billinos of years old not 6000 the big bang happened there never has and never will be a god because something would have had to create that god to
Devildriver_rocks
Registered Member
the fact that the person who created this shos that they are willing to be lead down a dogmatic path of lies because lots of people pray to a "loving" god who does not help them lots of poor nations pray to the same god and recieve nothing except living in poverty and hunger
Typical amateurish atheistic post, so you're basically giving me evidence that no one can ever gather, an event that just happens ("God coming down")
Your atheism is unfalsifiable, just the same as any other faith-based belief system
snake river rufus
Registered Senior Member
snake river rufus
Registered Senior Member