god told me to post this here

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Gordon Gekko, Nov 4, 2003.

  1. If we were to present the evidence for the supernatural
    qualities of zeus, god, and pink unicorns, in a court of law,
    and claimed that all three existed, and provided the evidence,
    I would wager that the courts would reject all three as
    truly existing beyond a reasonable doubt.

    This is what I mean by equal. None of these myths have
    sufficient evidence to support their supernatural claims.

    Of the 3, god is the grandest of claims.

    We have evidence for zeus in the form of ancient greek religion.
    We have evidence for unicorns in story books.
    We have evidence of god in religious texts.

    I use the word evidence very very loosely here, because I
    do not think any of these constitute evidence, or certainly not
    enough evidence to accept such grand claims.


    IF TODAY... in present time.... someone in a court of law
    claimed that he walked on water, turned water into wine
    and came back to life after being killed, I am 100% confident
    these claims would be REJECTED outright based on the lack
    of evidence and our knowledge of the world.


    So yes.... jesus would be rejected, along with the unicorns
    and zeus, thus making them EQUALLY unsupported.


    peace

    axeman




     
    #161     Nov 6, 2003
  2. You can't put god on trial.
     
    #162     Nov 6, 2003
  3. ____________________________________________

    I guess we will have to agree to disagree. 100% confidence of an outright rejection is very high. The law professors I have spoken to and essays by many other lawyers, judges and jurists would also disagree with your certainty. They say taken the number of witnesses and the consistency among those witness added to the reliability on other issues and their martyred deaths instead of renouncing what they witnessed would have to be taken too seriously to be rejected out of hand.

    Read "Who Moved the Stone" by I believe Morrison.

    Another case in point is the short time frame between the witnessed events and their being recorded by the witnesses. Many of the witnesses and bystanders were alive at the time of the incidents and the time of the writings. The question at that time was not if the events took place but if they were supernatural.
     
    #163     Nov 6, 2003
  4. Putting god on trial would require that he first exists.
    I cannot put a non-existent entity on trial obviously.


    But I can put the hypothesis of god on trial.


    peace

    axeman




     
    #164     Nov 6, 2003
  5. This will just get us into another discussion on the authenticity
    of the bible. Regardless.... if we focus on the supernatural
    claims in the bible, even if we accepted that the bible
    was not completely manufactured by the designers of a new
    religion, it STILL would not stand up to scrutiny.

    Modern magicians can perform "miracles" more magnificent
    than those claimed by jesus, and if they were to claim
    that these were NOT illusions, but in fact true, I seriously
    doubt a court of law would accept them without
    very very close examination and scrutiny by a team
    of debunkers/scientists.

    Only with such close examination and research would such
    extraordinary claims be accepted. Obviously, this test is
    not even possible with the jesus stories, and therefore I
    can only be led to believe that such claims would have to be
    rejected if the courts applied any consistency in their judgement,
    due to their unverifiability and untestability.

    People claim to see all kinds of weird things, like ufo's, ghosts, etc,
    and none of these are accepted on mere eye witness accounts either.


    peace

    axeman



     
    #165     Nov 6, 2003
  6.  
    #166     Nov 6, 2003
  7. I would love to formally debate such topics with a board to judge the winner :D

    I have done so in the past, and it's far easier than in a forum
    like this.

    This plays to my strengths because such debates occur
    within the frameworks of logic and reason, and when I
    shoot my opponents down by identifying their flaws, they
    cannot so easily shrug me off. It COUNTS :)

    I welcome such debates. It makes it so much easier for me.


    If this were to happen in a court of law, and I was the attorney
    arguing against the other attorneys position that god exists,
    where the burden of proof is on HIM... my confidence level
    could not be any higher. I would almost consider it an easy win.


    peace

    axeman




     
    #167     Nov 6, 2003
  8. i'm not gay, but you know a religion is ABSOLUTE SH!T when gay people are "sinners." anyone who supports that is a total dickhead with an absolute crap belief system!!!!

    you religous people should be EMBARASSED for discriminating against gay people! and if you still don't understand that being gay is not a choice, only acting on it is, YOU'RE FLAT OUT FVCKED UP!!!!!

    then aphexcoil and others cry because i don't respect their BS religion. IT DESERVES TO NOT BE RESPECTED AND I'M NOT GOING TO EVER. it's a DISGRACE to the human race, PERIOD.
     
    #168     Nov 6, 2003
  9. The idea of original sin is an atrocity, which from an early
    age, I wager, does psychological harm to children who
    have to grow up thinking of themselves as a worthless piece
    of crap :(

    peace

    axeman
     
    #169     Nov 6, 2003
  10.  
    #170     Nov 6, 2003