I get your point, but as I said it's very difficult for me to just let someone put out a half or non truth on a public board and just say, "Well, let everyone believe that if they want to..."
This is very much a function of your paradigm. Many people feel the exact opposite. They feel it is extraordinary NOT to believe in the supernatural. They believe that the burden of proof would be on you guys. It's all how you look at the universe, i.e. a "half full" or "half empty" sort of thing. Avril Lavigne has a song where she talks about a "beautiful accident". You see if all of this is "beautiful" and "powerful" and "majestic" and "intricate" without a good mechanistic explanation, many people will come to the conclusion that the burden of proof is on you. And that's not just theists, that includes a lot of agnostic, deistic and New Age type of people. How many times have you heard someone say, "How could this just be an accident?" And let's be honest here: materialism really does not have a pat answer to that question. Darwinism is certainly not provable and as I've shown the origin of the universe and the origin of life is highly questionable as well (to put it gently). Many lay people can feel this "in their bones" even though they have not formally studied science. What you are saying is far from obvious...
No, but then Zeus has no evidence for his existence. This is not true for theism. The whole purpose of some of these discussions is to figure out if the evidence is weak or strong.
Now this seems like a bold assertion. Think about the stories of the exodus. Do you really think someone wrote that to be allegorical?!? I cannot imagine reading that and not believing that the person was either 1) trying to deceive people, 2) insane or 3) witnessing actual events. I just can't imagine scholars coming up with the idea that that was just a Pilgrim's Progress that happened thousands of years ago. Is this idea actually popular among scholars?
People may well feel that, but I do not see how it is connected with my statement ...... "Where there is no claim, there is nothing to be agnostic about. When the extraordinary God Claim is made, it is usually made as True, but the claim cannot be shown True. Agnosticism is NOT the only rational position where there is nothing to be agnostic for." ......nothing to do with burden of proof, (even though it does rest on the claimant). Avril Lavigne may indeed sing of a "beautiful accident", it doesn't mean she is any more right or wrong than Sid Vicious singing of an "ugly purpose". An agnostic response is not the only rational position "In the absence of the supernatural and [religious]faith", Damir's.. 'it matters not'.. is also a position. A severe lack of substantial and meaningful evidence also offers a position of 'no reason to assume as True'. How many times have you heard someone say, "How could this just be an accident?" And let's be honest here: materialism really does not have a pat answer to that question. Darwinism is certainly not provable and as I've shown the origin of the universe and the origin of life is highly questionable as well (to put it gently). Many lay people can feel this "in their bones" even though they have not formally studied science. What you are saying is far from obvious... An appeal to emotion as the reason for everything is not a convincing one. I know of many lay people who "feel it in their bones" that Mohammed is the true prophet of God No, but then Zeus has no evidence for his existence. This is not true for theism. The whole purpose of some of these discussions is to figure out if the evidence is weak or strong. Zeus has plenty of real and substantial evidence. What other God makes real noise. A few thousand years ago, you would in all probability, have been even more convinced of Zeus the God ,rather than just God the creator of everything, who relies upon an old uncorroborated, errant, contradictory book and hearsay from those with vested interests. Zeus the supreme God could be heard as well as believed in. Yet the evidence for Zeus is now weak. The evidence for theism was and is made weak indeed by the same kind of overwhelming evidence which now makes the case for Zeus theism so weak.
This is where you show your cultural worldview bias. You cannot get out of your own head to even see the other person's point of view just for a minute. Look at the insulting accusations you make here that are simply unsubstantiated. Let me try to explain withan example that I think will be less inflammatory: You're a cave man. And this is key to my allegory: it's pre-Iron Age, pre-bronze-Age. There's no AC, no PC, no TP, no nothing. Now you're walking in the forest and you find a watch. (Now don't bristle here - just listen for one second, please.) Remember: you don't what metal is. You have no idea what this thing is or what it's for or how it works. It looks intricately put together, though, whatever it is. It's really beyond your comprehension though. And how did it get here? Do you conclude it's just part of the forest? Or do you conclude that anlther human made it somehow? You don't know, do you? And this is a good example, because it is the state of affairs in science. The universe is HIGHLY complex and interrelated and we have little understand of its most fundamental principles or creation. Some people will look at this on one side and some on the other. Some will say it requires design and intelligence and some will say the opposite. But the response is not necessarily based on "emotion" or "irrationality" as you presuppose.
And yet that is what you do with your christian beliefs nearly every time you post. That point is not meant to be critical, but rather to demonstrate that "truth", "half truth" and "non truth" are nearly indistinguishable in the realm of theology when interpreted by two different people -- and that perhaps is Damirs point. JB
LMAOOOOOOO nice fantasy JEM. Is this what you dream about after another attorney has completely destroyed you in court? Make you feel better JEM? Nice strawman by the way. Why dont you try addressing the issue im debating? Your a typical slimeball attorney. Dodging and weaving and spinning fairy tales. Here is the real meat of the issue JEM. For the sake of argument, lets assume Josephus WAS NOT forged at all, because its such a minor point I dont have to rely on, although the evidence clearly shows this. 1) Josephus recorded something he heard about Jesus that had been floating around by word of mouth for over 3 decades, which is HEARSAY by definition 2) Hearsay is not admissible in a court of law, unless it qualifies under certain known exceptions, 3) You IMPLIED it falls under the "records" exception, so I addressed this and showed that it DOES NOT fulfill the requirements for that exception since for it to be considered, it must be recorded DURING THE SAME TIME, not 3 decades after the fact, and in the course of BUSINESS. Therefore: We have un-admissible HEARSAY. I researched the law and asked TWO of my personal attorney friends. They claim you are FULL OF IT, and are attempting to hide behind your attorney authority on the subject Since you COMPLETELY FAILED to address this issue, or more importantly chose to SPIN court room fantasy with YOU AS THE JUDGE, ATTORNEY, AND JURY (LMAOOOO), it is incredibly clear you have no case. Why else would you have to spin such fantasy Let me be blunt JEM. You are a SAD excuse for an attorney who doesnt know the law very well. My buddies were busting out laughing when I told them what you were attempting to claim. Your PEERS are laughing at you Come back to the table when you can QUOTE SOME LAW instead of little cutsy fantasies you spin to support your assertion that the Josephus hearsay is admissible. Better yet, go back to law school, and this time, try paying attention peace axeman --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, but I wouldn't go so far as to say there is no value in discussing things or that absolutely no conclusions can be drawn, so I'm not sure I see your point. Plus, isn't that what we're all doing: presenting our side of the discussion? What am I supposed to say unless I say my own viewpoint? Or am I missing your point?