125
WARNING: Political topic ahead : Swingers Discussion 36692
Busy Swingers Forum - everything you always wanted to know about swingers.
SwingLifeStyle Swingers Personal Ads. | SwingLifeStyle Swingers Clubs

Busy Swingers Forum

Everything you always wanted to know about swingers.

Create A Free Account

HELP
FORUMSGeneral DiscussionsOpen ForumWARNING: Political topic ahead
TOPIC: WARNING: Political topic ahead
Created by: CuriousNew The original post for this thread was deleted.
GoTo Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... More 
 1 to 10 of 135   End
User Details are only visible to members.
ObladiOblada: Your point makes perfect sense. From a neutral position #2 is irrelevant. From an influenced or biased position, it's a point to ponder. I think that is the difference between an atheist and agnostic position. Atheist is neutral and agnostic has some influence.

East Greenville PA
Username hidden
(108 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
a_couple> "Without #1, you can not have #2. Therefore #2 is irrelevant to anyone not asserting #1."

It's possible you are correct. However, I would inject that few, if any, of us come to the table neutral. Most of us were raised in a family environment predisposed to either believe or deny the existence of god. We are going to lean one way or the other inspite our best efforts at neutrality. So, question #2 (at least for me, given my intense Xian background) will likely always take precedence over #1. Does that make sense? Consider me a victim of my upbringing and self-administered study.

Dan

Baltimore MD
Username hidden
(3271 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Without #1, you can not have #2. Therefore #2 is irrelevant to anyone not asserting #1.

"The denial of a god's existence can go no further than stating one cannot know" Actually logically it does not need to go further than denying the existance. Once the existance is denied, the burden shifts back to the one making the assertion. The atheist doesn't need to state one cannot know.

East Greenville PA
Username hidden
(108 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
More important? I'd guess that one's answer depends on one's predisposition. The one predisposed to atheism will prefer the first. The one predisposed to belief in God's existence will prefer the second. I would have to say that because I am so new to skepticism, I still lean toward the latter as the more important statement.

Baltimore MD
Username hidden
(3271 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
I think the two statements can peacefully co-exit:

1) Those who claim god exists have the burden of proof. 2) Without omniscience, one cannot know that god does not exist.

Baltimore MD
Username hidden
(3271 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
CuriousNew> "I think you missed his point there Obladi ... "

It wouldn't be the first time I missed a point! But, I think we're fighting two different battles that are on adjacent (but different) fields. a_couple's point is that the burden of proof for the existence of a god is on the one who asserts it. I'm actually not asserting it. I'm claiming that without omniscience, the denial of a god's existence can go no further than stating one cannot know (agnosticism).

Dan

Baltimore MD
Username hidden
(3271 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
a_couple, I really don't know that you don't have an invisible pink elephant. But you save me the trouble of having to prove it by asserting that I stole it. In order for your accusation to hold up in court, you'll have to provide the proof of ownership first. I'm sure the court will be as curious as I am about its existence.

Dan (who is enjoying his new invisible pink elephant)

Baltimore MD
Username hidden
(3271 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
ObladiOblada: "You are claiming that they cannot exist because there is no known method of verification." Actually, the claim is they don't exist period. (They "could" exist. I even gave methods of non material verification.) So the burden falls on the one making the positive assertion.

"I'm simply saying that denying the existence of something for which there's no currently known method of verification is unfair."

No the unfair part is making a positive assertion, without proof. You stole my invisible pink elephant, please give it back. Are you going to deny it's existance? (Which is the fair position)

Fun stuff! :p

East Greenville PA
Username hidden
(108 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
CuriousNew, I agree that there certainly ARE religious teachers who fail to recognize their assumptions. I have no desire to defend them. I started out in a version of Xianity that was like that, but I moved away from it toward what I thought were the better, clearer thinkers. And it's interesting, though, that one of the presuppositions they have to use is one of a (self-authenticating) divine revelation (as you point out). The best they can do is work with that revelation and make it sound as reasonable as possible. Some do it well, some don't.

Dan

Baltimore MD
Username hidden
(3271 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
a_couple_in_pa,

This is fun stuff!

"I made no argument based off of materialism. Just an analogy with a dog about burden of proof."

Actually, you appealed to 2 of the 5 senses ("I can show you a dog which you can hold"). A proof of the existence of spiritual beings has yet to be introduced. You are claiming that they cannot exist because there is no known method of verification. I think such a statement is premature. Perfectmatch is correct - science would have been stunted in its growth if it refused to go beyond present knowledge.

I don't think I'm placing the burden of proof on the atheist. I'm simply saying that denying the existence of something for which there's no currently known method of verification is unfair. The best one can do is "believe" (as you stated) in its non-existence or say that one cannot know (agnosticism).

Dan

Baltimore MD
Username hidden
(3271 posts)
GoTo Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... More 
 1 to 10 of 135   End
TOPIC: WARNING: Political topic ahead