Christians Claim Big Bang
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-03-2014, 02:33 AM
RE: Christians Claim Big Bang
(23-03-2014 02:29 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 02:28 AM)evenheathen Wrote:  Jesus Merrygoround Christ.........

I am a skeptic. I like evidence, sound reason, and good argument to be presented to me when I have to assess truth claims.

Jesus Goddamned Merrygoround Motherfucking Christ on a Cracker Spinning Circles Round A Knocked Up Virgin Blessed Be The Irony

I'm sure you do. Drinking Beverage

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like evenheathen's post
23-03-2014, 02:34 AM (This post was last modified: 23-03-2014 02:55 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Christians Claim Big Bang
(23-03-2014 02:28 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 02:24 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Right...

Let's disprove the intervention of a god that itself hasn't been proven to exist (or even coherently defined). You really are that stupid...

I think you see now that just making bald assertions is easy. Backing them up with evidence is not. Especially when assuming so great a burden.

Ad hominems are fallacies by the way.

Just because you've swapped the burden of proof in your brain doesn't make it so. That's your entire spiel, to try and reverse the burden of proof off of theists who claim 'there is a god', and try to place it on atheists who doubt the theist's claim. You really are that fucking stupid...

The hospital bit operates under the fact that no god has been proven or demonstrated. By trying to switch the burden of proof (that skeptics need to disprove your god), you are a priori assuming there there exists a god that needs to be dis-proven, when indeed your god hasn't even come close to being substantiated. That is why you FAIL.





Also, it's an ad hominem if I use an insult in place of an argument, not in addition to, fucktard...

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
23-03-2014, 02:39 AM
RE: Christians Claim Big Bang
-Double Post-

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2014, 02:43 AM
RE: Christians Claim Big Bang
(23-03-2014 02:34 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Just because you've swapped the burden of proof in your brain doesn't make it so. That's your entire spiel, to try and reverse the burden of proof off of theists who claim there 'is a god', and try to place it on antsiest who doubt the theist's claim. You really are that fucking stupid...

The hospital bit operates under the fact that no god has been proven or demonstrated. By trying to switch the burden of proof (that skeptics need to disprove your god), you are a priori assuming there there exists a god that needs to be dis-proven, when indeed your god hasn't even come close to being substantiated. That is why you FAIL.





Also, it's an ad hominem if I use an insult in place of an argument, not in addition to, fucktard...
An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.

So far all I have seen is a rejection of my arguments and irrelevant remarks about me as a person.

You still have not evidenced your truth claims.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2014, 02:58 AM (This post was last modified: 23-03-2014 03:25 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Christians Claim Big Bang
(23-03-2014 02:43 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 02:34 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Just because you've swapped the burden of proof in your brain doesn't make it so. That's your entire spiel, to try and reverse the burden of proof off of theists who claim there 'is a god', and try to place it on antsiest who doubt the theist's claim. You really are that fucking stupid...

The hospital bit operates under the fact that no god has been proven or demonstrated. By trying to switch the burden of proof (that skeptics need to disprove your god), you are a priori assuming there there exists a god that needs to be dis-proven, when indeed your god hasn't even come close to being substantiated. That is why you FAIL.





Also, it's an ad hominem if I use an insult in place of an argument, not in addition to, fucktard...
An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.

So far all I have seen is a rejection of my arguments and irrelevant remarks about me as a person.

You still have not evidenced your truth claims.

Nice, so you can copy-paste shit from the internet, and yet entirely fail to understand any of it. If you remove my insults, my argument still stands; thus it's not an ad hominen you dumbass. Your reading comprehension is as bad as your logic (which is to say, non existent). Still doesn't make up for the fact that you fundamentally do not understand how the burden of proof works, and you are operating under false premises and assumptions. As evidence, I cite everything you've posted so far.

Q.E.D. Drinking Beverage

What evidence is there that a god wasn't needed to explain those hospitals? Well, how about the fact the we can explain the hospitals without needing to insert a god? How about the fact that there is no evidence to support the super-natural, let alone any gods, let alone your specific version that somehow has a hand in building hospitals? There is no reason to posit a god, it is an unnecessary assumption that is not required to explain any hospitals. So unless you have some evidence in support of your god, that is more than enough to meet the burden of proof for that claim (just as it would be adequate evidence if the claim was that 'no hospital required Carl Sagan's dragon/FSM/Pink Unicorn/aliens/Thor/fairies/leprechauns, etc.). Now if you want to go further and claim that we are wrong because your hospital-god (or dragon/unicorn/FSM/Thor/etc) does exist, now you have to prove your god (dragon/fairies/leprechauns/aliens/etc) exists. Good luck with that...

Also, you didn't watch the video, as it's 11:31 long and your replied in only 9 minutes. Way to go dumbass, way to educate yourself...

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2014, 03:00 AM
RE: Christians Claim Big Bang
Fair enough.

That the building of churches was commissioned by people who believed something or other, is a truth claim.

Hardly worth arguing over, though, is it?

Why build churches?
Something to do on a weekend / keep stone masons employed?
As a place for worship?
For a place to hang out with your mates?

Another way of looking at it...
How many churches were built by non-believers? Not many, I suspect. Too busy spending their hard earned cash on hookers and drugs.

Sleepy

Also, that was not an ad hom. It was an insult.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
23-03-2014, 03:48 AM
RE: Christians Claim Big Bang
Jeremy, here's what you said:
Quote:I simply asked why would the existence of churches and the hospitals established by them not be seen as evidence for God's involvement in the universe?

Now here you do something pretty crafty which was to rephrase a truth claim into a QUESTION so that YOU'RE off the hook supposedly. Why? because anyone answering your question could then be trapped as making a truth claim.

Your claim that you rephrased as a question? That the existence of churches and hospitals can be seen as evidence for God's involvement in the universe.

My statements were not truth claims but were only explanations of why this could not be used as evidence for your truth claim. I was answering your question and provided more evidence than needed, as no evidence was actually needed since I wasn't making a truth claim but responding to your truth claim which had been phrased as an interrogative.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Charis's post
23-03-2014, 04:24 AM (This post was last modified: 23-03-2014 04:52 AM by Charis.)
RE: Christians Claim Big Bang
If you WERE making that claim, you were then, in that same sentence, asking us to disprove it (logical fallacy). So me going along with it was silly.

If you were NOT, in fact, making that claim, then it was silly of me to even try disproving a claim that was supposedly not even being made, even though that's essentially what you asked for us to do in that question.

It's actually kind of amusing.


Also, I think it's ok for us to just say "claim" rather than "truth claim." If you or I are making a claim, I don't think we're trying to make a property claim or an insurance claim. So let's just say "claim." I know Greg Koukl said "truth claim" a lot in his book "Tactics," but we can stick to "claim."

Btw, you guys should all possibly check that book out when you get the chance. You'll get some insight. One of the tactics is making sure to transfer the burden of proof. One basis? That the Bible has been accepted for so long that a biblical worldview has become pretty much the default, and the burden of proof falls on those who assert that we should deviate from that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Charis's post
23-03-2014, 05:29 AM
RE: Christians Claim Big Bang
(23-03-2014 04:24 AM)Charis Wrote:  Btw, you guys should all possibly check that book out when you get the chance. You'll get some insight. One of the tactics is making sure to transfer the burden of proof. One basis? That the Bible has been accepted for so long that a biblical worldview has become pretty much the default, and the burden of proof falls on those who assert that we should deviate from that.


Good fucking lord, is that where this tripe comes from? Facepalm

By that reasoning, Hinduism trumps Christianity by a few millenia... Laughat

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
23-03-2014, 06:59 AM
RE: Christians Claim Big Bang
I actually was just asking a question. Claims that we make that we want others to accept as true are truth claims.

If someone says that the existence of churches is not evidence that God is involved in the world and they want me to accept that statement as a fact, then they have the burden of proof in substantiating that claim if I ask them to.

Switching the burden over to me is not answering the question. It is switching the burden over to me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: