I took the bait... burden of proof.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-06-2016, 02:04 PM
I took the bait... burden of proof.
Well, I made the mistake of taking the bait on a video posted to a friend's Facebook feed. Actually had a productive discussion... until his friend jumped in and started questioning my understanding of "truth" and I called him on nitpicking my semantics. I used the word truth colloquially to mean "scientific fact" whereas he can only understand truth which comes forth from his absolute truth of God, therefore God (or something similarly circular). 3 days and much headache later (sometimes due in part to my lack of familiarity with finer points of scripture), I've discovered they're both born again Christians with no actual interest in investigating the world about them and all they would like to do is evangelize the masses. What have I done... Big Grin

The reactions to my blasphemy have been great, but one on two in a Facebook conversation is just exhausting so I think the discussion has run its course. The lack of understanding on their side of the conversation in the differences between circular reasoning and deductive/iterative reasoning and the concept of statistical uncertainty in logical arguments was astounding. Many a facepalm has occurred while reading their responses. However, I did learn some valuable lessons for the next time I talk to a Christian apologist. Assume they know absolutely nothing, including: everyday words may have colloquial uses conflicting with a worldview that invites absolute truth as a starting point; absolute sentences are not understood, as in normal chats, to have understood uncertainty and this uncertainty needs to be pointed out.... over and over and over; broadly-accepted scientific evidence against one of their claims will not be accepted so long as any Christian scientist has said otherwise, even when 99.9% of their peers disagree (including old earth Christians when arguing against a young earth); when you can't get them to go outside the Bible for evidence, all arguments are futile (an absolute statement that I don't consider absolutely true... uncertainty hopefully just understood here).

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Icextentialist's post
02-06-2016, 02:22 PM (This post was last modified: 02-06-2016 02:26 PM by Brian37.)
RE: I took the bait... burden of proof.
This is why I hate religion. No, not my species. My species is capable of great things and great discoveries. My species problem is always that when they do these things we stupidly attribute those things to god's and religion. Every religion does this.

The scientific truth is that there were no religions or even boarders 200,000 years ago in the early days of our current form. There was no religion 4 billion years ago when our planet first started forming, much less 13.8 billion years ago at the big bang.

Our sun is one sun in a galaxy of billions. A galaxy so big it takes 1 ray of light 100,000 years to cross at the speed of light. And our known universe contains 100s of billions of galaxies. None of those fact are in dispute. Humans simply don't like the fact that we are finite so we concoct disputes that don't exist in reality to give ourselves a false sens of importance.

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2016, 02:34 PM
RE: I took the bait... burden of proof.
Speaking of things on the scale of billions of years... I got some argument for a logarithmic version of speedy time and something about Helium absorption (ignoring entirely the fact that Helium acts differently under a vacuum than in nature due to some unique properties) that the RATE group was using to validate their young earth experiments. Oh, and evolution isn't true because otherwise we're brain fizz and what's the point. And the classic brain in a vat argument as evidence of atheists being crazy enough to believe that's possible, but then having the "audacity" to claim there's no(t enough evidence to believe in) god(s). Hope you understood those parentheses haha. Good times. I don't give a shit if I'm a brain in a vat, just give me a good scotch or rye and I'll be glad to enjoy this reality until it ends for me! xD

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2016, 02:36 PM
RE: I took the bait... burden of proof.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=share&v=jJbK3RBKj0E

In case you can stand the burden of proof video...

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2016, 02:46 PM
RE: I took the bait... burden of proof.
(02-06-2016 02:36 PM)Icextentialist Wrote:  https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=share&v=jJbK3RBKj0E

In case you can stand the burden of proof video...

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

Been at this since 2001. I am telling you it is all the same bullshit no matter which religion you debate. The tactics are the same, what they all want you lost on are the details.

When they cant debunk science they resort to trying to co opt science to point to their club. They all do it. Don't get stuck on the "details".

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Brian37's post
02-06-2016, 02:52 PM
I took the bait... burden of proof.
Interesting video. Now that we know God is real because we just know it, which God is it? Does any religion have the burden of proof to show which is the right one?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2016, 03:00 PM
RE: I took the bait... burden of proof.
On the whole, I believe the thought exercise was a good one for me. I learned from it and it was fun to have a chance to express my own opinions outside my own household. I haven't ever really challenged a believer publicly before now, as it were.

Personally, I didn't get stuck on the details, but after a while it's pointless to keep talking. I concluded my conversation with my actual buddy on the side. It was productive... right up until he reiterated just before signing off that God's word was written on his heart when he was born again during engineering school in Virginia, so all evidence against is false by default (a counterintuitive point on its own, assuming that college is meant to further our ability to think and reason rationally). Pointed it out that that's rather convenient. Got a weak deflection.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2016, 03:01 PM
RE: I took the bait... burden of proof.
I'm totally getting prayed for this week 😇

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2016, 04:12 PM
RE: I took the bait... burden of proof.
Ohmahgerd why did I click the link... "How Evolution Hurts Science" - John Sanford

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=P-H4X2b7x7Q

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2016, 04:19 PM
RE: I took the bait... burden of proof.
(02-06-2016 02:04 PM)Icextentialist Wrote:  Well, I made the mistake of taking the bait on a video posted to a friend's Facebook feed. Actually had a productive discussion... until his friend jumped in and started questioning my understanding of "truth" and I called him on nitpicking my semantics. I used the word truth colloquially to mean "scientific fact" whereas he can only understand truth which comes forth from his absolute truth of God, therefore God (or something similarly circular). 3 days and much headache later (sometimes due in part to my lack of familiarity with finer points of scripture), I've discovered they're both born again Christians with no actual interest in investigating the world about them and all they would like to do is evangelize the masses. What have I done... Big Grin

The reactions to my blasphemy have been great, but one on two in a Facebook conversation is just exhausting so I think the discussion has run its course. The lack of understanding on their side of the conversation in the differences between circular reasoning and deductive/iterative reasoning and the concept of statistical uncertainty in logical arguments was astounding. Many a facepalm has occurred while reading their responses. However, I did learn some valuable lessons for the next time I talk to a Christian apologist. Assume they know absolutely nothing, including: everyday words may have colloquial uses conflicting with a worldview that invites absolute truth as a starting point; absolute sentences are not understood, as in normal chats, to have understood uncertainty and this uncertainty needs to be pointed out.... over and over and over; broadly-accepted scientific evidence against one of their claims will not be accepted so long as any Christian scientist has said otherwise, even when 99.9% of their peers disagree (including old earth Christians when arguing against a young earth); when you can't get them to go outside the Bible for evidence, all arguments are futile (an absolute statement that I don't consider absolutely true... uncertainty hopefully just understood here).

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

Ask him to define his terms, very exactly. Then ask him how something is "absolute" if it changes.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: