Conrad: assertions don't make things true. How do you know that with evidence of god he would be finite?

for example: if I had infinite life, how does that mean I cannot leave proof of my existence?

Perhaps we could get back on topic now.

It could be, which would be better than the alternative. I just hope "milesoftheusa" can understand what I was trying to say.

What man are you talking about? I've made no claims here, and you're acting as if I'm attacking your beliefs!

I've never asked for proof, and was merely remarking on the essence of debate. You've either misread my post, or are applying a false agenda to my intentions.

milesoftheusa:

Words in a book are not proof of anything, nor can they be proven to be anything other than coincidence, thus, your evidence is nothing but happenstance. But, let's pretend that these words could be taken as scientific evidence.

1. This does not prove the existence of a god, merely the existence of dietary knowledge.

2. The bible also asks man to drink the blood of christ, which contradicts your message that it says not to drink blood.


Also: in your last statement, you're still not understanding the point of this thread. I posted it to say the claimer has the burden of proof. As I have made no other claim, I don't have the burden of proof here, and actually have no idea what you're asking me to prove.


JohnDavidDavid:
To your first post:
I wholeheartedly agree with your statement, however would add if the debate is held public, it should also be withheld to public standards of debate.
To your second post:
When multiple people write a book, you can expect there to be controversies. While this does apply to the topic at hand, poking sticks at someone probably won't prove your point. :P


izzyphoto1977: Your knowledge is much appreciated, and thoroughly enjoyable. I only regret I have nothing to add to your post!




We know cooking meat is good because not cooking meat makes us sick. Is it possible the people who wrote the bible knew this? Yes. Does that prove god exists, or that the entirety of the bible is true? No.


Also: Eating blood isn't really that unhealthy, here's some evidence to prove so:

http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/sausages-and-luncheon-meats/1323/2

How is this proof of anything?

It is certainly a sound argument, however belief cannot be forced. Our minds are each shaped with their own way of determining what is real or not. I cannot force myself to believe in god the same way I cannot force myself to believe in unicorns. (not saying the two are similar, just stating my thought process won't allow for either.)

Ghost hunters is something I refuse to watch, simply due to the pseudo science used, but that's unrelated.

My personal definition of physical evidence is; evidence that is conclusive and can be tested. Misunderstanding here, I did not intend to use physical evidence in the mainstream term.

problem is long distance relationships aren't what I'm looking for! It's a social stigma that is plaguing our society. "swag" and "yolo" are the best examples of how social darwinism is effecting our modern culture in the worst possible ways. Intelligence is a rarity when it should be shown proudly. Enough with the niceties, let's burst open doors and scream so the cities can hear, "We are intelligent, and we are dedicated to using it to make the world a better place"! (or something to that effect.)

I suppose that would make me lucky, if I could find one!

Also: I apologize if the side question offended. Was not intended as an insult, merely as a "read between the lines" way of saying it's difficult to find someone who has those qualities. (or perhaps my eyes are closed too much.)

msharmony: I posted it here because religion spawns many debates, and I've seen many times where the claimer asks the receiver to prove them wrong. Thanks for keeping this civil guys, I know how hard it can be at times.

izzyphoto1977: I agree with your claim, however I would anecdote that it is impossible to prove anything without physical evidence doesn't exist, which is exactly why the burden of proof exists.

Metalwing: I would argue that anything that exists must have some form of physical proof of its existence.

I've read a few books on the topic, and the most interesting answer I've found as to why religion still exists, lies within the pages of "The God Delusion" By Richard Dawkins.

His theory is that religion is a byproduct of an evolutionary trait, not necessarily directly influenced by evolution. The theory he presented seems very plausible, and provides a good explanation.

Basically the theory is; Believing what our parents say in our youth is beneficial to survival, thus that trait has lived on. Indoctrination is a byproduct of this process, and because of the social norm, is left unchallenged by the general public. This allows for indoctrination to continue.

So why does religion still exist? If Dawkins' theory is correct, it is because we teach it to our kids, mixed in with our teachings of "Don't touch the stove", "Don't stick your fingers in the electrical socket", "Look both ways before crossing", etc. etc.

Firstly, I want to say I'm not attacking religion, nor am I wanting to attack beliefs.

This is merely a post about the process of debate, and more importantly, who holds the burden of proof.


To begin, let me define burden of proof as I understand it (So there are no misunderstandings.) Burden of proof is the responsibility of proving the claim.

Now, I present my argument as to whom the burden of proof lies on.

When a claim is made (no matter the claim) it is the sole responsibility of the claimer to provide evidence as to why the claim should be believed, thus the claimer has the burden of proof. The other way around is simply illogical.

Example: If I claim there is an invisible unicorn that only I can see, it would be illogical for me to ask you to disprove me. It cannot be done. Thus it would be my responsibility to provide evidence to my claim in order for you to fully believe my proposal.

I felt the need to post this, due to a few debates I've seen on this forum that completely ignore the burden of proof. Hopefully in future debates or arguments this prospect is kept in mind, and acknowledged.

*ahem*

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/pastafarian-politician-takes-oath-office-wearing-colander-head-article-1.1568877

I'm seeking an intellectual woman near my age, and (of course) location.

Sick and tired of dating idiots, I want someone who can actually spell, and can hold a decent conversation.



Side question: Do these people even exist?