Jesus?
|
Jesus?
I'm completely gnostic towards the existence of an Abrahamic god, but otherwise, I can't be gnostic.
Odin.Tsuneo said: » I don't know many atheists that claim there is no god; furthermore, do people not realize that such claims gives you the burden of proof as well? It certainly does not.
[+]
You don't seem to understand who is making the claim.
If you are accused by me of murder and you claim "no I am not a murderer," where does the burden of proof lie? Let us say that neither of us have presented any evidence whatsoever. Ragnarok.Eriina said: » You don't seem to understand who is making the claim. If you are accused by me of murder and you claim "no I am not a murderer," where does the burden of proof lie? Let us say that neither of us have presented any evidence whatsoever. But I have no tangible evidence. I've simply accused you. And you made the claim "no, I am not a murderer."
It's simply my word against yours. Where does the burden of proof lie? Ragnarok.Eriina said: » But I have no tangible evidence. I've simply accused you. And you made the claim "no, I am not a murderer." It's simply my word against yours. Where does the burden of proof lie? Ragnarok.Eriina said: » But I have no tangible evidence. I've simply accused you. And you made the claim "no, I am not a murderer." It's simply my word against yours. Where does the burden of proof lie? You have to prove he's a murderer.
[+]
Ragnarok.Eriina said: » But I have no tangible evidence. I've simply accused you. And you made the claim "no, I am not a murderer." It's simply my word against yours. Where does the burden of proof lie? the person making the original claim, not the dissenting. Logically. Sounds like a cop out.
No evidence exists of any gods, can't be proven that there is a god(s) If I had to prove that there wasn't one as well, based on the same lack of evidence, it would be impossible. Cowards way out of really making a decision based on logic. a "You killed my son" b "Where is your proof" a "There is no proof" b "Well I can't prove I didn't because there is no proof to base a counter claim on, no timeframe to create an alibi for, so I guess I'll go to jail" It still ignores my original statement. If you say there are no gods, that is a claim and thus requires proof. I don't know what is hard to grasp about that.
Quetzalcoatl.Xueye said: » You have to prove he's a murderer. I know that. And you know that. I'm trying to determine if Tsuneo knows that. Your analogy was ***. I don't have to make a counter claim, but if I do, I require proof. I don't think you're the one who understands how the burden of proof works.
Let me quote something your brain might understand.
Quote: The weak-position atheist says: "I don't believe in God because no one has provided me with any credible evidence that God exists." This position puts the theist on the defensive. The theist must present evidence to persuade the weak-position atheist. The strong-position atheist says: "Absolutely, positively, there is no god." In response to this dogmatic position, the theistic can say: "So prove it." This means that the strong-position atheist must go on the defensive. Odin.Tsuneo said: » Your analogy was ***. I don't have to make a counter claim, but if I do, I require proof. I don't think you're the one who understands how the burden of proof works. Original claim requiring proof is always 'something exists' or 'something happened', though. Odin.Tsuneo said: » Let me quote something your brain might understand. Quote: The weak-position atheist says: "I don't believe in God because no one has provided me with any credible evidence that God exists." This position puts the theist on the defensive. The theist must present evidence to persuade the weak-position atheist. The strong-position atheist says: "Absolutely, positively, there is no god." In response to this dogmatic position, the theistic can say: "So prove it." This means that the strong-position atheist must go on the defensive. there's no such thing in either case, atheism deals not with knowledge. Strong atheism and weak atheism are the same as gnostic and agnostic atheism. I'm being told that a gnostic atheist has no burden of proof, but they have just as much burden as the people claiming that deities do exist.
Jetackuu said: » there's no such thing in either case, atheism deals not with knowledge. Don't you know who you're talking to? That's Jet.. He knows everything.
[+]
Odin.Tsuneo said: » Strong atheism and weak atheism are the same as gnostic and agnostic atheism. I'm being told that a gnostic atheist has no burden of proof, but they have just as much burden as the people claiming that deities do exist. it's really really pointless to call somebody agnostic, as nobody knows. Any person making a claim to the existence of an undefined god in one way or another is a fool, as nobody knows. If somebody says the god of the bible doesn't exist, they would be correct, as the bible itself prevents such a being from existing as it contradicts itself. As for your argument, it's still flawed, somebody doesn't need to bring burden of proof to dispute a position that didn't bring proof, it can be dismissed without it, is what several people are getting at. Odin.Tsuneo said: » Strong atheism and weak atheism are the same as gnostic and agnostic atheism. I'm being told that a gnostic atheist has no burden of proof, but they have just as much burden as the people claiming that deities do exist. Jetackuu said: » there's no such thing in either case, atheism deals not with knowledge. I am educated about this, and theism/atheism doesn't deal with knowledge, just as gnosticism/agnosticism doesn't deal with beliefs, they are entirely separate concepts. Valefor.Slipispsycho said: » reported Jetackuu said: » As for your argument, it's still flawed, somebody doesn't need to bring burden of proof to dispute a position that didn't bring proof, it can be dismissed without it, is what several people are getting at. Jetackuu said: » Odin.Tsuneo said: » Strong atheism and weak atheism are the same as gnostic and agnostic atheism. I'm being told that a gnostic atheist has no burden of proof, but they have just as much burden as the people claiming that deities do exist. it's really really pointless to call somebody agnostic, as nobody knows. Any person making a claim to the existence of an undefined god in one way or another is a fool, as nobody knows. If somebody says the god of the bible doesn't exist, they would be correct, as the bible itself prevents such a being from existing as it contradicts itself. As for your argument, it's still flawed, somebody doesn't need to bring burden of proof to dispute a position that didn't bring proof, it can be dismissed without it, is what several people are getting at. anything , including contradict himself and still be real.For what exactly? Saying something you don't like? Block me then.
[+]
Odin.Tsuneo said: » Jetackuu said: » As for your argument, it's still flawed, somebody doesn't need to bring burden of proof to dispute a position that didn't bring proof, it can be dismissed without it, is what several people are getting at. not in all cases no, nor did I attempt to suggest it was. Valefor.Slipispsycho said: » Jetackuu said: » Odin.Tsuneo said: » Strong atheism and weak atheism are the same as gnostic and agnostic atheism. I'm being told that a gnostic atheist has no burden of proof, but they have just as much burden as the people claiming that deities do exist. it's really really pointless to call somebody agnostic, as nobody knows. Any person making a claim to the existence of an undefined god in one way or another is a fool, as nobody knows. If somebody says the god of the bible doesn't exist, they would be correct, as the bible itself prevents such a being from existing as it contradicts itself. As for your argument, it's still flawed, somebody doesn't need to bring burden of proof to dispute a position that didn't bring proof, it can be dismissed without it, is what several people are getting at. anything , including contradict himself and still be real.going to assume you're making fun of theists on this one, if I'm wrong in this assumption, please elaborate. For what exactly? Saying something you don't like? Block me then. harassment Jetackuu said: » Odin.Tsuneo said: » Jetackuu said: » As for your argument, it's still flawed, somebody doesn't need to bring burden of proof to dispute a position that didn't bring proof, it can be dismissed without it, is what several people are getting at. not in all cases no, nor did I attempt to suggest it was. Valefor.Slipispsycho said: » Don't you know who you're talking to? That's Jet.. He knows everything.
[+]
Odin.Tsuneo said: » Jetackuu said: » Odin.Tsuneo said: » Jetackuu said: » As for your argument, it's still flawed, somebody doesn't need to bring burden of proof to dispute a position that didn't bring proof, it can be dismissed without it, is what several people are getting at. not in all cases no, nor did I attempt to suggest it was. they're entirely separate fields, and using them at the same time to define somebody is muddying things, it's unnecessary and lazy. Jetackuu said: » Odin.Tsuneo said: » Jetackuu said: » Odin.Tsuneo said: » Jetackuu said: » As for your argument, it's still flawed, somebody doesn't need to bring burden of proof to dispute a position that didn't bring proof, it can be dismissed without it, is what several people are getting at. not in all cases no, nor did I attempt to suggest it was. they're entirely separate fields, and using them at the same time to define somebody is muddying things, it's unnecessary and lazy. Jetackuu said: » they're entirely separate fields, and using them at the same time to define somebody is muddying things, it's unnecessary and lazy. Odin.Tsuneo said: » Jetackuu said: » they're entirely separate fields, and using them at the same time to define somebody is muddying things, it's unnecessary and lazy. I agree, hence why I'm arguing semantics instead of your point, as I agree with your point. |
All FFXIV and FFXI content and images © 2002-2025 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD.
FINAL FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.