Porn by state=they are all red states

SmarterThanYou said:
if the life has already been taken, there isn't a whole lot one can do to bring it back. what we can do though, is make it so that said perpetrator can never do it again.
Click to expand...

wow it must suck to know something you care about so much is never going to happen,.
I guess it's like me and mj being leagal.
 
Damocles said:
Prove that no God exists. If you cannot you have just described why Atheism takes faith.
Click to expand...
That's a circular argument and is faulty logic. One does not need proof that God does not exist but one can conclude through the lack of material evidence that the existance of God has not been demonstrated. This is not an act of faith but of reason.
 
Damocles said:
But it isn't. You self-defined it and I apply your standard to your own position. Now you can either put up the evidence that proves your position or recognize that one must have faith to step into a 100% belief that no God exists. Start proving.

I personally think it is unlikely that God exists in the way that people think, but I can't say with that same assurance you seem to have. I just can't take that leap of faith.
Click to expand...
No. Topper is right. You've provided him no material evidence to rationally believe in the existence of a God. On that basis why should he believe in God other then on the basis of faith?
 
these tools want a reason to feel good without any day to day reason (religion).
Fine, just don't push that phoney shit on me.
Hot tail, Jah's herb, tennis, awesome investing in that order make me happy.
 
Damocles said:
So what happens if life is found on Mars? I suspect that we will find some sort of life there. But I don't make the leap to assurance, which would again be a leap of faith. Even with the evidence that exists that there is more likely than not some form of life on Mars it would still take a leap of faith for me to believe 100% that it is there.
Click to expand...
That's all well and fine but it's not germain to Toppers point.
 
Mottleydude said:
That's a circular argument and is faulty logic. One does not need proof that God does not exist but one can conclude through the lack of material evidence that the existance of God has not been demonstrated. This is not an act of faith but of reason.
Click to expand...
Again, Not Demonstrated =/= 100% assurance, it is there that the faith takes place. It is reasonable to say that there is very little chance of it, it is reasonable to say that the probability is low, but to say with 100% certainty takes faith unless you can prove, like they did with the flat earth theory or with the belief that the Earth was the center of the Solar System, that it is simply wrong.
 
Mottleydude said:
And I've all ready proven that to be wrong.
Click to expand...
You have proven no such thing. You have an opinion that jumping from unlikely to sure takes no faith at all, but no evidence that such a thing makes it more "reasoned", I have demonstrated that while you may find it unlikely drawing the conclusion that there is no evidence to support it is not the same thing as saying it does not exist.
 
Damocles said:
Evidence supporting lacking =/= 100% assurance. That is where the faith lies.
Click to expand...
That's just simply not true and is an unreasonable argument. One only need a proponderance of evidence to reasonably and rationally draw such a conclusion. 100% assurance is not required as they are not the ones attempting to prove the existence of a God and as such the burden of proof is not theirs. No faith is required here.
 
Mottleydude said:
That's just simply not true and is an unreasonable argument. One only need a proponderance of evidence to reasonably and rationally draw such a conclusion. 100% assurance is not required as they are not the ones attempting to prove the existence of a God and as such the burden of proof is not theirs. No faith is required here.
Click to expand...
Again, 100% assurance is what you propound. To say "There is no God" is a statement of surety. To say, "There is no evidence of God" is not.

One is a statement of Faith, the other is a reasoned statement. One speaks to the probability, the other takes a leap off that line into surety where none can be had.
 
Topspin said:
quite the contrary religious pompus mutha fuckers have murdered millions more people than non-religious have.
Click to expand...
That's marginally true. Stalin and Hitler were both secular and so were their regimes and they murdered many millions. Have more been murdered for religious reasons or causes? Probably but that's a matter of scale and not principle. Both the religious and secular extremes have shown a willingness to ruthlessly murder millions to acheive their narrow agendas. I blame that on the human condition and not religion or secularism.
 
Damocles said:
Again, Not Demonstrated =/= 100% assurance, it is there that the faith takes place. It is reasonable to say that there is very little chance of it, it is reasonable to say that the probability is low, but to say with 100% certainty takes faith unless you can prove, like they did with the flat earth theory or with the belief that the Earth was the center of the Solar System, that it is simply wrong.
Click to expand...
I've all ready discredited that argument Damo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top