Mighty Men Conference

<< < (23/26) > >>

The Vulcan (September 08, 2014, 15:10:13 PM):
Boogie, that's exactly the sort of sitautions I'm complaining about - we have this veneer of having equal rights and respect for all, but the fact is that the non-religious are very much discriminated against in this supposedly great nation of ours - they just don't say it out loud.

@ joop - well it did come accross as a bit trolly didn't it? It wouldn't be the first tiime I read posts like these where users make a couple of posts and then runs away once they played their cards and not bother coming back when a new table is set.

Jeesh I don't even know where to start on your last part - could you clarify what you mean when you now refer to your prove/disprove statements?

I don't judge you for being religious at all, don't judge me because I believe in the Tokoloshi :)
BoogieMonster (September 08, 2014, 15:10:45 PM):
... if you don't know, don't judge.

But:

I am of opinion that everyone knows that God does exist and will hold them accountable for things they have done. They do not like the idea that they will be accountable for their actions and the fact that there are absolutes. You can only be free once you accept Jesus in your life, otherwise you'll be a slave to the world...

A bit hypocritical there joop: You've judged us to "not like being held accountable" and as "slaves to the world" right out the gate.
The Vulcan (September 08, 2014, 15:20:50 PM):
… doing exactly what you're describing Vulcan. He kept asking these "oh so clever" "innocent" questions…
This tactic even has a name. Very aptly, it’s called JAQing off.





This from Mef's wiki link:
Quote
JAQing off - 1. the act of spouting accusations while cowardly hiding behind the claim of "just asking questions." 2. asking questions and ignoring the answers. "He said he was going to present evidence, but instead he was just JAQing off."


Most brilliant quote/word of the week!
Mefiante (September 08, 2014, 16:04:06 PM):
My point with the "prove/disprove" statements was that if you don't know, don't judge.
I think it’s worth elaborating a little on a few important aspects of the above citation.

First, and perhaps most importantly, there’s a subtle and wholly unwarranted assumption implicit in the conditional “if you don't know”. The implication is that atheists and atheism necessarily entail insufficient familiarity if not wholesale ignorance of the alleged nature and/or attributes of the skyfairy under consideration. But most of the forum members here are well familiar with the Christian belief system and have rejected it for that reason more than any other. It is therefore self-serving, even disingenuous, to imply that if one disagrees with others’ religious beliefs, such disagreement is automatically the result of unfamiliarity and therefore it disqualifies one from judging the factual validity of those beliefs. Christians are always quick to judge anything they view as heresy or blasphemy or profanity or apostasy, which they will “substantiate” with all manner of mind magic, yet they will not readily extend the same courtesy to others who disagree with their worldview.

Second, there’s the approach of the reasonable person, which demands that the evidence offered in support of a given proposition is adequate, failing which reason dictates that the proposition must be rejected pending adequate proof. Again, the above subterfuge means to suggest that somehow insufficient proof to decide the question one way or the other allows you to just go ahead and pick whichever “truth” you like. It shouldn’t be hard to see the sorts of trouble into which this approach can get you.

Third, it seeks again to reverse the burden of proof, as pointed out before.

'Luthon64
The Vulcan (September 08, 2014, 16:15:43 PM):
My point with the "prove/disprove" statements was that if you don't know, don't judge.
I think it’s worth elaborating a little on a few important aspects of the above citation.

First, and perhaps most importantly, there’s a subtle and wholly unwarranted assumption implicit in the conditional “if you don't know”. The implication is that atheists and atheism necessarily entail insufficient familiarity if not wholesale ignorance of the alleged nature and/or attributes of the skyfairy under consideration. But most of the forum members here are well familiar with the Christian belief system and have rejected it for that reason more than any other. It is therefore self-serving, even disingenuous, to imply that if one disagrees with others’ religious beliefs, such disagreement is automatically the result of unfamiliarity and therefore it disqualifies one from judging the factual validity of those beliefs. Christians are always quick to judge anything they view as heresy or blasphemy or profanity or apostasy, which they will “substantiate” with all manner of mind magic, yet they will not readily extend the same courtesy to others who disagree with their worldview.

Second, there’s the approach of the reasonable person, which demands that the evidence offered in support of a given proposition is adequate, failing which reason dictates that the proposition must be rejected pending adequate proof. Again, the above subterfuge means to suggest that somehow insufficient proof to decide the question one way or the other means you can just go ahead and pick whichever “truth” you like. It shouldn’t be hard to see the sorts of trouble into which this approach can get you.

Third, it seeks again to reverse the burden of proof, as pointed out before.

'Luthon64

+1 beautifully written statement, should've become an author!


Second, there’s the approach of the reasonable person, which demands that the evidence offered in support of a given proposition is adequate...

'Luthon64

I would just have added the words "sufficient" and "appropriate" the word adequate is a tad bit ambigious for my liking, apart from that, it's pure poetry

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page