Originally posted by despondent:i always wonder why there seems to be a universal principle that no one goes around proving sth is negative...we prove existence and not non-existence...we prove positive and not negative...why ah? hmmm
Ok despondent, then if you want me to agree with you, tell me,
So if today I say "Askjfhsijfheoiuefhsdjfncksei" exists, are you going to go around proving it doesnt?
Tell me, how will you prove to me that "Askjfhsijfheoiuefhsdjfncksei" doesnt exist? Dont be silly.
Originally posted by Tcmc:BIC,
Lack of belief in gods is the same as lack of belief in elves due to lack of evidence.
Like gods, elves and fairies are mentioned in books, believed by people and even worshipped by people.
But we lack belief in them because there is lack of empirical evidence,even though many people believe in them or books mentioned them
That's being intellectually dishonest Tcmc. Because atheism DENIES the existence of God. The lack of evidence for something does not mean that you conclude that it does not exist. But should you choose to conclude so, it's based on faith. It's a faith-based conclusion. Similar to saying that the lack of evidence to convict you of murder does not mean you are not the murderer.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:That's being intellectually honest Tcmc. Because atheism DENIES the existence of God. The lack of evidence for something does not mean that you conclude that it does not exist. But should you choose to conclude so, it's based on faith. It's a faith-based conclusion. Similar to saying that the lack of evidence to convict you of murder does not mean you are not the murderer.
In the court, they dont go around proving if absent evidence is present?
BIC has alredi provided the answer in his latest response...btw, i wasnt getting u to agree wif me, tcmc...i was juz sharing a tot i have been pondering abt...
i tink theres a difference btw being ''acquitted'' and being ''innocent'' of the charge
Originally posted by Tcmc:Lol.
No one goes around proving something is non-existent. How do you even prove it when its non-existent? LOL
So if today I say "Askjfhsijfheoiuefhsdjfncksei" exists, are you going to go around proving it doesnt?
Tell me, how will you prove to me that "Askjfhsijfheoiuefhsdjfncksei" doesnt exist? Dont be silly.
For observable and verificable occurrence like badgers/ coneys not being ruminant and does not practise refection, you can have prove of absence.
The key is obeservable and verificable... solid, non ambiguous evidence.
Originally posted by Aneslayer:For observable and verificable occurrence like badgers/ coneys not being ruminant and does not practise refection, you can have prove of absence.
The key is obeservable and verificable... solid, non ambiguous evidence.
Precisely. And because there is no empirical evidence for gods or deities, we can conclude with that that they dont exist.
Its not faith.
THe guideline is empirical evidence.
If there's nothing to observe, and the evidence is all contradicting and ambiguous, then we conclude this entity most likely does not exist for now.
i dun tink the accused is considered innocent of the charge if there is a lack of evidence against him...the term ''acquitted'' certainly dun equal to being innocent...
Originally posted by Tcmc:Precisely. And because there is no empirical evidence for gods or deities, we can conclude with that that they dont exist.
Its not faith.
THe guideline is empirical evidence.
If there's nothing to observe, and the evidence is all contradicting and ambiguous, then we conclude this entity most likely does not exist for now.
Not true... absence of evidence =/= evidence of absence.
Originally posted by Aneslayer:Not true... absence of evidence =/= evidence of absence.
For what we currently know and with the lack of evidence currently, yes it's true. It might not be true in future, (maybe evidence might surface for gods in future) but it is true for now.
Aneslayer,
its like saying that just cos i cun prove to u what happened 20yrs ago to me due to no eye witnesses, photos or newpaper cuttings doesnt mean tat sth didnt happen to me 20yrs ago...tats wad u meant rite?
Originally posted by despondent:Aneslayer,
its like saying that just cos i cun prove to u what happened 20yrs ago to me due to no eye witnesses, photos or newpaper cuttings doesnt mean tat sth didnt happen to me 20yrs ago...tats wad u meant rite?
despondent,
Sadly thats not what he/she means. LOl..
Claiming a man walking on water, donkeys talking and snakes talking, well, we do need evidence for that..
Originally posted by Aneslayer:Are you going to answer my simple question? If you recall, about the badger/ coney thingy?
I'm not into arguments... actually. But I love the challenge
Just for fun...
"What double standards are you talking about?" - You can post what you like but its not needed when other post the same to you.
"And what false attribution are you harping about?" - False attribution to the creationist, if you can recall.
"Can you accept the fact that to the Hebrews the phrase "chewing the cud" has a broader meaning rather than the limited scientific meaning it has today?" - So can you use your unlimited meaning to explain coneys, finally?
"And how is my "gay" analogy a strawman? I'm simply illustrating the point that words today may take on a more limited meaning, and perhaps for words like "gay" it may even take on a new meaning!" - Your actual words " It's like you telling me that if the word "gay" appears in the Bible..." when I did not say that and both of us know that the word "gay" did not appear in the bible... originally.
P.S. You illogical fallacies count still stands at 2.
I thought I already answered that. I reproduce again the answer from the website.
In modern English, animals that ‘chew the cud’ are called ruminants. They hardly chew their food when first eaten, but swallow it into a special stomach where the food is partially digested. Then it is regurgitated, chewed again, and swallowed into a different stomach. Animals which do this include cows, sheep and goats, and they all have four stomachs. Coneys and rabbits are not ruminants in this modern sense.
However, the Hebrew phrase for ‘chew the cud’ simply means ‘raising up what has been swallowed’. Coneys and rabbits go through such similar motions to ruminants that Linnaeus, the father of modern classification (and a creationist), at first classified them as ruminants. Also, rabbits and hares practise refection, which is essentially the same principle as rumination, and does indeed ‘raise up what has been swallowed’. The food goes right through the rabbit and is passed out as a special type of dropping. These are re-eaten, and can now nourish the rabbit as they have already been partly digested.
It is not an error of Scripture that ‘chewing the cud’ now has a more restrictive meaning than it did in Moses’ day. Indeed, rabbits and hares do ‘chew the cud’ in an even more specific sense. Once again, the Bible is right and the sceptics are wrong.
God, through Moses, was giving instructions that any Israelite could follow. It is inconceivable that someone familiar with Middle-Eastern animal life would make an easily corrected mistake about rabbits, and also inconceivable that the Israelites would have accepted a book as Scripture if it were contrary to observation, which it is not.
I still don't quite get your double-standard point.
Again, what false attribution? Add some details can?
Dude, I said not restrictive meaning, it does not mean unlimited meaning lah! Fallacy count start for you?
For my "gay" analogy I used the conditional "IF". Anyway, the word "gay" does appear in the KJV in James 2:3. Does that mean you reduce my fallacy count by 1. Actually I think you should reduce it by 2.
Anyway, would you like the challenge of counting fallacies committed by atheists? I'm sure you would find it easier to count.
to tcmc,
lets see wad aneslayer replies...
Originally posted by alize:Why not say that atheists are trying to deny the religious nature of atheism for their own agenda? Dictionary definitions are not cast in stone.
Straying from accepted definitions to make up your own now?
LOL? So you just disregard Ninian Smart's contribution to this? Mind you, other social studies researchers and philosophers of religions uses his works. You refuse to accept that to avoid the undeniable conclusion that atheism is a religion?
Originally posted by Tcmc:So please stop saying atheism "meets every criteria to be a religion". You are just copying what fundamentalist websites say.
It doesnt.
The essence of religion is to believe in gods and deities.
Atheism isnt
Stop saying lack of doing sports is football.
I refer you to Ninian Smart's contribution. BTW, I think it is wrong in the first place to compare atheism with not playing football.
Originally posted by despondent:to tcmc,
lets see wad aneslayer replies...
despondent,
if today i tell you i saw a man with wings walking on water and flying around, would you believe me if i show you a book with writings on it?
Or would you want more credible evidence like eye witnesses, photographs, the credibility of the eyewitnesses?
Moreover, your bible talks about talking animals, man in a fish, flying men, unicorn and dragons.
Of cos we would want more evidence, not jus a book
i would take a stand that its possible he exists...i wouldnt say he dun exists...juz cos i havent seen him doesnt mean he dun exists...but atheists are taking the stand tat cos there r insufficient credible evidence hence God dun exists...
Originally posted by despondent:i would take a stand that its possible he exists...i wouldnt say he dun exists...juz cos i havent seen him doesnt mean he dun exists...but atheists are taking the stand tat cos there r insufficient credible evidence hence God dun exists...
Sure then you can also believe in talking animals, tweety bird, superman and anything if you can belieeve ANYTHING!
i would say i dun affirm or advocate the beliefs BUT i dun deny their possible existence cos i cun prove tat the ppl/sources that claim their existence are lying...
Originally posted by despondent:i would say i dun affirm or advocate the beliefs BUT i dun deny their possible existence cos i cun prove tat the ppl/sources that claim their existence are lying...
No i never say they are lying. I jus say they could probably very seriously deluded.
which is why i nvr doubted the existence of Buddha, Shiva, Allah and other deities/gods...cos i have not been in this world long enuff and am not all-knowing enuff to noe they indeed dun exist...ppl of those religions have experienced their gods and who am i to doubt their personal experiences? is my lack of personal experiences in their gods a gd enuff evidence to prove they are deluded or lying? i certainly dun tink so...
Originally posted by Tcmc:In the court, they dont go around proving if absent evidence is present?
No they don't. But neither do they say you are absolutely not the murderer. The courts only say they do not have evidence to convict you of murder. That doesn't mean you did not commit the murder.
Originally posted by despondent:which is why i nvr doubted the existence of Buddha, Shiva, Allah and other deities/gods...cos i have not been in this world long enuff and am not all-knowing enuff to noe they indeed dun exist...ppl of those religions have experienced their gods and who am i to doubt their personal experiences? is my lack of personal experiences in their gods a gd enuff evidence to prove they are deluded or lying? i certainly dun tink so...
depsondent,
then you are not a christian. Christians are supposed to believe that every other god is false,and that only Jesus is the true god.
who said Buddha is a god.
Buddha was not a god, never claimed to be a god, and did not call himself a god. He lived his life like a nor mall human He was awake and a human just like you and me, he bled, got sick and he he died of food poisoning. A god would not die from food poisoning.
--- Yes Buddha never claimed himself as a god, but he was a great teacher..., he is a human yet not an ordinary human, he reached the enlightenment, a maximum knowledge.. has neutral condition of anything around... he understood more than us could expected , the only way you can reached by practice meditation...
if you ever meet dhamma (buddha's teaching), then you have found a priceless, extraordinary diamond... , you can find out by yourself, why buddha is so special ... whatever your belief, you still can accept dhamma, because dhamma is truth .. valuable life knowledge... with loving based teaching, if you don't like it then you can leave it immediately..
~When asked if he were a God, Buddha said No. "Then, teacher, what are you?" to which he replied... "Awake!"
So the Buddha is not a God He is a teacher of all the things he learnt in his life.
But one more thing a normall human would just die as we know but when the Buddha died he met his enlightenment.
No, Buddha is not a God. Buddha was a man named Siddharta Gautama, who was the first person to receive enlightenment, or nirvana...