Staying a virgin until marriage (guys) (3 Viewers)

[Lolsmith]

well then why do you suddenly accept the fact that "smart people" must not have come across the fallacies inherit within he Abrahamic belief system

 

[Shadowdude]

I'm sure they saw that fallacy that Arcorn or whoever pointed out, and then knew something else that allowed them to keep their faith in it.

So I assume that they knew that little extra snippet of information that made them keep their faith... which I know for some, will be a bit of a weird assumption.

 

[Lolsmith]

that's a very naive assumption dude

 

[Shadowdude]

I know, I know...

But I just have faith in society.

 

[Arcorn]

I know, I know...

But I just have faith in society.

And this is why you fail.

 

[cutemouse]

Historians and the alike generally don't disagree that Jesus existed. But they doubt the powers he had and stuff...

 

[RANK 1]

i pretty sure jesus existed he was just master con artist

 

[IamBread]

this thread is so off topic.
fucking hell. everything on this site turns into how shit the jews/muslims/minority groups are.

more like bored of tolerance.

This is discussing religion, mainly Christianity, on a thread that does seem quite relevant to religious beliefs.
I don't think it is that far off topic.

 

[thrillkiller]

This is discussing religion, mainly Christianity, on a thread that does seem quite relevant to religious beliefs.
I don't think it is that far off topic.

please

 

[Riproot]

Someone sees a guy who is dead suddenly alive again. It's clear to me that someone would've written something down or to tell someone about it, etc.

Exactly.
But no one did.
Only a few people that decided to make up a story and religion to control people.
Why are you so dumb for? If you read back what you were writing you'd see it makes no sense in the context of what you're trying to say.

 

[Shadowdude]

Exactly.
But no one did.
Only a few people that decided to make up a story and religion to control people.
Why are you so dumb for? If you read back what you were writing you'd see it makes no sense in the context of what you're trying to say.

Nothing exists today =/= there are no reports.

 

[Lolsmith]

yeah except that doesn't prove anything dude

the onus of proof is on the person who is saying that something exists

It is fair to dismiss anything that does not have adequate proof

 

[IamBread]

please

Ok.

 

[cutemouse]

the onus of proof is on the person who is saying that something exists

That's not actually quite true.

Consider this: I believe that the flying spaghetti monster exists and I worship it as my god. Thus my religion is the spaghetti monster.

It's actually the onus of the person against me to prove that the flying spaghetti monster does not exist. If they cannot prove conclusively that it does not exist then I'm afraid you cannot say that it doesn't exist (as absurd as it may seem to be).

The point is that I don't need to "prove" what I believe in actually exists. If someone has a problem with that then they need to prove that it doesn't exist. As far as I'm concerned it exists and there's nothing that one can do to stop me from believing in the flying spaghetti monster.

 

[Lolsmith]

actually yes I can using ~logic~

"Does spaghetti have any sort of properties or characteristics that would endow it with the ability to live or fly in any sort of sense?

No"

Oh well then looks like there's no monster

What you're saying is completely different to what I'm saying. No, a person in their own personal belief can believe whatever the *fuck* they want, but as soon as that belief rolls over into a debate about what affects one's actions and why others should act in the same fashion, the onus of proof most definitely falls on the person who is trying to use the idea of God and religion as a reasonable excuse for abstinence. An individual has every right to question what another person believes, especially when they're using an imaginary sky wizard or moon god to justify it.

 

[IamBread]

That's not actually quite true.

Consider this: I believe that the flying spaghetti monster exists and I worship it as my god. Thus my religion is the spaghetti monster.

It's actually the onus of the person against me to prove that the flying spaghetti monster does not exist. If they cannot prove conclusively that it does not exist then I'm afraid you cannot say that it doesn't exist (as absurd as it may seem to be).

The point is that I don't need to "prove" what I believe in actually exists. If someone has a problem with that then they need to prove that it doesn't exist. As far as I'm concerned it exists and there's nothing that one can do to stop me from believing in the flying spaghetti monster.

No, just no.

actually yes I can using ~logic~

"Does spaghetti have any sort of properties or characteristics that would endow it with the ability to live or fly in any sort of sense?

No"

Oh well then looks like there's no monster

What you're saying is completely different to what I'm saying. No, a person in their own personal belief can believe whatever the *fuck* they want, but as soon as that belief rolls over into a debate about what affects one's actions and why others should act in the same fashion, the onus of proof most definitely falls on the person who is trying to use the idea of God and religion as a reasonable excuse for abstinence. An individual has every right to question what another person believes, especially when they're using an imaginary sky wizard or moon god to justify it.

This.
People can believe what they want, but if they go around saying that what they're saying is the truth, they are the ones who need to supply the reasons why, not the others to supply the reasons as to why it isn't. If what you were saying was true, then I could claim that the universe does not exist and everyone is a figment of my imagination. According to what you're saying, that is the truth until someone can dispute it. But in reality, I am the one who would have to prove it (which I can't) so there is no reason for me, or anyone else, to believe that.

 

[cutemouse]

actually yes I can using ~logic~

Just because something is illogical it doesn't mean that it's not true. Consider quantum mechanics for example. It defies logic in the traditional sense of classical mechanics. If you made a claim back in the 1700's about the uncertainty principle (say) then people would've called you crazy since it was "illogical". But it doesn't mean that it's not true.

No, just no.

Why not?

but if they go around saying that what they're saying is the truth, they are the ones who need to supply the reasons why

In science it doesn't take much for one to come up with a theory. But as soon as it is contradicted or disproved it is thrown out the window. But until it has been disproved one cannot say that it is not valid.

Consider Fermat's last theorem for example. It was stated by Fermat in 1637 but proved conclusively in 1995. Just because it wasn't proved until 1995 it doesn't mean that during the 300 or so years it was false.

I could claim that the universe does not exist and everyone is a figment of my imagination. According to what you're saying, that is the truth until someone can dispute it.

Well first a scientist would define what "universe" means as there are different contexts and meanings. But if you're talking about the whole topic of extra terrestrial life then yes that is debatable. But I don't think you were talking about that and that your example wasn't well defined.

So we are again left at the point that it is the onus of the person against one's belief that THEY need to disprove it.

 

[IamBread]

In science it doesn't take much for one to come up with a theory. But as soon as it is contradicted or disproved it is thrown out the window. But until it has been disproved one cannot say that it is not valid.

Consider Fermat's last theorem for example. It was stated by Fermat in 1637 but proved conclusively in 1995. Just because it wasn't proved until 1995 it doesn't mean that during the 300 or so years it was false.[/QUOTE]

It could still be valid, but without any conclusive evidence to support it there's no reason to believe it is valid.

Well first a scientist would define what "universe" means as there are different contexts and meanings. But if you're talking about the whole topic of extra terrestrial life then yes that is debatable. But I don't think you were talking about that and that your example wasn't well defined.

No, that's not what I was saying at all. I was saying that nothing is real, everything is a figment of my imagination. All people in the world could just be my mind putting them together and they don't really exist. It's hard to dispute this claim, as anything anyone says I can just think it's my mind trying to convince me out of thinking that its not my mind etc etc.

If we were to go by what you are saying, and that people have to disprove things then science would move no where. I could come up with a theory that there is a pink unicorn that sits on top of everything pushing it down. I could claim the reason that positive and negative charges attract is because there is an invisible rope that pulls them together.
I could come up with an infinite number of claims about anything without a single shred of evidence, and you are telling me they are all true until someone can prove it wrong. It just doesn't make sense to work that way.

 

[Darkraiider66]

http://jhedism.jimdo.com/

^^^ My religion, Jhedism, promotes, peace, unitiy, brings people together and makes people happy, anyone who has a problem with that can suck my shoes.

 

[Darkraiider66]

Can you honestly say there is more reason for a god to exist based on old scriptures, then a new one?Part of the aspect of Jhedism is that we respect each others religions (including athisem)also, BUMPoh ad getting back to the origional topic, unless your marrying a highly religious female (which make up 0.01%) of the earth, get laid when your in any commited relationship, or if you want to go on a one night stand go ahead however its the one night stand some female frown upon..