|
Post by Occam's Spork on Sept 19, 2016 21:20:02 GMT 10
It is not arrogant to not believe in something that not a single ounce of proof exist for. Unless of course you have proof to the contrary, I'm all ears. That presupposes that you somehow have proof that there is no afterlife; otherwise your position would be neutral, not antagonistic. No Slarti, you represent the very height of arrogance. Your demand for proof goes both ways. My Faith says there is an afterlife; your FAITH says there isn't. But where I simply make a faith statement; you claim to know with certainty.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Sept 19, 2016 21:26:33 GMT 10
I expect you to respect KTJ's right to show up Occam's waffle for the waffle it is. Mmmmm waffles.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Sept 19, 2016 21:30:40 GMT 10
... What if the afterlife indeed exists? ... Ah Hah!! You at least now entertain the possibility that it doesn't exist? Progress at last. Sure there is a possibility; but it's inconsequential. If no afterlife exist, then you are no better off than I. The antithesis is quite the contrary. Are you equally willing to consider the possibility the afterlife does exist? Have you considered the consequences of that possibility?
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Sept 19, 2016 21:35:10 GMT 10
Begs the question... What if the afterlife indeed exists? The atheists would be considered arrogant for denying a concept embraced by the human majority. I can travel across the universe at 100-times the speed of light and have visited millions of planets throughout my lifespan so far. I don't have to offer any proof but merely invite you to have faith that I can do so and believe it accordingly. Just like you expect us to have faith and believe in your god and the afterlife. My faith would depend on my relation to you; and whether your actions and words were worthy of that trust. I expect you don't ask your friends or family for proof every time they tell you something?
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Sept 19, 2016 22:06:50 GMT 10
Just to reiterate my points in summation:
"Absence of proof is not proof of absence."
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Sept 19, 2016 22:10:31 GMT 10
It is not arrogant to not believe in something that not a single ounce of proof exist for. Unless of course you have proof to the contrary, I'm all ears. That presupposes that you somehow have proof that there is no afterlife; otherwise your position would be neutral, not antagonistic. No Slarti, you represent the very height of arrogance. Your demand for proof goes both ways. My Faith says there is an afterlife; your FAITH says there isn't. But where I simply make a faith statement; you claim to know with certainty. How many times do we have to tell you that you can't proof something DOESN'T exist. You, on the other hand are in the unique position of apparently being able to prove that something DOES exist. Don't waste your chance like you normally do. Faith or hope are not proof.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Sept 19, 2016 22:11:12 GMT 10
Just to reiterate my points in summation: "Absence of proof is not proof of absence." That is waffle, pure waffle. Doesn't even need maple syrup.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Sept 19, 2016 22:15:08 GMT 10
And Pim is right, I recognized this thread for what it is. I go quiet for a couple of weeks, and Slarti posts some ignorant controversy that will spark a response.
The overused tactic of Slarti the troll, and his flame bait. Yorick is oblivious to it.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Sept 19, 2016 22:18:03 GMT 10
Just to reiterate my points in summation: "Absence of proof is not proof of absence." That is waffle, pure waffle. Doesn't even need maple syrup. That's not really a rebuttal...
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Sept 19, 2016 22:26:20 GMT 10
How many times do we have to tell you that you can't proof something DOESN'T exist. Do you have proof for that claim, or am I free to discard it? Actually, it is possible to prove something doesn't exist. You merely have to define the attributes and demonstrate they aren't present. You don't get a free pass on your evidentiary obligations just because you like to repeat flawed philosophical mantras. Nice try. Traditionaĺly, the Burden of proof has always been on the claimant; and I believe it was YOU who started this thread...
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Sept 19, 2016 22:56:17 GMT 10
Traditionaĺly, the Burden of proof has always been on the claimant; ....... Good - for years you have been claiming there is a God, does this mean you are finally going to come up with some proof? Or - as I expect - more waffle....
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Sept 19, 2016 22:57:21 GMT 10
Just to reiterate my points in summation: "Absence of proof is not proof of absence." Absence of proof is absence of common sense. Is that better?
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Sept 19, 2016 23:01:18 GMT 10
How many times do we have to tell you that you can't proof something DOESN'T exist. Do you have proof for that claim, or am I free to discard it? Actually, it is possible to prove something doesn't exist. You merely have to define the attributes and demonstrate they aren't present. You don't get a free pass on your evidentiary obligations just because you like to repeat flawed philosophical mantras. Nice try. Traditionaĺly, the Burden of proof has always been on the claimant; and I believe it was YOU who started this thread... Part 2 - so you expect me to die, not find any afterlife and come back to life and talk about this as proof? You do know how ridiculous that sounds, don't you? Yup, about as ridiculous as any God existing - ever!
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Sept 19, 2016 23:02:35 GMT 10
Do you have proof of that? Then by YOUR standard I'm not obligated to believe it.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Sept 19, 2016 23:19:48 GMT 10
Do you have proof of that? Then by YOUR standard I'm not obligated to believe it. No, I am still alive and using reason and logic. Maybe you should try that for a change instead of believing in a book written by man!~
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Sept 19, 2016 23:34:33 GMT 10
Do you have proof of that? Then by YOUR standard I'm not obligated to believe it. No, I am still alive and using reason and logic. Maybe you should try that for a change instead of believing in a book written by man!~ 'Logic and reason' isn't believing you can blot out the sun by writing 'darkness' on the walls of your cell.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Sept 20, 2016 10:34:17 GMT 10
You "lived"?? "Lived" Is there something about yourself you think you ought to share with us, Yorick?
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Sept 20, 2016 10:42:12 GMT 10
No, I am still alive and using reason and logic. Maybe you should try that for a change instead of believing in a book written by man!~ 'Logic and reason' isn't believing you can blot out the sun by writing 'darkness' on the walls of your cell. Hmmmm, why does that quote sound like it should belong in the Bible? Is it because its followers are used to being kept in the dark and blindly believing the uninformed twaddle written by men long ago? Time to escape the dark ages, Sporky.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Sept 20, 2016 10:47:23 GMT 10
Hubris - who are you to judge?
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Sept 20, 2016 10:49:07 GMT 10
Meanwhile, yet another HUGE fundy mega-church is under construction adjacent to Petone railway station in the Wellington area.
No doubt they will turn into Hillsong/Destiny-style parasites preying on those at the bottom of the socio-economic heap, complete with EFT-POS terminals at the ends of the pews so they can fleece the suckers who turn up to be brainwashed while the pastors wallow in the wealth which comes rolling in.
I could think of many better uses for the land than as a platform for scam-artists and pseudo-religious dark-ages clap-trap!
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Sept 20, 2016 10:51:27 GMT 10
Any chance of them paying taxes like the rest of us?
|
|
|
Post by pim on Sept 20, 2016 10:58:55 GMT 10
That one raises an interesting point: IF the same-sex marriage plebiscite actually gets to be held - and I'm not holding my breath - apart from the $15 million taxpayer largesse to both the YES and NO cases, split 50/50 gawd knows how, thus blowing out the cost to the taxpayer of the plebiscite to not far off $200 million (thank you taxpayers), the NO case will also have access to squillions of extra $$$ funnelled and laundered through the churches so it'll be a big tax write-off.
Junk the plebiscite!
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Sept 20, 2016 11:07:58 GMT 10
The plebicide is a dreadful idea. We pay politicians to make decisions for the benefit of all of us, surely they can have a joint sitting with a conscience majority vote without a devisive set of arguments.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Sept 20, 2016 11:08:40 GMT 10
Lol sir exy. Same time, same thought.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Sept 20, 2016 11:12:22 GMT 10
Hubris - who are you to judge? I am not judging. It is my firm opinion that the Bible and its followers live in the dark ages and are unable to embrace scientific discoveries as it contradicts with their brainwashed views. Just remember that I used to be religious, but I was able to wake and escape the obvious bulldust.
|
|