The staticity of religion is based off of the obviously true idea that what is truly true does not change. The laws of physics do not change just because scientists learn more about them, for example.
Would you please be so kind as to demonstrate the truth of Christianity? After all, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as the late and great Carl Sagan said.
It's demonstrable through the world around us, whether you see it or not.
I disagree with your Sagan. Disproving is far more important a task than proving. Hypothetically, an extraordinary claim should require little evidence to disprove, and so should be capable of being easily disproven, while a more "realistic" claim requires more evidence to disprove, and so should be harder to disprove. If you dismiss a claim for lack of evidence, when there is also a lack of evidence against it, you might just be dismissing the truth. That works for justice, but it does not work for finding the actual truth.
"It's demonstrable through the world around us, whether you see it or not."
Adherents of literally any religion could claim that about their particular God (and they do). Also, Stephen Hawking said something along the lines of that the universe could have arisen simply through the laws of physics.
"Disproving is far more important a task than proving."
That's laughable. The burden of proof rests uopn the one who makes a claim. If it was on people to disprove claims, humanity would believe in all kinds of wacky shit (much more than it already does).
"Hypothetically, an extraordinary claim should require little evidence to disprove, and so should be capable of being easily disproven"
Sometimes certain people just won't accept it when their extraordinary claim is disproven. Think of Flat Earthers, for example.
"If you dismiss a claim for lack of evidence, when there is also a lack of evidence against it, you might just be dismissing the truth."
Yes. However, unless something is demonstrated to exist (with evidence), believing that it DOES exist just isn't reasonable. Like I said, the burden of proof rests uopn the one who makes a claim. Believing something without any evidence is simply ppue gullability, as it's impossible to discern things then. For example, there's a lack of evidence againsst pixies, leprechauns, etc. , but I won't believe in those things without evidence.
"That works for justice, but it does not work for finding the actual truth."
Very weird. Also, I'm afraid you still haven't demonstrated how Christianity, especially your version, is the truth. It isn't reasonable in the least to want people to believe without providing any evidence whatsoever.
The question remains: would you please be so kind as to demonstrate the truth of Christianity?
I know, and those who don't see it don't see it. Just like I don't look around and see proof of Mohammedanism, you don't look around and see proof of Christianity.
I once again have to disagree. It should be the burden of the general public to disprove a claim, rather than the person who made the claim to prove it. Whether other people believe it or not is up to them, but if you can't disprove it, it is still plausible.
I know that people continue to believe in things that are disproven. In those cases, the person who believes the claim is just wrong.
It's not gullibility; it's choosing one of the options to bet to be true. I believe that the true religion is Christianity, and Christianity says that to believe in the other options is wrong, so I don't. Some believe that the true religion is anti-theism, which says the same thing: all other religions are wrong, and they don't believe them because of that. It would be the same for those who believe in faeries. Some believe that they are the correct option, and so they decide to hedge their bets in their favor, by going all-out with the belief.
Ultimately, belief is picking a side on an unanswered question. It's the same with unproven scientific hypotheses. You have people who suggest that they are correct, and people who suggest that they are wrong; they pick a side and believe it; if one of the sides had terrible consequences if you did not do a certain thing, those who believe that side to be true would do the thing.
"Very weird" as in law is weird, or that claim is weird? In a court of law, you are innocent until proven guilty, because otherwise the court would be easily abusable and corrupt, since evidence against a specific claim can be very hard to obtain. It doesn't work for finding truth, because, unlike in court cases, there is an infinite amount of time and technological advances to find the evidence against a claim.
Let me tell you something: I am really bad at the topic to which your question refers. I am not good at doing that; I am gifted at doing that. I can tell you why any supposed evidence against my religion is, in fact, not evidence against my religion, but I cannot provide you with evidence that you would consider to be evidence. There are people who think they can; there are people who try to. Consult them on the matter, rather than I, because I know that I cannot.
I can explain to you any issue you give me. I could explain the three hells; I could explain any problem you give me, but I cannot explain to you why the true religion is true. Like I said, there are people who think they can, but if I tried, you would not believe me. You would either call it not proof or mental gymnastics, and I know you would call it that; I've spoken to you enough to know that.
Also, you seem to like to say, "a finite act does not deserve an infinite punishment," but here is what Thomas Aquinas says on the matter:
It's completely evident that communicating with you is utterly useless. You are extremely illogical, unreasonable and as ignorant as can be. You are SOOO wrong on SOOO many topics. I also gave you numerous chances to prove or justify your evil God, but you just can't deliver. You seem to be an extremely brainwashed individual and, therefore, actually a victim. I wish you much sanity, but you seem WAY too brainwashed.
I'm permanently gonna block you if you spout immoral bullshit again.
I don't think you quite get what my stance on religion in general is. I believe that religion is, effectively, picking a side on answers to questions that are currently unanswered by science. I think that Christianity is the most logical choice. In that way, I have my "proofs," though they do not prove the religion to be true to all or even in general. I believe it is "proven," but that does not mean that others would consider it proven. You seem to think that atheism is the most logical choice, and I won't stop you from believing in atheism. You think my beliefs are immoral, just as I think your beliefs are immoral; either way, it doesn't change what is true.
Also, don't call someone illogical while illogically misusing the block feature.
Religion is frustrating
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
The staticity of religion is based off of the obviously true idea that what is truly true does not change. The laws of physics do not change just because scientists learn more about them, for example.
--
Anonymous Post Author
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Would you please be so kind as to demonstrate the truth of Christianity? After all, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as the late and great Carl Sagan said.
--
Clunk42
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
It's demonstrable through the world around us, whether you see it or not.
I disagree with your Sagan. Disproving is far more important a task than proving. Hypothetically, an extraordinary claim should require little evidence to disprove, and so should be capable of being easily disproven, while a more "realistic" claim requires more evidence to disprove, and so should be harder to disprove. If you dismiss a claim for lack of evidence, when there is also a lack of evidence against it, you might just be dismissing the truth. That works for justice, but it does not work for finding the actual truth.
--
Anonymous Post Author
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
"It's demonstrable through the world around us, whether you see it or not."
Adherents of literally any religion could claim that about their particular God (and they do). Also, Stephen Hawking said something along the lines of that the universe could have arisen simply through the laws of physics.
"Disproving is far more important a task than proving."
That's laughable. The burden of proof rests uopn the one who makes a claim. If it was on people to disprove claims, humanity would believe in all kinds of wacky shit (much more than it already does).
"Hypothetically, an extraordinary claim should require little evidence to disprove, and so should be capable of being easily disproven"
Sometimes certain people just won't accept it when their extraordinary claim is disproven. Think of Flat Earthers, for example.
"If you dismiss a claim for lack of evidence, when there is also a lack of evidence against it, you might just be dismissing the truth."
Yes. However, unless something is demonstrated to exist (with evidence), believing that it DOES exist just isn't reasonable. Like I said, the burden of proof rests uopn the one who makes a claim. Believing something without any evidence is simply ppue gullability, as it's impossible to discern things then. For example, there's a lack of evidence againsst pixies, leprechauns, etc. , but I won't believe in those things without evidence.
"That works for justice, but it does not work for finding the actual truth."
Very weird. Also, I'm afraid you still haven't demonstrated how Christianity, especially your version, is the truth. It isn't reasonable in the least to want people to believe without providing any evidence whatsoever.
The question remains: would you please be so kind as to demonstrate the truth of Christianity?
--
Clunk42
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I know, and those who don't see it don't see it. Just like I don't look around and see proof of Mohammedanism, you don't look around and see proof of Christianity.
I once again have to disagree. It should be the burden of the general public to disprove a claim, rather than the person who made the claim to prove it. Whether other people believe it or not is up to them, but if you can't disprove it, it is still plausible.
I know that people continue to believe in things that are disproven. In those cases, the person who believes the claim is just wrong.
It's not gullibility; it's choosing one of the options to bet to be true. I believe that the true religion is Christianity, and Christianity says that to believe in the other options is wrong, so I don't. Some believe that the true religion is anti-theism, which says the same thing: all other religions are wrong, and they don't believe them because of that. It would be the same for those who believe in faeries. Some believe that they are the correct option, and so they decide to hedge their bets in their favor, by going all-out with the belief.
Ultimately, belief is picking a side on an unanswered question. It's the same with unproven scientific hypotheses. You have people who suggest that they are correct, and people who suggest that they are wrong; they pick a side and believe it; if one of the sides had terrible consequences if you did not do a certain thing, those who believe that side to be true would do the thing.
"Very weird" as in law is weird, or that claim is weird? In a court of law, you are innocent until proven guilty, because otherwise the court would be easily abusable and corrupt, since evidence against a specific claim can be very hard to obtain. It doesn't work for finding truth, because, unlike in court cases, there is an infinite amount of time and technological advances to find the evidence against a claim.
Let me tell you something: I am really bad at the topic to which your question refers. I am not good at doing that; I am gifted at doing that. I can tell you why any supposed evidence against my religion is, in fact, not evidence against my religion, but I cannot provide you with evidence that you would consider to be evidence. There are people who think they can; there are people who try to. Consult them on the matter, rather than I, because I know that I cannot.
I can explain to you any issue you give me. I could explain the three hells; I could explain any problem you give me, but I cannot explain to you why the true religion is true. Like I said, there are people who think they can, but if I tried, you would not believe me. You would either call it not proof or mental gymnastics, and I know you would call it that; I've spoken to you enough to know that.
Also, you seem to like to say, "a finite act does not deserve an infinite punishment," but here is what Thomas Aquinas says on the matter:
http://summa-theologiae.org/question/61101.htm
--
Anonymous Post Author
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
It's completely evident that communicating with you is utterly useless. You are extremely illogical, unreasonable and as ignorant as can be. You are SOOO wrong on SOOO many topics. I also gave you numerous chances to prove or justify your evil God, but you just can't deliver. You seem to be an extremely brainwashed individual and, therefore, actually a victim. I wish you much sanity, but you seem WAY too brainwashed.
I'm permanently gonna block you if you spout immoral bullshit again.
--
Clunk42
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
See More Comments =>
I don't think you quite get what my stance on religion in general is. I believe that religion is, effectively, picking a side on answers to questions that are currently unanswered by science. I think that Christianity is the most logical choice. In that way, I have my "proofs," though they do not prove the religion to be true to all or even in general. I believe it is "proven," but that does not mean that others would consider it proven. You seem to think that atheism is the most logical choice, and I won't stop you from believing in atheism. You think my beliefs are immoral, just as I think your beliefs are immoral; either way, it doesn't change what is true.
Also, don't call someone illogical while illogically misusing the block feature.