Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Still stuck on the fallacy the that being in the majority makes you correct. No it only means you are in the majority, and the majority have bought into the greatest con job in the history of mankind.
Don't you have some women to degrade by producing more porn?
The issue you raised wasn't "being correct"...it was "burden of proof". I put forth a solid case as to why it's on the "No God" side. You offer no legit rebuttal.
Hmmmmmm...I wonder how many people have died, or been harmed, due to the consumption of pornographic products....Compared to how many people have died, or been harmed, by people consuming alcohol or tobacco products?
Would you tell a pub owner member...go addict/sicken/kill more people by serving them booze? Or tell a store owner member...go addict/sicken/kill people by selling them tobacco and alcohol products?
On what basis did you make that last statement? You DO have the right to your opinion...but I was just wondering what was up with that? Maybe you have some weird arbitrary problem about sex/sexuality? It only degrades them if you think the naked body or sex is degrading. And what about the men in the "porn" I produce...are they degraded too?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! The way to know when people are out of valid arguments---They resort to personal attacks.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! The way to know when people are out of valid arguments---They resort to personal attacks.
It's really the sick hypocrisy of your beliefs vs. your occupation. It speaks volumes about character, and makes your rants comically sad.
I respect a lot of people I disagree with, and believe have lost any connection with reality, such as C34 and others, as they are misguided but not a hypocrites.
If you are producing porn that doesn't degrade women, it must be gay porn.
WEEEEEEELL...the only reason the ball is in the "God Exists" court...is because "God Exists" IS the court!
But it's up to you to "outshoot" the "Champion".
I've said this many times before..."Burden of proof" would be on the "God Exists" claim...all else being equal--But, all things ARE NOT equal.
When you are the veeeeeeeeery slight majority...contesting the worldwide "standard"...that's a totally different story.
Belief has been the "norm" (8to9 out of 10) for THOOOOOOOUSANDS of years. It's the "incumbent position"...the "ruling viewpoint"...the "champion concept"! "God Exists" doesn't have to prove itself...it currently "holds office"! It's upon the weak challenger (Atheism) of nearly negligible merit/influence to prove itself. So far it's gotten steamrolled and flattened, in every "race". If it were seen as an "election"...Atheism would be viewed as being defeated in the biggest landslide EVER.
Until YOU PROVE otherwise..."God Exists" is THE concept---Is now, has been, and will always be---Especially when "science" proves "the Universal Field that establishes our existence"...then it'll be "a wrap".
Why do you think the burden of proof changes based simply upon popularity of the opinion? You must not mean as a matter of logic. You must mean as a practical matter, that in order to sway public opinion the burden would be on the one who wishes to change public opinion.
But we are not talking about public opinion, we are talking about as a matter of logic. And that means that the person with the extraordinary claim has the burden of providing the extraordinary evidence.
By the way, theism is widespread among the ignorant and the uneducated. But the more educated one becomes, the more likely they are to be an atheist. So you are right that theism would win an election for "Representative of the Dullards", but it lose by a landslide in the election for representative of the US Academy of Science.
It's really the sick hypocrisy of your beliefs vs. your occupation. It speaks volumes about character, and makes your rants comically sad.
I respect a lot of people I disagree with, and believe have lost any connection with reality, such as C34 and others, as they are misguided but not a hypocrites.
If you are producing porn that doesn't degrade women, it must be gay porn.
You never answered the question...just spewed your venomous opinion.
AGAIN: On what basis do you objectively determine that pornography "degrades" women? You are always all about "empirical evidence"...so let's hear it!
It depicts/shows them in states of nudity, and engaging in sexual activity. Sooooo...unless you see the naked body as something "shameful"...or sex as something that is "immoral"....how would pornography be "degrading" to them?
All parties consent...even the consumer...MOF, I retain less than 2% that apply...they WANT to do it...nobody forces anyone to do anything. So it has to be some other aspect you take issue with.
Why the negative "moral judgment" on the naked body and sex? Why do you see it as "wrong". You must...if you didn't...it wouldn't be "degrading".
Is sex okay for recreational purposes, but not commercial purposes? Is sex for physical satisfaction not degrading to you...but sex for financial satisfaction is degrading?
Do you feel you have to be married, and in private, for it to be "non-degrading"? If so...on what objective moral basis did you determine that?
I've seen posts slamming Jesus for supposedly "being concerned about what people do with their genitals"...but it's okay for YOU to pass judgment?
So, what's up? Step up...or step off!
I see you are all into drinking beer...and tell everyone all about it. Does the alcohol business "degrade" the people making it...or selling it...or consuming it?
Think of how many people have gotten addicted...gotten sick...died...killed others...because of drinking beer. The death toll from drunk driving fatalities alone is staggering. Now compare that to pornography. But you find making/selling/consuming beer just fine? Hmmmmmm...who's the hypocrite?
WAIT!...I know!...we're playing "Musical Transgressions"!
Ya know...no Theist on this board has EVER judged me about that particular business endeavor of mine (not the only, or even the main, business I engage in)...but you have (and are the third Atheist to do so). And that speaks volumes about YOUR character.
Why do you think the burden of proof changes based simply upon popularity of the opinion? You must not mean as a matter of logic. You must mean as a practical matter, that in order to sway public opinion the burden would be on the one who wishes to change public opinion.
But we are not talking about public opinion, we are talking about as a matter of logic. And that means that the person with the extraordinary claim has the burden of providing the extraordinary evidence.
By the way, theism is widespread among the ignorant and the uneducated. But the more educated one becomes, the more likely they are to be an atheist. So you are right that theism would win an election for "Representative of the Dullards", but it lose by a landslide in the election for representative of the US Academy of Science.
It's not MERELY "popular opinion".
Of course, the burden would typically fall more heavily on the party that makes a positive claim...BUT...it is understood that when one makes a claim that is far enough removed from convention so as to be considered outside the "standard", then the burden shifts.
And I submit...if any concept was to be considered "standard"... "God Exists" would be it. Few, if any, concepts have had such complete acceptance...by as many...and for as long a time.
In this case...because "God Exists" is the recognized (by any fair-minded person) "standard"...the argument to the contrary reasonably become the "extraordinary claim".
Thus, my case that the burden of proof shifts to the "No God" side of the argument.
Ya know...your rebuttal started off with a reasonable argument...that had enough merit to warrant a proper debate...but THEN you go off the deep end with the typical spew.
You say, "...theism is widespread among the ignorant and the uneducated. But the more educated one becomes, the more likely they are to be an atheist...theism would win an election for "Representative of the Dullards...".
HAHAHAHAHAHA! Try selling that to someone like Francis Collins, Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître, or Isaac Newton---Or are/were they "ignorant, uneducated dullards" too?
HAHAHAHAHAHA! Try selling that to someone like Francis Collins, Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître, or Isaac Newton---Or are/were they "ignorant, uneducated dullards" too?
I think most of us, probably even you, personally know people who excel in a specific area.
That does not....often does not.......equate to being emotionally stable or well balanced psychologically.
You also keep referring to the numbers game, as if majority has a bearing .
Looking at this graph could be an explanation of why 'the masses' hold a widely held, albeit erroneous, belief simply because it is popular.
Scratch the surface of many believers (I'd go as far as to say most)and they will not be able to even explain why they believe and, in a great many cases, what the basis for it is.
They could not and would not enter into the types of discussions held on a forum such as this that could bring about questions or doubt.
It's not MERELY "popular opinion".
Of course, the burden would typically fall more heavily on the party that makes a positive claim...BUT...it is understood that when one makes a claim that is far enough removed from convention so as to be considered outside the "standard", then the burden shifts.
And I submit...if any concept was to be considered "standard"... "God Exists" would be it. Few, if any, concepts have had such complete acceptance...by as many...and for as long a time.
In this case...because "God Exists" is the recognized (by any fair-minded person) "standard"...the argument to the contrary reasonably become the "extraordinary claim".
Thus, my case that the burden of proof shifts to the "No God" side of the argument.
Only if you are talking about a popularity contest. If one were on a publicity campaign, then the person who wants to change public opinion would have the burden of proof.
But there is nothing in logic that gives the popular position that kind of advantage. (In fact, there is a specific fallacy that denies it.)
The burden remains with the person that makes the extraordinary claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
Ya know...your rebuttal started off with a reasonable argument...that had enough merit to warrant a proper debate...but THEN you go off the deep end with the typical spew.
You say, "...theism is widespread among the ignorant and the uneducated. But the more educated one becomes, the more likely they are to be an atheist...theism would win an election for "Representative of the Dullards...".
HAHAHAHAHAHA! Try selling that to someone like Francis Collins, Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître, or Isaac Newton---Or are/were they "ignorant, uneducated dullards" too?
1. To be fair, I was responding to you in the same way you were responding to others. Look at your last paragraph here, and that seems symbolic of the way you present yourself.
2. If an election were held at the Academy of Sciences, the person Francis Collins would have voted for would not have won. Because only 7% of the preeminent scientist in America are theist. Over 70% are atheist. Clearly, the more educated and smart one is, the more likely they are to disbelieve in a God.
3. You are not being completely accurate about the size of the non-theist coalition. If your hypothetical election were held in the U.K., we may not be the Conservative or Labour party, but we would have more MP's than the Liberal Democrats, Democratic Unionist, Sinn Finn, alliance party, green party, etc.
Christianity: 2.1 billion
Islam: 1.5 billion Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion
Hinduism: 900 million
Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
Buddhism: 376 million
primal-indigenous: 300 million
African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
Sikhism: 23 million
Juche: 19 million
Spiritism: 15 million
Judaism: 14 million
Baha'i: 7 million
Jainism: 4.2 million
Shinto: 4 million
Cao Dai: 4 million
Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million
Tenrikyo: 2 million
Neo-Paganism: 1 million
Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
Rastafarianism: 600 thousand
Scientology: 500 thousand
Ya know...no Theist on this board has EVER judged me about that particular business endeavor of mine.
I have to admit that's out of politeness in my case. Also uncertainty about whether you were still in the biz or not. Lastly I don't know if I criticize anyone here on their occupations. Maybe I've gotten personal, but getting into people's jobs or marriages generally seems too personal to me. Although I might have slipped up there on occasion.
It's a difficult topic to broach to be honest. Still if you're coming away thinking that theists are such open people we don't consider working in porn to be wrong than I feel I should probably say that's probably not true for many of us. I'm not condemning you, but I do consider the porn industry to be immoral and it's difficult for me to see how it wouldn't be from a Christian perspective. Maybe if it was only married couples filming for other married couples, particularly if said couple had a disability or disorder as then it could be about allowing them to adjust/work on their marriage, but even then I have my doubts.
Try selling that to someone like Francis Collins, Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître, or Isaac Newton---Or are/were they "ignorant, uneducated dullards" too?
No. But they all had vastly different opinions about what god was. Which one of these guys should we blindly follow? It's pretty dishonest to toss up an evangelical Protestant, a Catholic priest and a unitarian christian heretic as if they were talking about anything remotely similar when they use the word "god". It's extra-special hypocritical when someone who's telling us we should believe these guys has a fourth, totally different opinion about what this god actually is.
It sounds more like the setup to a joke (these three guys walk into a bar ... ) rather than any sort of reasonable position in a debate. But at least there the person telling the joke would know why people were laughing at him.
Then it would be best if God didn't publish holy books that contradict science and throw reason out the window.
Of course the Bible has published knowledge that existed before science even knew about it. Such as the existence of Asteroids and their destructive power. Giuseppe Piazzi discovered the first Asteroids in 1801. Yet the Bible describes one over 1800 years before. And when you tell one of those non believers about such, they go into deep denial and pretend the account does not exist.
Last edited by Campbell34; 12-15-2010 at 07:20 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
