My issue is with your purposeful emotional foul play that you portray on this forum on a consistant basis.
You said you love me. You said you wanted to hurt me. Do you equate pain with love?
How is creationism DISPROVED?
by sabastious 376 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
sabastious
You said you love me. You said you wanted to hurt me. Do you equate pain with love?
To a materialist physical pain outweighs emotional pain. Do you think Pontius Pilate was a materialist or something similar?
Materialism belongs to the class of monist ontology. As such, it is different from ontological theories based on dualism or pluralism. For singular explanations of the phenomenal reality, materialism would be in contrast to idealism, neutral monism, and spiritualism.
I invite Sab, to listen to this this person, you may have heard of him ( A C Grayling ) give a speech about religious philosophy and its effects on mankind.
Do you really think I should reward your bad behavior by giving you a full hour of my time? That's rhetorical, btw
-Sab
-
EntirelyPossible
Sigh.....looks like Sab isn't going to come through, just more talk.
Good day to you, sir.
-
sabastious
Sigh.....looks like Sab isn't going to come through, just more talk.
Without pain there cannot be gain, so love involves pain, yes. However, we have the choice of how much pain we dish out to our neighbors. One should consult the deep truths of morality if one purposefully inflicts pain in another in an act of love. The law of sacrifice is the essence of the Torah.
-Sab
-
-
binadub
Sab:
I haven't read all of this thread, so maybe this has been amply covered. If so, my apologies.
The flaw in your reasoning is that it implies if you can't disprove it, it must be true. So everything one can't disprove must be true. Flawed reasoning. The burden of proof is in the positive, not the negative.
In my humble opinion, science itself presents ample evidence of a creator. (But of course, that is not PROOF.)
~Binadub
-
Farkel
:How is creationism DISPROVED?
I confess. I haven't read a single word in this long thread and I don't need to read a single word in this long thread.
The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the one who makes the assertion. ALWAYS. One can attack the "proof" or evidence offered, but one would be an idiot to try to disprove a simple claim or assertion offered.
You've seen this stuff dozens of times in here. If I say, "God tells me that little angels live on Lily Pads between March and July and if I visit those Lily Pads those little angels will tell me what I need to know to please God," and then I say "prove me wrong," It cannot be done.
The burden of proof is always on the one making the claim and they cannot logically shift that burden of proof on anyone else.
Farkel
-
rather be in hades
the good ol' teacup orbiting in space?
that's a mighty hefty slingshot
-
rather be in hades
if all one can do is fall back on the position of unknown unknowns, then that's a sign something is amiss.
i wonder if some still believe because of pascal's wager? that bothered me for the longest time.
-
EntirelyPossible
Can you imagine if court worked the way it the theists do? You can't prove this guy didn't commit murder so you should accept that he did!
