Waaaaaa…..ka..ka..ka…

You, as a theist, are making the claim for the existance of God. Therefore the burden of proof is on you to provide “proof” of existance. This would be the same as if you were to take me to court and charge me with theft. You are making the claim, so therefore you have to provide the proof. No proof, no conviction. And telling the judge that you “read it in a book” would not constitute proof, either (unless they were accounting books!).

For religion, however, we both know that material evidence for the existance of God is non-existant. Your proof is linked solely to your belief (as written in the Bible or taught from parents, teachers, etc), and I would submit that it’s highly personal and satisfying to you. And it should be. But that is not evidence.

Hope you’re all having a great day.

Ka. Bottoms up!!

So…it’s OK to torment dogs you know? Surely not! Kah kah kah! Everybody drink!

Nowhere in my comments above do you see me using the word “prove.” It’s not a useful word for many reasons, but you seem to like putting that word in my mouth. The Captain is right, you did miss my point. All I’m saying is that believing in a higher power and science can probably coexist. Many people believe there is a higher power, but do not believe your bible “word for word.” or any other old writings. They simply feel that “something” is out there pulling the strings for all of us. I disagree, but understand their point of view.

It’s attempting to marry, your books with science that I feel to be an impossible task. Let me ask you this; do you feel that EVERYTHING in the bible fits perfectly with EVERYTHING that we have learned via science? It’s important to remember that science uses evidence to show it’s claims. I’m afraid your books have nothing more than words to go on. Which should we trust, evidence or rhetoric? I am making no attempt to change your mind. we both know that will never happen. I am merely pointing out the massive flaw on your side of the fence. I maintain that science and your bible do not jive. One of them is obviously wrong.

As far as the old books are concerned, you’ve read it here that some of us concede there is some good advice therein. But also a lot of terrible advice. We see no reason to think of them as anything more than human inventions. As guides to morality, there are far better reasoned works to choose from that don’t have at their root “be good…or else”.

Again, we’re not the ones making the claim (that the books are divine, for example) so we bear no responsibility to refute it. The burden lies on believers to provide convincing proof that these works are what they claim. So far, the evidence is underwhelming.