Pope Visit
- Thread starter rcatalano
- Start date
beast of the east
Active member
Maybe we should have a Festivus party to include all redmen members next time Austour is out here
Austour hangs with Joe3. Enough said
Maybe we should have a Festivus party to include all redmen members next time Austour is out here
Austour hangs with Joe3. Enough said
OK, now I can ignore the total lack of logic in Paul's post (or at least wait until he proves to me ghosts don't exist), but that there?!?!?! Them's fighting words. :lol:
PS you KNOW this fat old man doesn't fit into a medium.
Exactly. There is no burden of proof for anyone to prove that something that doesn't exist doesn't exist. That's because there is no evidence of it's non existence. The burden of proof is on the person who wants to convince someone that something that doesn't exist exists and for that you need evidence. Just like you asking me to prove that your god doesn't exist.
I'm pointing out that it works both ways. You are making a tautological argument here in saying (something) doesn't exist so thence there is no burden of proof. That is an a priori assumption. It is an argument of faiths, not an argument of reason. Basically 'my faith is better than yours and you know what - you suck! (tongue stuck out)' Go to any news site and check the comments on any article that mentions Christianity and the compulsive need for atheists to mock Christians, will prove that out.
The larger point being that the only real argument to be had between atheists and theists is whether or not there is a God, Creator, Designer. Atheists mock believers for "faith" based belief and fall back on the extremes of human desperation and patheticness of piety to "prove" their point but in reality atheism is based upon a completely non-fact based belief system. There is zero empirical argument to be made that there is no God. In fact the overwhelming scientific evidences is that there is. So in that light (and in true scientific method) you certainly have a burden.
In the end, if you can't explain how life can come from nothing, then what else is atheism but the most extreme and choice of faith based belief? The odds make it completely irrational. Seems like an emotional choice based upon life experience, rather than a rational conclusion. Just a different image on a different tortilla.
The larger point being that the only real argument to be had between atheists and theists is whether or not there is a God, Creator, Designer. Atheists mock believers for "faith" based belief and fall back on the extremes of human desperation and patheticness of piety to "prove" their point but in reality atheism is based upon a completely non-fact based belief system. There is zero empirical argument to be made that there is no God. In fact the overwhelming scientific evidences is that there is. So in that light (and in true scientific method) you certainly have a burden.
In the end, if you can't explain how life can come from nothing, then what else is atheism but the most extreme and choice of faith based belief? The odds make it completely irrational. Seems like an emotional choice based upon life experience, rather than a rational conclusion. Just a different image on a different tortilla.
Maybe we should have a Festivus party to include all redmen members next time Austour is out here
Austour hangs with Joe3. Enough said
OK, now I can ignore the total lack of logic in Paul's post (or at least wait until he proves to me ghosts don't exist), but that there?!?!?! Them's fighting words. :lol:
PS you KNOW this fat old man doesn't fit into a medium.
next time we hang out ask me my ghost story ( actually 3 stories ) and Nathalie and I will leave no doubt in your mind they are true. I promise you 100% you will not have any doubt. Well at least 99% but if I can get it printed on huffington post I will get you up to 100%
That works both ways too. How much easier life would be as an atheist! Seems like the ultimate cop out from the other side. Life is not contingent so there is no meaning and no accountability. If I could convince myself of that I could cruise for a few more years before oblivion and it wouldn't mean anything either way anyway because of entropy... From where I'm sitting, you've got it made. Why bother worrying about pious idiots such as myself? Enjoy the ride for while it lasts and don't give yourself anxiety over the rest of us. Essentially we don't exist anyway if your logic is to be played out to its conclusion.
beast of the east
Active member
Since the topic is "Pope Visit" and the boys here can act with a semblance of respect towards each other it's an okay discussion in my opinion.
Back in 1930, a journalist named Frank Morrison set out to prove empirically that the resurrection of Jesus Christ was a myth. He did extensive historical research comparing them to the Gospel narratives, and his sole purpose was to prove that the resurrection of Christ was perpetrated by his followers. The premise of his exploration was to prove that the stone that was rolled across the burial cave of Christ was removed by his followers after bribing the Roman guards assigned to guard it. As he compared the Gospel narratives and the Acts of the Apostles to historical realities, he finally came to the conclusion that the possibility of the resurrection was far more likely than it having been a perpetrated myth.
It's an interesting read for those of interest. I know Austour wasn't really trying to offend here, and that Paul's well written responses are more artfully constructed than I am capable.
In any event, the papal visit was amazing in Pope Francis' demonstrated humanity and love towards Americans. Certainly it was returned many times over and seemed to energize him through incredibly long days for a nearly 80 year old pontiff.
Back in 1930, a journalist named Frank Morrison set out to prove empirically that the resurrection of Jesus Christ was a myth. He did extensive historical research comparing them to the Gospel narratives, and his sole purpose was to prove that the resurrection of Christ was perpetrated by his followers. The premise of his exploration was to prove that the stone that was rolled across the burial cave of Christ was removed by his followers after bribing the Roman guards assigned to guard it. As he compared the Gospel narratives and the Acts of the Apostles to historical realities, he finally came to the conclusion that the possibility of the resurrection was far more likely than it having been a perpetrated myth.
It's an interesting read for those of interest. I know Austour wasn't really trying to offend here, and that Paul's well written responses are more artfully constructed than I am capable.
In any event, the papal visit was amazing in Pope Francis' demonstrated humanity and love towards Americans. Certainly it was returned many times over and seemed to energize him through incredibly long days for a nearly 80 year old pontiff.
Religion aside, This is my favorite pope of my lifetime. The humility with which he acts just as a person is an inspiration. I learned a long time ago. Lead by example. Thats probably why I hate most politicians. But this Pope to me is like a breath of fresh air to humanity whether you celebrate christmas or festivus or pagan rituals or are a duke fan