1. If you'd have been paying attention in this journal, I've *already* proven that the JC God doesn't exist. And, in fact, I've just repeated my test to reinforce my claim.

2. In normal discourse, it is incumbent upon the proponent to prove their claim, not the doubter. So ball's in your court. Good luck.


WRT the analogy, you got it wrong, so I'll spell it out:

Realists score points in the real world. X-ians score their point after death (assuming an X-ian afterlife).


No matter how one looks at it, there's a context shift from real to ideal.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

1. As for the proof you provide, it's cute, but it requires a number of other presuppositions that aren't made about the JC God, the first and foremost being he'd want to give you a penny. Using a similar argument you could say since I have the ability to buy a plane ticket and access to the internet, that you requesting me to show up at whereverthehellyouare in a day or so and that failing to do so would disprove my existence.

2. And as for rules of discourse and proof, I've got sufficient trust in the people who say they've talked and seen the JC God to accept his existence, a thing which doesn't threaten or offend me, but has little do with the religion I do practice. Even if I didn't believe the people, I'm not so arrogant as to claim I can disprove the existence of anyone (an act which would require omniscience in and of itself). My point was not that the JC God exists, only that before you claim that being Christian excludes the ability to be a realist, you would have to point out what they are unrealistic about. As your proof seemed to indicate the belief in their God, or any god (as you juxtaposed it with Atheism equated with Realism), it would seem that onus of proof fell in your lap. And as I said, your linked proof was cute, but not exactly a compelling and solid argument.

And while I thank you for further clarifying the analogy (I really didn't get it for awhile) you're assuming that Realism and belief in a reward in the afterlife are mutually exclusive. Aside from the fact that many religions and even Christianity, as I understand it, do require one to do good things here to attain reward elsewhere, no religious doctrine or dogma prohibits doing positive and practical things.

I looked up Idealism and Realism to make sure I had my definitions right. I found out I was slightly mistaken. The philosophy of realism states that objects exist independent of perception. Idealism states objects consist of ideas. This is where these two words are used as antonyms.

It seems that you are saying Realism is dealing with that which is and Idealism is dealing with could be and that the two are naturally opposing concepts. Your rather flippant and simplistic statements seem to indicate that Christians are in a delusional state, unwilling to look at the "real world" (a phrase I've always hated) and that somehow there is a superiority, in the short run and here-and-now for those who are willing to put aside such delusions. Where is it stated that believing "love God and love your neighbor" just doesn't get the job done?

I'm not a Christian, though I do believe in an afterlife. I also think that principle has to come before the practical, and that if people lived like that, eventually the practical would fall in line with the principle. Would your analogy automatically target me as well? I am, at least for one definition of the term, and idealist, so do I not "score points in the real world"? Or are you making a broad and rather poor generalization that the religious of the world are just a bunch of saps?

After all, I can point to a few Christian types that seem to have scored a lot of real world points. In fact, in this hemisphere, they seem to be in power.

Walk easy.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I'll admit that I am hugely arrogant. You totally suck compared to me. That made me feel better, was it good for you?

1. Making the analogous request of you is completely different. You aren't the All. You don't have the ability to be everything to everybody. In any case, you don't get to poke holes at my test. It's totally pseudoscientifically valid.

And again, from a proof standpoint, I NEVER need to prove that something does NOT exist. I can state it to my heart's content and it remains fact until someone *proves* otherwise. If you can't do so, I win, simple as that.

2. As for your dependence upon hearsay that cannot be independently nor scientifically corroborated by neutral parties, well...

Hearsay is not generally acceptable as "proof". If it is, I can submit that I heard from a reliable source (God) that you're both a cannibal and a paedophile. Are you going to admit to that being the case, you horrid, horrid monster? Or are you going to prove the negative? Because my unimpeachable source is beyond reproach.

FFS, it's just a simple analogy that's supposed to simplify understanding. Do you even understand the difference between "is similar to" or "is akin to" vs "is the same as" or even "is"? If you can't understand the difference, you have my pity.

Finally, what is annoying me is how you're making suppositions and ascribing motives. Stop putting words in my mouth. The rest of your response is not worth dignifying with a response. We're talking past each other, which is a waste of time.

Out.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

To which I say, whatever dude.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Nêh you only proved that god is cheap. I held a pencil high up made a quick prayer that god would make it fall downward when I released it


IT DID

so I've just proved that god exist.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

That sounds suspiciously like the work of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Clearly his Noodly Appendage is pushing the pencil to the ground.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

So it was the Flying Spaghetti Monster who proved that god exists! Yes that would be something for him.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)