[The burden of proof is on the Christian to prove God, not the skeptic to disprove him]
If a man writes a book about history, do you know why it's called libel to accuse him of lying with no proof of your claims? Three guesses and the first 2 don't count.
If a prosecutor presents facts and evidence against a defendant, do you know why, "I didn't do it" by the defendant just doesn't cut it? Three guesses and the first 2 don't count.
So when we present proof that the world is round to a blindman, what do you propose we do if he can't see it? Claim it doesn't exist? Sorry friend, but you really need to think things through a lot more deeply.
49 comments
If a man writes a book about history, do you know why it's called libel to accuse him of lying with no proof of your claims? If a prosecutor presents facts and evidence against a defendant [...]
Metaphor assumes facts not in evidence.
If a man writes a book about history, if it differs from all other written histories, he had damned better have the facts to back it up or someone would be correct to say he made it up and was a liar.
There is one thing you have to admire about Carico; she's extremely consistent in her stupidity and utter denial of even the most fundamental logical concepts. One would think that since a human can learn, Carico would likewise take a hint at some stage and look things up. Again, she consistently does not do it. It is absolutely astonishing.
If the burden of proof is put on the skeptics, one must believe everything ever told by anyone unless you have proof it's not true. Carico, I am your new God, you must do everything I say. Your new God says "Shut up and go away."
Oh Dudes, I have come across an interesting piece of information which you may find interesting, as I am too bloody lazy and frankly sickened be its posts to go back and find the link I have seen a post in which Carico refers to itself as male so no more worrying about the proper term, Carico is a dude. I shall now refer to Carico as "him" since that is the most apt (though still not entirely accurate I feel) term.
Does this person think we didn't know the world was round until we took pictures of it? We know the world is round because of the work of navigators, astronomers, and mathematicians. Blind people have no problem accepting the world is round. It's religious folk who still perpetuate that myth today.
Christian claims:
A blind man is deprived of sight, but not of rational thinking or other senses. If a blind man is, say, a science teacher, he will have to bear that in mind if he was to teach. Concerning God, is a matter of faith. However, if you want to impose a vision of the world based on an idea or a theory of the world and its cosmovision, you have the moral and logical obligation to prove that God exists or at least, that it is justifiable in rational terms.
If a man writes a book about history, do you know why it's called libel to accuse him of lying with no proof of your claims? Three guesses and the first 2 don't count. If a prosecutor presents facts and evidence against a defendant, do you know why, "I didn't do it" by the defendant just doesn't cut it? Three guesses and the first 2 don't count.
Exactly. The prosecutor must prove that the assertions he makes against the defendant are, in fact, true. He does this by presenting facts and empirically verifiable evidence as to the veracity of his claims. The Bible, which makes no statements of verifiable fact and has no sources for authority other than itself, is circular logic, does not do this.
Sorry friend, but you really need to think things through a lot more deeply.
Exactly. You need to think things through a lot more deeply, because both of the examples you give actually disprove your own assertion.
If a prosecutor presents facts and evidence against a defendant, do you know why, "I didn't do it" by the defendant just doesn't cut it? Three guesses and the first 2 don't count.
Double standards! She accuses us of not providing proof that Evolution exists, saying it's our burden, yet when we ask for proof that God exists... it's not her burden. Double standards, ahoy!
Okay, Carico, I'm going to give you exactly what you say you want. You're the prosecutor. Now prove beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists, and not just any old God, but your God.
If a man writes a book about history, do you know why it's called libel to accuse him of lying with no proof of your claims? Three guesses and the first 2 don't count. If a prosecutor presents facts and evidence against a defendant, do you know why, "I didn't do it" by the defendant just doesn't cut it? Three guesses and the first 2 don't count
Again, the burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If at the close of the prosecution's case, this standard is not met, "I didn't do it" from the defendant will more than cut it - in fact, in this (admittedly rare in real life) scenario, the defendant doesn't have to speak at all. Again, your analogy fails.
Carico...you try so hard and accomplish so little.
If a man writes a book about history, do you know why it's called libel to accuse him of lying with no proof of your claims? Three guesses and the first 2 don't count. If a prosecutor presents facts and evidence against a defendant, do you know why, "I didn't do it" by the defendant just doesn't cut it? Three guesses and the first 2 don't count.
Attempt 1 to figure out this metaphor: If a skeptic presents facts and evidence against a believer, do you know why, "I have faith" by the believer just doesn't cut it?
D'oh!
Attempt 2 to figure out this metaphor: If a believer presents facts and evidence against a skeptic, do you know why, "I don't believe you" by the skeptic just doesn't cut it?
Still waiting for the believer's alleged facts and evidence.
But these two don't count.
So when we present proof that the world is round to a blindman, what do you propose we do if he can't see it?
So when we present proof that the world is round to an idiot, what do you propose we do if he cannot understand it?
Claim it doesn't exist? Sorry friend, but you really need to think things through a lot more deeply.
Right back at you.
To the people saying that the author has the burden of proof in the libel case, it's the party that makes the accusation that has to proof that they are right in court, not the one who is being accused of something. If you merely claim that someone is lying without evidence, then you will get your ass handed to you if you are being sued for libel.
[If a man writes a book about history, do you know why it's called libel to accuse him of lying with no proof of your claims? Three guesses and the first 2 don't count.]us to disprove it?
[So when we present proof that the world is round to a blindman, what do you propose we do if he can't see it? Claim it doesn't exist? Sorry friend, but you really need to think things through a lot more deeply."]
You can't see that the world is round either, unless you've been to space, but you believe it don't you? Actually, don't answer that, I think I already know, and it doesn't surprise me in the least.
Dharmasatya said:
I'd just like to pop in here and plug my new history book,
'The life of Carico'
Sleeve description : Sit back and get ready to be blown away as we take you on a journey through one of humanity's most amazing lives. We begin in the late 80's with Carico running a secret child brothel for many high paying Hollywood clients such as Tom Cruise, Charlie Sheen and that annoying little runt who used to be on 'just shoot me'. We follow Carico's amazing career as a Russian spy tasked with posting purposefully idiotic rants on the Internet in order to lower the moral and faith in mankind of the Western enemy. We tell you all about Carico's masterminding of not only the attacks of September 11th but also the assassination of Heath Ledger and the decision to remake Day of the dead with Nick Cannon in the leading role. Yes, from drug addiction and pimping of minors to Satan worship and human sacrifice you'll marvel at how one seemingly retarded person could have led such an amazing life (hint- It turns out Carico is the child of Satan and anything in this book that doesn't seem possible can be explained by the use of black Satanic magic).
I say we resolve the matter of Carico's gender and simply use "it".
As for the comment, the burden of proof has nothing to do with who said it first.
I'm not sure, but I think it's the other way around.
It's the prosecutors job to present evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant did it. The defendant ought to have evidence in his or her favor, but it's not his or her job to prove anything.
You're the ones stating incredible stuff, we just have to say "I see no reason to believe that".
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
