NationStates Jolt Archive

Well there are many Christians who misionise, and for example demand that people convert to christianity to recieve help, even in the tsunami-struck areas of south Asia. And I'd just like to point out to you that in all, Christians have killed more people than died in WWII, including the Jews killed by Hitler! That might be the reason why some people thing that Christians are the worst of the religious groups.

Now now Muslims do the same.

There are 60000 dead Algerians who would agree with that.....

Do you accept the bible as proof of god?

No, should I?

Do you accept 'Mr Bunnsy Has An Adventure" as proof of talking rabbits?

So show me where I 'chose' to say "I will not accept this as proof of God.".

In truth, I can't. Most evidence of God is personal. As such, I don't know when and where or even if you have made that choice, consciously or not.

No, should I?

Do you accept 'Mr Bunnsy Has An Adventure" as proof of talking rabbits?
exactly; the Bible is not evidence of the existence of God, it is simply evidence that a group of people wrote a book. it's like saying that rainbows are evidence that God exists; rainbows are not inconsistent with the existence of a God, but they aren't evidence for one, either. it's not a matter of "choosing" to accept certain evidence, it's a matter of the Bible not qualifying for the definition of evidence for a single given theory...it could be evidence for any number of theories, all of which it supports equally well.

No, should I?

Do you accept 'Mr Bunnsy Has An Adventure" as proof of talking rabbits?


So show me where I 'chose' to say "I will not accept this as proof of God.".

See you said I dont accept that as proof (I happen to agree but that is besides the point) you choose not to accpet it as proof

exactly; the Bible is not evidence of the existence of God, it is simply evidence that a group of people wrote a book. it's like saying that rainbows are evidence that God exists; rainbows are not inconsistent with the existence of a God, but they aren't evidence for one, either. it's not a matter of "choosing" to accept certain evidence, it's a matter of the Bible not qualifying for the definition of evidence for a single given theory...it could be evidence for any number of theories, all of which it supports equally well.
True but it is still doing "proof" filtering ... he chooses to not accept it as any proof of god ... again while I agree it is still a matter of making a judgement call on what constitutes proof of what

Originally Posted by Pure Science
We cannot use science to analyse whether the quality of love is apparent in someone because it is a fuzzy concept, with no clear defintion. That means that deciding if someone is in love is a matter of opinion. If someone bothered to make a clear definition, then they could say for certain whether someone was in love or not. However, this definition would only be their opinion, so would be a waste of time to construct.

Originally Posted by Pure Science
I can hope very easily actually. I expect the field of psychology has made the most progress in this area. Your reverence of love does not put it beyond scientific analysis.
By the inconsistency of these two statements, can we conclude that you do not consider psychology to be a "real" science, as some of the things it analyses and explores (concepts and opinions) are not worthy of clear definitions?

For me it's just the crosses. Anyone carrying something that phallic around their neck can't be trusted.
And yet, you assign that symbolism, not them. Go figure. :-)

See you said I dont accept that as proof (I happen to agree but that is besides the point) you choose not to accpet it as proof

False

One cannot -choose- what convinces them.

Can you -choose- to be convinced that :fluffle: causes people to actually Fluffle?

And yet, you assign that symbolism, not them. Go figure. :-)

That reminds me: I really need to buy that Catholic friend of mine a crucifix sex toy. She'd get a kick out of it. Or kick me. One of the two.