Fort Hood Shooting

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frogacuda

You can disprove specific gods, but not that there's nothing in the world named "God."

---

That's because there is someone named "God"!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fe 26

not really. "the burden of proof" is a man made concept for coming to logical conclusions. Christians don't believe they need logic to come to conclusions.

---

:lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frogacuda

You could argue pretty fairly that the burden of proof is on theists to establish a God, but that's not the same thing as saying "It doesn't exist until we prove it does." There are many things conjectured to be real and later proven by scientists. It doesn't mean they somehow "became" true; they always were.

---

Good point. So I then retract the part about something not existing until it is proven true. I'm not above being wrong. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frogacuda

I mean really the reason you can't disprove that God exists is because the definition of God is so liquid that it's like trying to nail spit to the wall. You can disprove specific gods, but not that there's nothing in the world named "God."

---

I think there is where we find a sort of infinite regress. Because what then is the point of a god that can't be defined or atleast it's purpose understood? The only thing I could think of is maybe some primal need to simply just know there is a god. Which seems pretty sad to me.

Proof that God exists: TNL

As for the OG topic, can we agree that violence in Islam is the exception, but that just because we're a country of self-hating white Christians we shouldn't play with kid gloves when all signs point to a potential problem? Not that I'm following the subject terribly closely, but it seems the Fort Hood massacre could've been avoided if people weren't afraid of appearing prejudiced in calling out a huge problem-in-the-making.

Buttcheeks is right on this one.

Flipping the tables and saying "X must be true because you can't disprove X" is a logical fallacy.

Burden of proof always falls on the accuser, or in this case, the asserter.

Oh, I was just saying that Christians usually step outside of the idea of "logic." They don't believe in it as a way of making decisions. So they don't believe in the rules of logic either.

When you tell a hard core fundy that the burden of proof falls on them, why not also ask them to tape a monkey to their ass? Because they believe both are about as equally silly.

or to put it in simpler terms

intelligent person "you have to go by the rules of proving an argument"
fundy "what rules? I don't believe in your rules"

When you stereotype all people of faith as illogical extremists you display just as much ignorance as you attribute to them. We all attribute meaning to life in order to make sense of it; some people use philosophy, others use religion (prepackaged philosophy), others use scientific superstition (unsustainable assumptions based on the little we know of existence through science). It's juvenile to begrudge others their beliefs (as long as those beliefs don't harm others).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frogacuda

I mean really the reason you can't disprove that God exists is because the definition of God is so liquid that it's like trying to nail spit to the wall. You can disprove specific gods, but not that there's nothing in the world named "God."

---

The definition of God isn't liquid from a philosophical/scientific point of view; it's an architect of the universe. Everything else is just trappings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tracer

If the Universe can theoretically exist without a god just as well as with, then one must find proof for the presence, not the absence.

Disbelieving until proof is provided isn't unscientific. .

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anal Kaboom

Christians usually fail to realize that the burden of proof lies with them.

---

This is making my head hurt. Do you guys know what the scientific method even is? Do you even know what the question is? You're stuck in religious beliefs that put the spotlight on God. You are stuck on "prove there is a God" vs "prove there is no God". Who cares? Science cares about how we got here. MAYBE WE GOT HERE DUE TO INFLUENCE FROM OUTSIDE OUR UNIVERSE. But if we throw up a blanket "no God" policy, then we cut off umptee-ump routes of exploration in our research for the very un-scientific reason of "my religion says No God so it must be so".

A psychic up here on a Toronto radio show predicted a military base massacre at Fort Hood or Ford Dicks earlier this year. In the same sitting she also predicted a helicopter and an airplane colliding mid-air in California. She's a witch and must be burned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheebs

This is making my head hurt. Do you guys know what the scientific method even is? Do you even know what the question is? You're stuck in religious beliefs that put the spotlight on God. You are stuck on "prove there is a God" vs "prove there is no God". Who cares? Science cares about how we got here. MAYBE WE GOT HERE DUE TO INFLUENCE FROM OUTSIDE OUR UNIVERSE. But if we throw up a blanket "no God" policy, then we cut off umptee-ump routes of exploration in our research for the very un-scientific reason of "my religion says No God so it must be so".

---

Maybe God isn't sentient.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpoDaddy

When you stereotype all people of faith as illogical

---

I'm not stereotyping. Living without logic is a founding principle of Christianity. Over and over again the NT demonstrates how one should not live by one's own judgment but act with faith on the teachings of Jesus Christ.

A christian is taught to not prove or disprove anything. In fact, it is highly encouraged to act when something has not been proven or can not be proven. Believing when one has no reason to believe is consistently idolized and romanticized.

Its sad that 13 men died in this terrorist shooting.

Facts:

FBI, CIA and Army personel knew of his internet activities: emails to Imam of Al Queda and various message board posts.

He was sent to FT Hood for help and like Col. Jesep from A Few Good Men. He was A Substandard Army soldier.

He was Muslim.

Major concern is that how the FUCK was he still allowed to be a Psychiatrist? Other concern? WHERE THE FUCK WAS HOMELAND SECURITY? Serious?

Who care about religion? Sure he screamed as he was shooting Allah Akbar and yes its a terror attack. But this is not a reason to ban Muslims in the military. This rarely happens, but the lack of communication between departments of gov't is MORE FUCKING DISTURBING.