Quote:
Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls
Its just how logic works. Religion aside, did you understand the courtroom analogy or are you saying its wrong? I called Hamid dense because he understands the counter argument but purposefully denies it when he has no way to fit his religious assertion into the same logical process he would use else where.
|
I really, really tried to understand it, but I don't. I mean it is riddle with things ... I can't even ... why? It should be called the "Swiss cheese theory of court procedures" cause it's just filled with holes. Why would someone who believes in God, want to prosecute God? "I accept the proposition of your existence but you are guilty and you're going to jail for a very long time?" Doesn't make sense. Why are the theist the prosecutors? Why?
And how can you find Supreme Being "guilty of not existing?" That sounds like the Supreme Being should exist, he should go to jail, and maybe after some lengthy time in jail, God will be rehabilitated into existence, you know so won't commit the crime of not existing anymore.
He is not sure if God is completely innocent of existing, but he is the defense right? Doesn't he have Attorney–client privileges? Can't he ask God if he is completely innocent?
But then at one point he talks about a "vote" well voting is for the jury, but he claims to be the defense, so is he part of the jury or part of defense? If he is both, then the jury is tainted and the case will be dismissed. No one defense team can communicate with the jury panel during the time of the trial, let alone have someone multitask as part of defense and the jury panel.
And it seems all kinda backwards, (theist) those defending God irl are the prosecutors, and those who don't defend God irl (atheist) are part of the defense. I don't know why they think this is such a great argument.
And I don't think that they understand how the American court system is set up. It is not a 100% accurate system, but at least it's the best available system that could be thought up during the formation of the United States. A person can in all reality be guilty, but without sufficient evidence is "
found" innocent. And a person "found" guilty but is innocent can with the likelihood of new evidence can have his sentence overturned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls
As for your comments about believing other things without proof such as the safety of take out. There is a ton of evidence to suggest it is safe and eating something is not the same as asserting something. I can post another video that further addresses this with a theist caller I don't consider dense, no amen choir, and less verbal aggression if you think it will help.
|
Well he says that he believes in a lot of things and then he says he doesn't have to believe in anything without proof. Well I was just saying a person who has carry out eats the food believing with absolute proof that the food is safe. People go through life believing without proof. Maybe some of those things he believes are believed by him without proof, that's all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls
I could be wrong. That was always my understanding of the difference between anti theist and atheist. Never looked up the definition, just relied on its vernacular usage in the atheist discussions ive heard.
|
What I meant by "anti theist" is the person who not only opposes the proposition: '
God exists,' in the realm of philosophical ideas and arguments, but the person who actively, whether verbally or physically, attacks a person who accepts the proposition
God exists.' The kind of person you find on the internet going on a tirade about how stupid people of faith or theist are stupid, dumb etc. etc. or calling for the annihilation of people of faith or people who believe in God. I could be wrong. That was always my understanding of the difference between anti theist and atheist.