God and Dreamtime stories.

Author: Checkmate

Posts

Total: 117
#31
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,322
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
I am not going to just assume that something is proved or fact - base don statistics, probability, assumptions or best guess. #15

Except when it fits your narrative to do so.    And I am not going to ever forget you said that^^^^^^^^^!. 

My attitude to B[urden] of P[roof] is not actually the person who asserts must do so


You tell us here that you are a criminal Lawyer #20. Are you sure?

And what YOUR  “ attitude to  is" to where the B of P lays,  don't mean jack !!!! It is what the accepted law says it is and not what your  "attitude to it is".

And attempting to manipulate the word “assert” = claim hasn't gone UN-noticed by me. . You make the claim or “assert” the existence of an all creator god .The lawful universally accepted (“attitude”) is that the Burden of Proof is on s/he that makes the claim.

I have never seen or heard of a civil case or criminal trial where the defendant has to prove her or his innocence. EVER! The burden of proof lays with his accusers or the complainant.

 Do you let your clients enter a court room and  tell them that they have to prove their own innocence!!!?  Have you forgot that your  "clients"  that you "always advised never to answer a yes or no question"  don't even have to testify in their own fk trials!!!!  

"Besides - I counsel all of my clients never to answer yes or no. Why would I not take my own advice? Life is more complex than black and white - yes and no answers."  #15

Burden of Proof:  How it Works

In civil litigation and criminal prosecutions, the burden of proof lies with the party asserting an allegation of fact. 
It's a fundamental principle.
Those that seek the assistance of the law must prove their claim - first,before the defendant.
It'snot for the defendant to disprove an unproven case advanced by the claimant. 
The burden of proof in civil disputes and criminal disputes lies with the party asserting proposition, not the party defending or denying it. The person seeking the legal remedy bears the burden or onus of proof.
To satisfy the burden of proof:
  • the party with the burden of proof
  • must prove the alleged fact
  • to the standard required by the applicable standard of proof.


 Are you sure that your a lawyer! Reverend? 

#32
Utanity
Utanity's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 375
0
2
2
Utanity's avatar
Utanity
0
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
Nope. Atheists lack a belief in a specific GOD.....Which doesn't mean that they cannot assume a purpose in material existence.....People that assume a purposeless existence are usually referred to as nihilists.

I just utilise the well known term "GOD" , which I assume represents a purpose.....If you find that confusing, then I will refer to it as BOB instead.

I certainly do not believe any BOB principle.....I simply consider them.

I consider the Christian hypothesis to be fundamentally the same as all hypotheses, but I consider the accompanying tales that sprung up a few thousand years ago in the Arabian Peninsular, to be nothing more than the naive reasoning that they clearly were. 



I think you are mixed and God is not Bob which blasphemy anyway so it does not matter and Arabs are muslim scum like the atheists so that does not matter also.
Topic's author
#33
Checkmate
Checkmate's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 104
0
1
5
Checkmate's avatar
Checkmate
0
1
5
-->
@Stephen
 
Exactly!! That’s what I was trying to sy and the only thing I got back was “well who are you to question this old belief”
#34
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,343
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
I am not going to just assume that something is proved or fact - base don statistics, probability, assumptions or best guess. #15

Except when it fits your narrative to do so.    And I am not going to ever forget you said that^^^^^^^^^!. 

My attitude to B[urden] of P[roof] is not actually the person who asserts must do so


You tell us here that you are a criminal Lawyer #20. Are you sure?

And what YOUR  “ attitude to  is" to where the B of P lays,  don't mean jack !!!! It is what the accepted law says it is and not what your  "attitude to it is".

And attempting to manipulate the word “assert” = claim hasn't gone UN-noticed by me. . You make the claim or “assert” the existence of an all creator god .The lawful universally accepted (“attitude”) is that the Burden of Proof is on s/he that makes the claim.

I have never seen or heard of a civil case or criminal trial where the defendant has to prove her or his innocence. EVER! The burden of proof lays with his accusers or the complainant.

 Do you let your clients enter a court room and  tell them that they have to prove their own innocence!!!?  Have you forgot that your  "clients"  that you "always advised never to answer a yes or no question"  don't even have to testify in their own fk trials!!!!  

"Besides - I counsel all of my clients never to answer yes or no. Why would I not take my own advice? Life is more complex than black and white - yes and no answers."  #15

Burden of Proof:  How it Works

In civil litigation and criminal prosecutions, the burden of proof lies with the party asserting an allegation of fact. 
It's a fundamental principle.
Those that seek the assistance of the law must prove their claim - first,before the defendant.
It'snot for the defendant to disprove an unproven case advanced by the claimant. 
The burden of proof in civil disputes and criminal disputes lies with the party asserting proposition, not the party defending or denying it. The person seeking the legal remedy bears the burden or onus of proof.
To satisfy the burden of proof:
  • the party with the burden of proof
  • must prove the alleged fact
  • to the standard required by the applicable standard of proof.


 Are you sure that your a lawyer! Reverend? 

Thanks for providing such excellent words for us to proceed with.

Now if we can show which court room we are in - let us begin.  Are we in the criminal or the civil court room? 

But we are in not in such court rooms, are we? We are in a courtroom of public opinion.  What are the rules here? 

Surely it is not going to be one where atheists are considered the defendant? Because that is what you are suggesting.  

The prosecution on behalf of the state - declares that the defendant has broken the rules. The State says - ok - what are the rules that have been broken? He then goes on to demonstrate that the laws have been broken.  And then the defendant if she thinks has something to add will do so.  But note - the entire point of criminal case is to prosecute the defendant. Not simply make an assertion. 

Theists don't go round saying - atheists are wrong.  We don't - because we simply are saying that God is.  IT is not our job to prove the atheist is wrong. 

In a civil case - again there is a complainant and a respondent.  A complainant's case is that the respondent has done something wrong. The respondent gets to defend themselves.     If they wish they can make cross claim.  But notice again and similar to the above situation - it is the complainant who brings the actions and the complainant who must prove their case.  

In our theistic / atheistic situation, who is the complainant and who is the respondent?  Who is the prosecutor and who is the defendant? 

I would take the view that it is the atheist who is the complainant.  And that they are also the prosecutor. 

They are the ones who are always insisting that the theist needs to address what they assert.  It is theist who is constantly under attack from the atheist. It is the atheist who is always making a complaint. IT is the atheist who is always trying to prosecute the case.  

There are similarities in court room legal jargon and debating - but there are many differences as well. 

The Atheist is the one who asserts that they "have found no evidence to support the existence of God". This is their positive assertion.  It implies at least if they intellectually honest that they have attempted to find evidence. (My view is that most atheists never look for evidence - but simply have been told there is no evidence at school) 

My discussion in relation to tradition and the default position is not changed by what you have cut and pasted above. It entirely is consistent with it. 

But thanks for the post Stephen. At least it looks like you are trying to do some reading. 
#35
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,120
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Checkmate
I think this validates your opinion. With regard to punishment by God, Einstein stated, "I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own — a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms. A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man's actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God's eyes he cannot be responsible, any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motions it undergoes. Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death. It is therefore easy to see why the churches have always fought science and persecuted its devotees."
#36
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,275
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Utanity
I wasn't referring to your specific GOD....Just the principle....So I referred to it as BOB so as not to confuse you.....Please pay attention.

And some Arabs are Muslim and some Arabs are Christian....Do your homework.

Though I was only referring to the Arabian Peninsular, as the region where the Abrahamic faiths originated.....Please pay attention.

And "Blasphemy" was justification for sadists, and still is in certain situations.
#37
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,322
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Checkmate

Exactly!! That’s what I was trying to sy and the only thing I got back was “well who are you to question this old belief”

“ who are you to question this old belief” . <<<<, who has actually said that to you, do you have a post# or link?  It sounds like some jumped up pen pushing know-it - all that believes him/herself to be above everyone else and only s/he he is qualified to talk and dictate on such matters.

Don't stand for it?


Topic's author
#38
Checkmate
Checkmate's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 104
0
1
5
Checkmate's avatar
Checkmate
0
1
5
-->
@Stephen
Stated by TS a few posts back in this forum. 




My logic is not that a lot of people have agreed therefore it must be right. It is that the default position is in place for a reason, and just because someone comes along who disagrees with it - does not mean that suddenly the tradition has to prove itself.  Why should the newcomer get the right to question the tradition without first putting up their reasons for why the tradition should be challenged?
Topic's author
#39
Checkmate
Checkmate's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 104
0
1
5
Checkmate's avatar
Checkmate
0
1
5
-->
@Stephen
#15
#40
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,322
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret


Burden of Proof:  How it Works
In civil litigation and criminal prosecutions, the burden of proof lies with the party asserting an allegation of fact. 
It's a fundamental principle.
Those that seek the assistance of the law must prove their claim - first,before the defendant.
It'snot for the defendant to disprove an unproven case advanced by the claimant. 
The burden of proof in civil disputes and criminal disputes lies with the party asserting proposition, not the party defending or denying it. The person seeking the legal remedy bears the burden or onus of proof.
To satisfy the burden of proof:
 Tradesecrete wrote: Now if we can show which court room we are in - let us begin.  Are we in the criminal or the civil court room? but we are in not in such court rooms, are we? We are in a courtroom of public opinion.  What are the rules here? 

 This didn't stop you introducing  criminal law and legal advice  into a thread when I  asked you a simple yes or no  biblical question, now did it Reverend?   Would you like reminding; 

 Tradesecrete wrote: #15
Besides - I counsel all of my clients never to answer yes or no. Why would I not take my own advice? Life is more complex than black and white - yes and no answers. 


Suited you then didn't it, Reverend.  And yes , if you prefer, we are in a  court opinion  so to say  to anyone " “ who are you to question this old belief”   is simply YOU attempting to gain the high ground and wield your imagined authority on the subject matter. 
 

What are the rules here? 

Deary me. Don't you know Reverend lawyer?  Facts & Proof are the rules.  Like the FACTS  & Proof of  law written and universally accepted law  that I have shown you in my quote  that states actual FACTS about where  the Burden of Proof actually lays and not what ones   “ attitude to  is" towards where the Burden of Proof lays.  You can't simply dismiss facts because they don't agree with you, Reverend. Like me, facts don't care about your feelings, Reverend. 


Theists don't go round saying - atheists are wrong.
 
Even if that is true,  it still doesn't alter the fact, Reverend,  that YOU make the claim  that god is real, that he created everything  on the planet and in  the universe and that every word in the holy scriptures  were as you say  " breathed by god himself". PROVE IT!
  

IT is not our job to prove the atheist is wrong. 
I know it is your job to defend and prove your belief and your position and your claim that god exists .   


I would take the view that it is the atheist who is the complainant.

Well let me tell you lawyer,  that the only complaint I have with YOU and Christians , is that you can never prove you case.


They are the ones who are always insisting that the theist needs to address what they assert. 

Well I don't. I only ask you to adress what it is that YOU claim .

I only ask that you  support and prove your claims. But you don't have to. No one is forcing you. You make the choice either to try to defend your "god breathed" scriptures or simply ignore. There is one or two other options that are open to you but you Christians let your pride stop you.  And YOU in particular, let not just your pride, but  your absolute arrogance and ignorance .  But I suggest that you should never come to the table empty handed as you do.   You have shown me that you  know very little about these scriptures  above what you have been taught to " pass on" by others.  As you freely admit here >>>>.

Tradesecrete wrote:  I in most parts are merely passing on the teaching of what i havereceived. I do not have an agenda. I really don't.    #20

 Indeed,  which as to be one of your most contradictory statements that you have ever made on the forum.  Why ? Because you do have an agenda, or have you forgot what your god commanded you to do?   Here's a reminder for you Pastor,  Mark 16:15  You are a minister aren't you and a Pastor?  you claim you are here>>

Butin my role as a pastor - which I also do, I counsel in pastoralcare.  And yes, I am qualified by certified colleges with properaccreditation.  I am also a chaplain to our Countries Defenceforces, a position I could not have without proper qualifications.  #20



It is theist who is constantly under attack from the atheist.

Well in my particular  case  I simply read, scrutinize and question the scriptures. I don't care if or not there is a god. I don't care that Jesus believed he was dying for me (if he died at all). . I didn't ask him to sacrifice himself and from what I have read, he didn't want to either.  And I  like to take responsibility for my own sins and mistakes, and the  thought of someone taking the blame or responsibility for something that I did , frankly appalls me, Reverend, doesn't it you?
I treat these ancient texts as a history, a very bad and flawed history.


It is the atheist who is always making a complaint. IT is the atheist who is always trying to prosecute the case. 

 You are not a lawyer at all are you?  


There are similarities in court room legal jargon and debating -

Well done!  And  do you know what  some of those "similarities" are , Reverend?  FACTS! and PROOF!    Asking someone  "who do they think they are"  and wielding some imagined authority around like some god given mantel simply does not amount to facts or proof. Even if you do claim to be Chaplin and a Pastor and a lawyer.#20
 

in relation to tradition and the default position is not changed

Then you are just ignoring the facts which doesn't surprise me at all, you do it constantly.   I don't care about YOUR DEFAULT POSITION! . And neither would a fkn Judge. 












#41
Utanity
Utanity's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 375
0
2
2
Utanity's avatar
Utanity
0
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
I wasn't referring to your specific GOD....Just the principle....So I referred to it as BOB so as not to confuse you.....Please pay attention.

Who you are trying to full because my God is everybody's god and you are only saying the bit about bob and the arabs now but you did not say that before. Bob is a false god and you should no it well.
#42
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,322
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Checkmate


@Tradesecret wrote:
My logic is not that a lot of people have agreed therefore it must be right. It is that the default position is in place for a reason, and just because someone comes along who disagrees with it - does not mean that suddenly the tradition has to prove itself.  Why should the newcomer get the right to question the tradition without first putting up their reasons for why the tradition should be challenged? #15


Ah yes,  that old chestnut  -    " Why are you asking me this question" -   in response to your own question posed first. 

 This is a cowards response to a question posed to them  and seriously,  one would think that person such as say,  a Minister or a Chaplin qualified to lecture and teach students  and a person that has been fully trained and tutored  and claims to have " studied and was tutored by academics, scholars, and priests and fathers from the Orthodox Church" #91 would quite welcome questions from " a newcomer"  wouldn't' you?  And they usually do, until the questions  become sticky and tricky, awkward and problematic and then they start screaming  "foul" and start demanding the you answer their questions first before answering the initial question that you have posed.


But in my role as a pastor - which I also do, I counsel in pastoral care.  And yes, I am qualified by certified colleges with proper accreditation.  I am also a chaplain to our Countries Defence forces, a position I could not have without proper qualifications.  #20
This is not to mention also  :   "I study the original languages, translate them to English",  #25

A lawyer, with clients and court cases, a Pastor with parishioner to administer to, a Chaplin that counsels, a tutor with students to lecture to at universities.  And a translator of ancient languages. The qualified talents just don't stop coming.  I  wonder what her/his hidden talents are!? 








#43
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
You seem to mention and/or quote Tradesecret in all your posts, even in your posts to others who don't know him. Why are you obsessed with him?

I only ask because you've done it to me a couple of times now. In the middle of a thread about some random subject, you'll start babbling about Tradesecret and quoting things he said to you not related to me or our topic. What gives?

Be careful because from the outside, it looks like you are trying to harass him, and you already have bans under your belt.
#44
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,343
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@ethang5
Ethang,

I think his obsession is clear. I don't know why.  The Brother's comes pretty close too. 

I reckon they both sleep and dream about me each night.  I should feel flattered but honestly, it is a little bit creepy. 


#45
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,343
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
 No one is forcing you. 
But isn't that the entire point of your little petty post. 

To make me prove what I believe. 

Perhaps if you repeat your words enough - they might CAUSE me to answer.  LLOLL!
Topic's author
#46
Checkmate
Checkmate's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 104
0
1
5
Checkmate's avatar
Checkmate
0
1
5
-->
@Stephen
@Tradesecret
AAHAHA. You know it's lost when you have to call the post petty to ignore the points made. I was actually very excited for your response towards Stephen, but to be fair, I didn't expect much from you. 

You quite literally got your little belief that atheists bear the BoP ripped to shreds. 

The least you could do is admit defeat and say "yes I do bear the BoP," instead of weasling away. 
Topic's author
#47
Checkmate
Checkmate's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 104
0
1
5
Checkmate's avatar
Checkmate
0
1
5
-->
@Stephen
@Tradesecret
AAHAHA. You know it's lost when you have to call the post petty to ignore the points made. I was actually very excited for your response towards Stephen, but to be fair, I didn't expect much from you. 

You quite literally got your little belief that atheists bear the BoP ripped to shreds. 

The least you could do is admit defeat and say "yes I do bear the BoP," instead of weasling away. 
#48
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,343
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Checkmate
AAHAHA. You know it's lost when you have to call the post petty to ignore the points made. I was actually very excited for your response towards Stephen, but to be fair, I didn't expect much from you. 

You quite literally got your little belief that atheists bear the BoP ripped to shreds. 

The least you could do is admit defeat and say "yes I do bear the BoP," instead of weasling away. 
Hi Checkmate,

And please tell me how Stephen's post ripped my belief to shreds. I obviously did not get the memo.  


Topic's author
#49
Checkmate
Checkmate's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 104
0
1
5
Checkmate's avatar
Checkmate
0
1
5
-->
@Tradesecret
 I obviously did not get the memo.  
Not surprised. 

 how Stephen's post ripped my belief to shreds.
  1. The fact that you, someone who has shown to have lots to say, did not reply with your usual fruitful rebuttals, shows that you were stumped. 
  2. Stephen dismantled your argument in a way which was clear for everyone to see. They took quotes from what you said, and successfully proved your point to be weak and pull of holes. 
  3. Your argument was "God is the default answer", to which Stephen demonstrated was poor logic and unacceptable in both discussions and legal cases.
  4. You then replied with "But isn't that the entire point of your little petty post", essentially dropping all points and admitting defeat. 
Either a) You admit that you bear the BoP for proving God, b) you continue to fight for your belief or c) you forfeit this discussion. 

#50
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,275
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Utanity
You only think that your GOD is everybody else's GOD, because that is what you were taught to think.

And BOB is just a principle, which might or might not be your GOD.


And I didn't actually mention the Arabs, who you referred to as "SCUM".....I initially, only referred to the Arabian Peninsular.


And GODS are neither true nor false.....Just possibilities.
#51
Utanity
Utanity's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 375
0
2
2
Utanity's avatar
Utanity
0
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
You only think that your GOD is everybody else's GOD, because that is what you were taught to think.
And BOB is just a principle, which might or might not be your GOD.
But you only think what you think but when you think that god might or might not be bob who is right. Not you because what you are said is on the other side of the other planet.

#52
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,275
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Utanity
But you only think what you think etc.
Started off super-logical....But quickly tailed off.


But.....If I am on the other side of the planet...Perhaps that puts you somewhere near the Pacific Ocean...Is this correct?


And I never thought that a GOD was BOB.....I thought and decided that the GOD principle was a valid enough hypothesis....I just referred to it as BOB so as not to confuse you.


But you are still confusing your particular GOD hypothesis, with a basic hypothesis-less principle.

BOB is the basis of all GOD hypotheses....DO you understand?
#53
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,322
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
You seem to mention and/or quote Tradesecret in all your posts, . ...................you've done it to me a couple of times now. In the middle of a thread about some random subject, you'll start babbling about Tradesecret .


 
Do I?   It may well be because of something he may  have claimed on a thread such as s/he has done on this thread for instance, that I may disagree or agree  with.

Or it could be that I may  value  the importance of  his/her input , I mean, with all of those qualifications under his/her belt, who wouldn't want to a qualified and professional opinion.

Or it could well be that someone such has your self has taken it upon themselves to interfere  where it wasn't even asked for. 


 But let me point out this fact for you. The Reverend Tradesecret, for 99.9 % of the time  comes onto my threads uninvited , is that stalking or an obsession? . s/he is welcome to do that of course and I couldn't stop him even if I wanted to. But I don't.


So lets look at just my last 14    threads starting from my last  and  what one could also construe as  "an obsession " , shall we.

 for instance here > https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5194-i-have-two-virgin-daughters he joined the thread at post 4
joined Here post 53   where he was rather late to the party but come he did https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4518-when-will-they-ever-get-it-right?page=3

i'll stop there as I think you should  get the picture? 

But I don't consider  this the Reverend Tradesecret has having an obsession with me, would you? 

If at all there is an obsessions to be noticed, I think that you have an obsession with her/him - Tradesecrete.

Again you have appeared speaking on his/her behalf as if defending her/him.  I hope soon that s/he will wake up to realise that you do her/him no favours when you do this and make her/him appear to be quite retarded and incapable of handling her/his own.  When, with all of his/her qualifications , I am sure s/he considers her/him self  more than capable to live up to any challenge that comes his or her way.

And you probably didn't know but S/he does tutor and  lecture at universities you know, and so is more than prepared for any challenges that come her/his way from all those  curious students that are eager to learn from her/his own experiences with god and the scriptures and   that she doesn't even charge  but accepts a fee from the university.  Look >>> "I charge universities when they request me to lecture to them". #20

So you see, s/he doesn't need you or anyone butting in and speaking for her and making comments on her behalf that make her look  defenseless and incapable and stupid and silly.

If you were to ever once attempt to interfere   on my behalf I would feel quite embarrassed and ask you to stop.  

And s/he certainly doesn't need anyone feeding him/her lines and questions to pose to others, that certainly leads to bad things.

This is the last I am going to say on the matter as I won't be party to YOU hijacking and derailing someone else's thread by causing an irreverent, uncalled for and un-necessary argument .

And the author  shouldn't stand for your derailing antics either.




#54
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,322
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Stephen wrote:  I only ask that you  support and prove your claims. But you don't have to. No one is forcing you. You make the choice either to try to defend your "god breathed" scriptures or simply ignore. There is one or two other options that are open to you but you Christians let your pride stop you.  And YOU in particular, let not just your pride, but  your absolute arrogance and ignorance .  But I suggest that you should never come to the table empty handed as you do.   You have shown me that you  know very little about these scriptures  above what you have been taught to " pass on" by others.  As you freely admit here >>>>.

Tradesecrete wrote:  I in most parts are merely passing on the teaching of what i havereceived. I do not have an agenda. I really don't.    #20



" No one is forcing you."    But isn't that the entire point of your little petty post. 

No.  I am not forcing you and neither CAN anyone force you.  And for someone that crows about their qualifications as a LAWYER , you of all people should know  that you cannot be forced to say anything.  Are you sure that you really are a lawyer?

And  as much as you want to wave away and play  down as insignificant and "petty"  my reply to your skewed view of where the Burden of Proof actually does lay #40  whether in law or on  a internet forum doesn't and won't detract from the fact that the burden of proof lays with he/she that makes the claim  :

Burden of Proof:  How it Works
In civil litigation and criminal prosecutions, the burden of proof lies with the party asserting an allegation of fact. 

No one is interested or even cares   what your  "attitude is" to the Burden of Proof it is what is universally accepted IN LAW  that counts and  not your ignorant childish
` the laws an ass '  attitude towards it.

To make me prove what I believe. 


Stop being sly. You are being asked to prove there is a god  YOU ARE NOT BEING ASKED to prove that  you believe in god.

 I have said no one is forcing you to say anything , But extraordinary claims require extraordinary  P_R_O_O_F.  


Perhaps if you repeat your words enough - they might CAUSE me to answer.  LLOLL!

Tell me which one's, and I'll give it a go. 

And stop with you childish LOLL ing.  It doesn't become a fully qualified  lawyer or  Pastor & Chaplin  that teaches and lectures students at Universities.









#55
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,322
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Checkmate
Either a) You admit that you bear the BoP for proving God, b) you continue to fight for your belief or c) you forfeit this discussion. 

S/he won't be doing that anytime soon. 

You  have witnessed  for yourself  that even when the facts are laid bare in front of her/him (and being lawyer too made no difference), s/he will still deny the facts.

But I want you to be aware of something; look at this response you had  above at  #48  Tradesecret


Hi Checkmate,

And please tell me how Stephen's post ripped my belief to shreds. I obviously did not get the memo.  #48


"my belief" <<.   This is a sly response . s/he was trying to goad you into questioning and arguing  for YOU to prove  that s/he believes in god,  which is not the same asking her/him to prove that god exists.   S/he slyly  ignored the evidence and the fact the you were clearly speaking of and about  the burden of proof and how she sees it or  what her/his  "attitude is" towards it.

 S/he tried the same sly BS on the post above see post #54. see my reply.




#56
Utanity
Utanity's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 375
0
2
2
Utanity's avatar
Utanity
0
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
BOB is the basis of all GOD hypotheses....DO you understand?
I understand very well that is what you think and what you think is not good.
Topic's author
#57
Checkmate
Checkmate's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 104
0
1
5
Checkmate's avatar
Checkmate
0
1
5
-->
@Stephen
I'll be keenly awaiting the lawyers reply, though I can imagine it will consist of denying, deflecting and discrediting. 
#58
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
You seem to mention and/or quote Tradesecret in all your posts, . ...................you've done it to me a couple of times now. In the middle of a thread about some random subject, you'll start babbling about Tradesecret .

Do I?
Yeah. You do. You actually seem angry that he's a lawyer and you're not. You harp on his qualifications as if they are the cause of your obsession. TS is not saying he is better than you because he's a lawyer, please don't take it that way.

It may well be because of something he may  have claimed on a thread such as s/he has done on this thread for instance, that I may disagree or agree  with.
Then why post it to me? You're posting it everywhere as if you're obsessed and deranged.

Or it could be that I may  value  the importance of  his/her input , I mean, with all of those qualifications under his/her belt, who wouldn't want to a qualified and professional opinion.
Un-huh. Still, why post it to me? You're posting it everywhere as if you're obsessed and deranged. You're doing it right now. Could it be that you aren't aware of your obsession?

Or it could well be that someone such has your self has taken it upon themselves to interfere  where it wasn't even asked for. 
Interfere how? I never bring up Trade secret. You do.

But let me point out this fact for you. The Reverend Tradesecret, for 99.9 % of the time  comes onto my threads uninvited , is that stalking or an obsession?
I don't care. I'm not Tradesecret. Our subject isn't Tradesecret. Why are you babbling to me  about him? No one "invites" anyone to a thread. It's a free board, people post wherever they like. Reply to what I've said when you're talking to me, and reply to what TS has said when you're talking to him. That is how sane people do it.

So lets look at just my...
Dude. I don't want to discuss TS with you. I'm not obsessed with him. If you aren't careful, you will become as obsessed as Harikrish was with me.

i'll stop there as I think you should  get the picture? 
The only picture I get is that for some reason, you're obsessed with TS.

But I don't consider  this the Reverend Tradesecret has having an obsession with me, would you? 
TS joins many threads, and he isn't blabbering about you in his posts to others. We talk all the time and he never mentions you, but you always seem to mention him. So yes, I would think it's you having the creepy obsession with him.

If at all there is an obsessions to be noticed, I think that you have an obsession with her/him - Tradesecrete.
How does that bother you? I never mention TS to you. The only reason your obsession concerns me is that you keep obsessing about him in your posts to me! Why? I want to debate religion, not your petty obsessions.

Again you have appeared speaking on his/her behalf as if defending her/him.
I would not speak about TS if you didn't keep mentioning him in your every post.

So you see, s/he doesn't need you or anyone...
And off you go into another obsessed tirade about TS! Why are you telling me about what He does or doesn't need? How does what TS need concern you? Read my lips. I dont care. You obviously care. So tell it to TS himself, or tell it to some one who cares.

If you were to ever once attempt to interfere  on my behalf I would feel quite embarrassed...
So would I. Though I haven't the foggiest idea what you mean by "interfere".

....and ask you to stop.  
Seems to me that you can stop worrying about that then.

This is the last I am going to say on the matter....
Wow, really? That would be great! It was way past getting old of you obsessing on TS in your every post. Thanks!

...the author  shouldn't stand for your derailing antics either.
Lol! In a thread about Dreamtime, you've listed TS' posts, quoted him over and over, griped that other people commenting in your threads with him is "interference" and "butting in" and you think I'm the one derailing this thread?

But you've said you won't mention TS again. Good. But if you start to obsess again, I hope you won't mind if I remind you of this exchange where you promised that you'd stop.
#59
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
Ethang,
I think his obsession is clear. I don't know why.  The Brother's comes pretty close too. 
I reckon they both sleep and dream about me each night.  I should feel flattered but honestly, it is a little bit creepy. 
No one on the net is screened for mental instability before being allowed on. It can be creepy. Stay safe.
Topic's author
#60
Checkmate
Checkmate's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 104
0
1
5
Checkmate's avatar
Checkmate
0
1
5
-->
@ethang5
If TS stopped with his hilariously poor and incoherent attempts at arguments from authority, maybe he won't keep us awake. Staring at the ceiling at night is a perfect time to reflect on your day, and when you encounter someone as comedic as TS, it's hard not to have a chuckle.