Reece101

Life relies on an atmosphere, but does the Earth rely on an atmosphere?

Challenging language conventions thus, is probably not worth the effort though

Well actually no. I am typing this from one enclosed shelter ran by a capitalist community, and there ain't no clothe above my lips. The fact it is not very big of an' chance for virus to catch several hundreds of meters off the ground, and the fact I have my windows and doors shut, it would make no sense to put on a mask indoors.

…note: to see the zig-zag jagged bisecting hexagon, start a top peak and follow black  line between blue triangle on top left and invisible white triangle center, now we zig and follow black line between purple triangle on left, and center invisible white triangle, next we zag and follow black line between green triangle on bottom left and pink triangle on bottom center. Continue this zig-zag around circumference of icosahedron. 

It is pretty obvious that I was mocking the people that argue that microevolution is possible but macroevolution is not. It is not an actual quote since it is obvious to everyone that walking thousands of kilometers is possible.

In reality the term microevolution was first coined by scientists as a legitimate scientific term with actual usefulness but has since been hijacked by creationists in order to verbalize the above absurdity, so even as a parody my post is technically inaccurate. Even so I think I made my point.

It is possible to walk ten meters, but there is no way anyone could ever walk a thousand kilometers

- The guy that came up with the term 'microevolution'

So then why would you state this: Go back and look at the examples so you understand to be carful not to twist context for future references.

My demand for a "direct reference" has nothing to do with your mention of "future reference."  Provide me a direct reference to the examples you claim demonstrate my "twisting" your words

I didn't state that you argued magic didn't exist; my statement is conditional and normative. 

These arguments: 

1. It isn’t like Christianity existed for hundreds of thousands of years before it became the norm/state sponsored.

2. Postdiluvian figures, are you serious? The flood is a made up story. It was not an historical event.

Which belief system is that?

 Look above.

Supporting the claims I referenced above, or dropping them. 

Provide me a direct reference.

If that's your premise, then you should not argue that magic doesn't exist. 

Yes. So why are trying to shift the burden of proof? You are the one who made the claim that the flood was a "made up" story. And then when asked to support your claim, you attempted to shift the burden of proof by asserting that only those who claim that it happened have an onus using a bastardized logic. Can you support your claim? Will you support your claim? If not, then drop your argument. 

What is "my" belief system?

 That's on you. And so far the only waste of time is this posturing you've continued after I've demanded several times that you support your claim. If you're not going to support your claim, you are within your discretion to refuse me a response. But I will consider it a dropped argument. 

Your convenience doesn't matter; that which you are "all for" doesn't matter; logical consistency matters since you are invoking onus probandi. And thus far, you haven't applied any logical consistency to your arguments. Support your claims or drop them. It's a simple task. 

And that context is?

Yes I did. But it wasn't relevant. The only part that mattered was the folly you asserted: "the burden of proof should be on the person claiming something happened, not on someone claiming it didn’t, do you agree?" This is merely a contrivance pedaled typically by some illogical atheists to elide their onus. And it's categorically incorrect. Once again, the burden of proof rests with anyone who affirms a claim. Because proof is meant to substantiate its "Truth." But if you want me to explain this using your example, then I will of course oblige.

Yes, you would. Their premise, "p," is "Unicorns don't exist." They would be arguing its Truth. This premise is not true tautologically; it's not true a priori. In order to ascribe this premise a truth value, you must substantiate its truth. You cannot argue, p, "unicorns don't exist," therefore, q, "unicorns don't exist." And if you argue that the failure of your opponent to substantiate the contrary, i.e. not p ("Unicorns do exist") validates your premise p "Unicorns don't exist," then you'd be arguing from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam) a informal logical fallacy that denotes a proposition true upon failure to prove and substantiate the contrary. 

So no, there's nothing logical about asserting that the burden of proof rests with the person claiming something happened. Stating that "something happened" and stating that "something didn't happen" are both affirmations. Both require substantiation.

It's not a matter of your convenience; it's a matter of logical consistency. And nothing you've described thus far conforms with any sound logical metric. I'll tell you the same thing I told Mopac: don't take me at my word. Feel free to verify or falsify anything I state. 

With that said, provide support to your claims, or drop/withdraw the point. 

Which reply are you seeking?

This is folly, and a common mistake among those whose knowledge of logic is merely novice. The burden of proof rests with any who affirms a claim, whether it proposes or negates. After all, a negation in and of itself is an affirmation. So you are responsible to the onus it creates. Any assumption that your argument is validated by failure to prove the contrary denotes an argumentum ad ignorantium (argument from ignorance.) 

You argued that the flood was a made up story. You are affirming that the story of flood is made up.

You also state that it isn't like Christianity existed hundreds and thousands of years before it became the norm/state-sponsored. That is another affirmation.

Support your claims.

How can I twist your words when your words are available verbatim for everyone to see? 

Can I take it that you have no support for these claims?

That would be covered by the human nature aspect of the divine hypostasis of The Son.

Determinism is a way that people can avoid responsibility for their own actions by blaming God for making them a terrible person. That might seem to be a crass way of putting it, but that is the implication. God made me do it!

As far as our relationship with God is concerned, a humble and contrite heart is what is proper.  Whether we truly have free will or not, we certainly have the experience of free will. That being the case, it makes no sense to operate as if one had no free will. Determinism, if a reality at all, would certainly be classified as an ignoble truth, because it serves absolutely no benefit to the person who believes it, and is in fact harmful. It is harmful because one cannot repent if they don't take responsibility for their choices.

No, Luciferianism is a perversion of Christianity. Lucifer is a perversion of the Christian God. It's not simply two diametrically opposed disciplines.

As far as State sponsored religions, yes Paganism is "older."

Exactly as I stated above: you're assuming that because the monarchs sponsored and sanctioned Paganism (and they still do) that access to the information which would bring Christianity into prominence (and later Catholicism after Constantine) must have been acquired at or some time after. But it was always there. The earliest "religions" were monotheistic, or at the very least "henotheistic." And polytheism (a.k.a. Paganism) derived from the Babylonian/Sumerian and Kemetic practices--most notably through postdiluvian figure, Ham. 

Before even the very first creation, The Way was established, and by it all things were made.

Walking in The Way requires a cooperation, so choice is involved necessarily.

The Way has always been established for us to walk in from the beginning.

I am not sure what you are saying, but we do not adore nature as God, nor do we make gods out of emotions, ideals, or objects fashioned by hands. Certainly such practices are not orthodox.

nor do we make gods out of emotions

Ideals

Objects fashioned by hands

We do not adore statues or symbols as God. Rather, we recognize that as created beings our relationship with God is through creation.

Even ancient forms of paganism make gods out of forces of nature, emotions, ideals, and at the most base objects fashioned by hands.

So we would still say that the thing that unifies paganism is the worship of created things. That is pretty much what defines paganism to us.

To contrast, we believe in One God, The Ultimate Reality. The Ultimate Reality is not created, but The Uncreated.

I was born on the same day as the landing on the moon. Now it is my birthday.  I guess this means I hijacked it. Or perhaps it was coincidence?

Or perhaps two things can be celebrated on the same day without there being a conspiracy?

LOL! @ all of the conspiracists. 

The religion that we Orthodox Christians follow is The Way.

That isn't immediately obvious to those who are not initiated into the mysteries.

We would actually say that The Way is the primordial religion. True Religion has always existed in some form or another.

True Religion is to abide in The Way. It is to live The Truth.

Paganism, varied as it is, is united by one common thing. The adoration of creation as divine. Because pagans worship the creature rather than the creator, we would say that paganism is infact an aberration of true religion. While True Religion is natural to the pure in heart, paganism only manifests itself when a heart is defiled by idolatry.

There are similarities between Christianity and Paganism a la Luciferianism. (And yes all pagan religions are Luciferian because their gods are incarnations of the Luciferian trinity.) But this is done on purpose. Christianity is known as the "right hand path" and Paganism is the "left hand path." The Christian trinity is "the father, the son, and the holy spirit," and the Luciferian trinity is "the father, the mother, and the son/hermaphrodite." Luiferianism is merely a perversion of Christianity.

You're presuming that Christians "hijacked" those "stories" because of timelines concerning prominence, not access.