Should People Take Justice Into Their Own Hands (partocular case)

[Kasz216]

axt113 said:

Kasz216 said:

1) No... it actually does argue whether they existed or not... as that was EXACTLY the burden of proof required by it's now dead followers.  Now, if you killed every follower of Ashur, you in fact WOULD have disproven Ashur as a god because his own followers believed that such a thing would be impossible.  If you killed every Hindu alive, or every Christian alive it would prove nothing, because such a think isn't considered impossible.  It's always important to know what the burden of proof is in an arguement your making.

The burden of proof always lies with the person making the assertive declaration.  If you declare "All religions are bogus."  You have assumed the burden of proof about religion and must prove all religions are bogus.  To do so, you generally need to know how to do that.

2) Hinduism, have you been reading this thread or did you pick one religion in general?  Did you not notice I brought up hinduism earlier?

Hinduism is irrelevent because it had zero to no impact on western religions and Pagan religions.

Hinduism is in fact another religion you can't disprove.  As well as Chinese Ancestor Worship.  Largely irrelevent when considering the burden of proof required to prove or disporve paganism... and just further adding to the point that trying to convince others that all religions are lies is a silly thing to do.

Espeically considering there are documented proofs of various religions.  People and things that we first learned about in religious texts that many took as fable, and later found to be reality.

Heck, there are so many historical events that are true in the Bible and the Talmud, Biblical Archaelogy is it's own field.

The problem with what you are saying, is that the only proof of any god would be to actually find a god or gods, until that point, you're still arguing just the history of believers, not god, since again, you haven't proven whether god actually exists.

Saying that all religions are lies, is merely pointing out that no one has proven god exists, and the burden of proof still ies with any believer, If I say purple elephants with green polka dots exist, I would have to find one, the thing is no religion has found their or any other god, or gods, hence the reason many argue religion is a lie.

Some things about the bible history may be true, but plenty is false, you have things like flat earth, hints of god creating the world in 7 days, creating man from dirt, and a woman from his rib and all the animals at the same time, a story of a global flood, etc. things which are false.

No.  If you tried to prove to someone else that purple elphants with green polka dots exist.  You would have to prove it.  If you believe purple elphants with green polka dots exist, you don't have to prove anything.   If you were going to say they don't exist.  You likewise would have to prove that.  Which, you could prove they don't exist on earth fairly conclusivly, but that there isn't a creature like that somewhere in the universe?  That'd be a foolish claim to make for sure.

As for the "false" things you mentioned.  Again... you are trying to take non-literal things as literal to make a point.

The "Flat earth" Bible quotation for example comes from the saying "Searched the four corners of the earth."

Whenever you read or hear that phrase today, do you think people think the world is flat?  This is largely irrelevent.