Kasz216 said:
weaveworld said:
Kasz216 said:
KungKras said:
irstupid said:
Alara317 said:
HesAPooka said:
I'm not religious, but I also don't go around bashing people who are. |
Criticizing religion is "There's no substantial proof in god or the spiritual. Until you can prove it, I can't take your claims as anything more than empty claims."
|
That's the most pathetic argument ever invented.
It has the exact same counter argument. "Prove that God doesn't exist"
|
That's the most pathetic counter argument ever. The one making the claim has to prove it. Otherwise, if you can't disprove flying space unicorns in the andromeda galaxy, it's a totally valid theory.
|
I feel like it's worth noting that if we are talking historical proof, as in, enough proof that something existed in the past... there actually as much proof for God as there is most commonly taught historical figures.
Just something interesting to consider the next time you think of a historical figure like Nero, or Julius Ceaser a number of Egyptian Pharohs etc.
Or even more interestingly, third party figures.
|
Despite dig-sites and a lot of Roman cities still around, pictures of Caeser on coins and bustes of the same head, drawings, sadly enough copies of his manuscripts, mentions in historians work (Sallust 86-34BC) that did survive, you are saying that there is as much historical evidence of his existence as of gods existence?
|
Lets see... cities that exist that god supposidly intereacted with. Check. Far more so. Hell some are still around today.
Pictures and statues of god on objects. Check.
Writings supposidly written by god. Check. Still in print no less!
Hisotircal works that mention god. Yep. All kinds of various sources.
(and yes this does work for most gods, or a lot of it does anyway. I suppose not the wirtten works part.)
I'd point out though that i'm not so much argueing that God exists, as I am illuminating how historical proof is actually a lot less strict then you would think.
|
Are you not just referring to ideas of people instead of evidence? So what you would be saying is that Caesar and all that is related to him (could have) sprung from the human mind. Including Cleopatra, Marcus Anthonius and the likes?
Probably not the discussion i want to get into, since i don't feel the need to deny anyones existence, it's just the part about the historical proof that tripped me.
