But atheists can prove there's no god; you just have to tailor the proof to the particular theology.EquALLity wrote: He was using this argument against people who claim that atheists can't prove there is no God.
You can also make a semantic proof against it, based on the definition, and reject other usages.
You can disprove that one too.EquALLity wrote: It's true, in the sense that we can't disprove the deistic God.
Burden of proof is a very bad argument to make. It's not very convincing, and is usually just a way to avoid engaging in a real discussion or brush something off -- and most theists know that.EquALLity wrote: But TJ's point is that you can come up with tons of preposterous things that cannot be falsified, just like the deistic God, and that the burden of proof is on the people who make the claim a God exists.
You'll have to look at response videos, or cross search some of the top theists on youtube with TJ.EquALLity wrote: He has, really? How do you know that?
I can't get lost in youtube right now.
But there are some smart theists who make names for themselves by debunking people like TJ.
They do. When they have a crisis of faith, that's the first place they go. If they take a good argument with them, the crisis is likely to get worse when the preacher can't offer a good response. If they take TJs arguments... not so much.EquALLity wrote: Hm, good point. I don't know, do they really do this, though?
Yes, withing their denominations and for their followers. They're usually the people who went to seminary school, but there are also some theistic "philosophers" there who do independent study.EquALLity wrote: Theologians are the arbiters of interpretations of scripture in their religions?
Because they know the canon for their religions. As a catholic, you believe the catholic canon, or your beliefs are heretical by definition. As a Lutheran, you believe in the Lutheran canon, or your beliefs are heretical. Etc.EquALLity wrote: I never saw them as such when I was religious. Why do you think they are?
There is some disagreement and heresy within any denomination, but it's kind of like politics. You know how the Democratic and Republican parties have certain official platforms?
Catholicism isn't up for interpretation. The Pope's word is god's word.EquALLity wrote: Evolution isn't really up for interpretation like religion.
This is the case in most denominations. It's only outside of denominations where you find a lot of variation in belief. The independents. When independents are challenged, they'll tend to look for answers in different denominations, or they'll form their own theology, and be able to answer the questions themselves, having become educated in the process.
There are also Christians who don't believe in god, or that Jesus existed. You can call yourself whatever you want. Nobody has much of a claim on the world "Christian". You have to look to a denomination to find a canon, or a particular theologian with a following who has formally answered these questions in the past.EquALLity wrote: Why do you think they all just accept what their preachers tell them? There are liberal Christians who take the Bible metaphorically.
In time, not within the three dimensions of "space".EquALLity wrote: The edge? So it surrounds the Universe?
Not sure what you mean. The universe as we experience it is four dimensional, three space and one time. From a fifth dimensional perspective (see Flatland), you can plot time as another dimension of space. Of course, being outside of time, you can't do anything anymore, or think. But it's a useful thought experiment to visualize time as a dimension.EquALLity wrote: Hm. What is this based off of? I'm not familiar with it.
Public education for one. The television is full of science programs too. As a creationist; they'll tell you they feel assaulted by evolution propaganda constantly. We don't really notice it, because we're not offended by it. Instead we notice the religious nonsense everywhere (which they don't see).EquALLity wrote: Like where? I've never walked into Target and seen some evolution posters.
Correct. This doesn't make him intellectually dishonest, this just makes him a bad person who admits he's a bad person, instead of a bad person who is delusional about it and pretends to be a good person (which is intellectually dishonest).EquALLity wrote: And still he doesn't change his actions, while understanding eating meat is wrong.