So you say, which doesn't mount to much
it amounts to a great deal to those who care to look for evidence and demonstrate their ideas are actually true. We require a certain level of confidence before we teach things in our schools.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
So you say, which doesn't mount to much
it amounts to a great deal to those who care to look for evidence and demonstrate their ideas are actually true. We require a certain level of confidence before we teach things in our schools.
That's only because you can't make sense of the whole chapter. If read all the chapter
Then all the Verse's will make sense.
But as it is, you can't even make sense of one verse let alone the whole chapter.
What your doing, is taking one verse and cancel out all the other Verse's
He has evidence for his beliefs, something that you lack.No but you don't mind, pushing your ideas into schools and politics. So what goes around comes around.
So by who's definition, yours.
If you don't like certain things that maybe taught in the schools, my advice would be, don't sign up for those classes.
But as it is, people only want to have something to complain about.
No it goes both ways, if you say, there is no God, then the burden of proof is on you also.
Alot of people seem to think it's a one way street and it's not. So It goes both ways.
So if I believe there is God, What's that to you.
I have nothing to prove to anyone, except to myself.
By this logic, you must prove that I do not have a live elephant in my bedroom. Either that, or believe me when I say I have one.
No it goes both ways, if you say, there is no God, then the burden of proof is on you also.
Alot of people seem to think it's a one way street and it's not. So It goes both ways.
So if I believe there is God, What's that to you.
I have nothing to prove to anyone, except to myself.
It is not possible to prove there is no god.
Have you heard of Russell's Teapot, is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others. Wiki explains it...
Russell's teapot - Wikipedia
So you cannot shift the burden of proof, you are making the extravagant claim, "There is a god"; you then make claims about it being invisible, etc.
That's why #Tiberius said about the elephant in his bedroom. I don't believe he has one and want it proving before I'll believe it. It is the same with all claims of supernatural, the burden of proof is clearly with the claimant.
It is nothing to me.So what if I say there is God, what is that to you.
What you think, that I'm suppose to prove that.
That's me and what I believe.
But for some reason, people think people are to prove themselves.
Unto which I don't have prove anything to anyone. But myself.
It is nothing to me.
BUT if you then insist that your god be taught in schools as fact; your god has tax exempt status; your god cannot be offended...that's when I become concerned.
I know I've won an argument when the personal insults begin.I didn't insist nothing, are you paying attention or is that too hard for you.
I said if people want to be taught in school about the bible, No one's forcing anyone to take up that class.
Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean everyone else has to.
I know I've won an argument when the personal insults begin.
I didn't insist nothing, are you paying attention or is that too hard for you.
I said if people want to be taught in school about the bible, No one's forcing anyone to take up that class.
Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean everyone else has to.
You do realize that if they teach about the Bible in schools, which they can do legally, that it has to be done properly. That means that it could not be taught as if it was an authoritative book at all. It could only be taught as a religion and it would have to be compared to other religions that are just as valid as it is. So one would have to include the Koran, the Vidas, teachings on Buddhism etc.. The flaws of the Bible would probably have to be taught too. Its many self contradictions, its failures in the sciences. Would you want the myths of the Bible made obvious in schools?
As you wish, typical ChristianThere's no personal insults, just facts
You will have no problem if Quran is taught in schools to right?So you say. You claim contradictions and myths, which proves nothing, only that you have no understanding what your talking about.
But young kids don't have a choice, they are indoctrinated with 'faith', unproven fables. Also, just try opting out of lessons, there is no alternative lesson or spare teacher; you are told to sit at the back and get on with 'something'.I said if people want to be taught in school about the bible, No one's forcing anyone to take up that class.
Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean everyone else has to.
You will have no problem if Quran is taught in schools to right?
So you say. You claim contradictions and myths, which proves nothing, only that you have no understanding what your talking about.