I work as a bartender part-time so I would say that beer or alcohol could possibly be my god.

__________________




-i got kicked out of barnes and noble once for moving all the bibles into the fiction section

My Facebook thing. . .

Think You Watch Movies? http://www.halo3forum.com/movies/81621-movies-you-need-see-before-you-die-weekly-review.html

Here's a better analogy. The prosecutor says that the defendant did it and the defense says he didn't do it, and they both back up their arguments with faith. They try to convince the jury that they also have evidence, but it's just smoke and mirrors. Some of the jury members pick one side, some pick the other, and every once in a while, one juror will see through the bullsh.t and say, "It would be wrong of me to make a decision because there's no good reason to go one way or the other, at least up until this point in the trial."

__________________

What a weak argument...

Now just imagine...and ponder for a second if I said: "I never wanted to prove christianity...I just wanted to prove Christianity was the best."

now ponder for a moment...and honestly tell yourself what your response would be.

oh the joy of wikipedia...

BURDEN OF PROOF

In the common law, burden of proof is the obligation to prove allegations which are presented in a legal action. More colloquially, burden of proof refers to an obligation in a particular context to defend a position.

LEGAL USES

the burden of proof is the concept of holding one party to a dispute or one side of a debate responsible for producing a prima facie case. If this party fails to produce a valid case, the decision will go against them, without requiring any further evidence or discussion.

The burden... initially lies with the plaintiffs in a case, and not on a defendant who would need to prove that something did not happen.

For example, if the defendant (D) is charged with murder, the prosecutor (P) bears the burden of proof to show the jury that D did murder someone

REASONABLE DOUBT

This is the standard required in most criminal cases. This means that the proposition must be proven to the extent that there is no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a reasonable person. There can still be a doubt, but only to the extent that it would be "unreasonable" to assume the falsity of the proposition.

It may be a doubt... however... as the law states, it must be a reasonable doubt. In all of that litany of doubts you rattled off, none of them were reasonable.

So... using legal and historical evidence, I'm sure someone with a third graders education could answer this simple question:

Man A claims that Ronald McDonald is God, man B claims that Jesus is God.

The question is this: Using legal and historical evidence, evaluate which man has the better argument.

If we use reason, bolstered by Legal and Historical evidence...We can obviously eliminate the Ronald McDonald man. If we can indeed do that... then we have narrowed the field down from 1,000,000 different religions to choose from to 999,999 religions to choose from. Now agnosticism (if I'm understanding it correctly) claims to give equal value to ALL religions. If we, as all rational people would, can eliminate just one of them, then it follows that agnosticism is not the best way to go.

Now... if I'm understanding you correctly (please correct me if I'm not) you are saying that scientific evidence is the only evidence you will accept? Are you disregarding entirely legal and historical evidence?

I should hope not.

This would be a lot easier if you would consider my entire posts rather than picking certain parts and ignoring others that explain the questions you bring up. Read what you quoted, and then read all the pertinent information that follows, information that you conveniently neglected to respond to.Unlike Chrisitianity, agnosticism makes no claims to prove. That's why, in the case of agnosticism, there's a difference between proving it and proving that it's the best choice.

There's a simple reason for why this argument is an utter failure: the court is sometimes wrong, and likewise, history certainly cannot always be relied upon for a completely accurate portrait of the past. Innocent people are sometimes convicted, guilty people are sometimes aquitted, and historians are sometimes corrupted by bias. That's the risk you run when you use legal and historical evidence. Reasonable doubt and a reliance on legal evidence mean that there will always be a chance you're wrong in the courtroom, and the same kind of problem applies to historical evidence. Are you really willing to come to a conclusion about the mysteries of life if there's a chance that you might be wrong? I'm not.

You are not understanding agnosticism correctly. You can't just demonstrate that one is less valid than all the others, you have to demonstrate that one is more valid than all the others. Also, there is as much actual evidence for Ronald McDonald being God as there is for Jesus. That is, of course, unless you would consider it evidence if I wrote a book claiming that Ronald McDonald was God and I brainwashed hundreds of people into believing that Ronald McDonald had performed miracles in their lives.

That depends (but the answer is probably yes). I completely disregard all of the legal and historical evidence I've encountered so far.

__________________

Your reason for why it may be the best choice maqy not suit the fancies of others. For example, you stated that because it demands no exact proof, then it is the best choice, because it lies right in the middle.

The problem with this is that agnostics are in a constant search for truth, truth in the form of evidence, or truth in the form of revelation by God. There is no standard for agnostics that state they could care less.

__________________

Well… maybe it’s time for a grammar lesson. The verb “to be” is defined as “To exist in actuality; have life or reality”

In your last post, you used different twenty one different indicative conjugations of the verb “to be.”

Now, agnosticism may not be making any claims about truth, but I happen to know one very opinionated agnostic who’s making them left and right.

It may be better to go back over all of your previous posts and change all your verbs to the subjunctive or in some other way put them into the conditional tense.

Allright…

Well… let’s take a moment to compare your courtroom to my courtroom:

1.) my courtroom admits all evidence, legal, historical and scientific.

2.) your courtroom accepts only scientific evidence.

There’s a simple reason why your courtroom is utter failure: my courtroom is sometimes wrong, however, your courtroom is almost always wrong, science certainly cannot always be relied upon for a completely accurate portrait of the past. (Or any portrait at all for that matter) In my courtroom, innocent people are sometimes convicted, guilty people are sometimes aquitted, and historians are sometimes corrupted by bias. However, in your courtroom, due to the inadmissibility of legal and historical evidence, guilty people are almost always acquitted, and it’s quite easy for innocent to end up in the slammer just the same. That’s the ridiculous risk you run when you throw out legal and historical evidence.

Really imagine that for a second. Imagine a world in which the courts only operated off scientific evidence. Laboratories mess up. Scientists disagree. You change from a system in which people are sentenced correctly almost all the time, to a system in which people are sentenced incorrectly most of the time. What a terrible place to live… I’m sure glad our country isn’t like that.

Except circumstantial evidence and testimony ("historical evidence and records") will never PROVE anything. And what the hell is "legal evidence"?

Christianity doesn't even have that. There is absolutely no evidence (of any kind) you can give me to try to sway me to believe that Jesus was the son of God. Nor can you give me any kind of evidence that supports the claim that Christianity is right over all other religions.

And you're completely missing the point as it is. Agnosticism is not "almost always wrong" because agnosticism never claims to be "right" in the first place. You clearly cannot grasp the concept. Agnosticism is NOT atheism. People judging religion are not jurors; they are not forced to make a choice that has a bearing on anything. They are waiting for answers. Therefore, your courtroom analogy doesn't apply to anything, and is useless.

Agnostics do not claim anything, therefore you have nothing against us. It's religion, it's Christians, it's YOU who is up for review.

__________________

What do you mean Agnosticism makes no claims? Do you guys honestly believe yourselves above the rest of us?

This whole post is entitled "The Case for Agnosticism." Are you really suggesting that someone could build an entire case around something that doesn't exist?

Even if their claim is simply: "everything else is wrong."...then that still is, nevertheless, a claim.

You yourself even claim that "Agnostics do not claim anything".... that, in and of itself is a claim...

You say that people judging religion are not jurors because "they are not forced to make a choice that has a bearing on anything." Are you suggesting that a person's religion has no bearing on anything? Everybody is forced in their life to judge religion whether they want to or not. Based on how you talk on this site, it's safe to say that you have judged religion extensively. EVERYONE judges religion, and EVERY school of thought is up for examination... yes... including (*gasp*) agnosticism.

Don't think that your agnosticism is so special and different from everything. It's not... it's just one school of thought among the rest, it's up for judgement just the same as anything else.

...who needs what lesson?

lmfao...

You really, really don't get it, do you?

Yeah. That's it. You got it.

We are not telling you what we know. We are telling you what you DON'T know.

You're an idiot.

Um...yes. Deciding what your religion is will not condemn the man sitting next to you to death/life in prison.

Agnosticism is not a school of thought. Know why? WE DON'T CLAIM TO KNOW ANYTHING REGARDING THE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS OF LIFE. Good lord, you are dense.

Get over yourself.

__________________