Comments by "J Nagarya" (@jnagarya519) on "Idaho murder suspect a 'classic-case psychopath,' expert says | Rush Hour" video.
-
Someone using the fake screen name "Chris Cuomo" -- obviously a right-winger who is ignorant and determined to remain ignorant. As example, in the following he strikes out on at least three counts:
"who decides what constitutes evidence, and what weight that evidence bears, and what constitutes proof?
The rule of law.
In the United States, under the US Constitution, "religion" is separated from gov't, and gov't is by definition RULE OF LAW.
"Do you decide that for everyone, or does everyone decide for themselves?"
You live in a SOCIETY based upon RULE OF LAW that applies to EVERYONE. PROOF is decided by consensus based on OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE. In this context, the alleged murder DECIDED FOR HIMSELF -- which is EXACTLY what YOU are saying should be done.
Meanwhile, Christ ALLEGEDLY said to keep one's "religious" practices PRIVATE else they be merely to impress OTHERS.
" I bet if i were to ask you "define 'evidence' as it pertains to evidence of God" you couldn't give a definition. atheists don't care about evidence."
The ISSUE is whether the alleged "evidence" is CREDIBLE -- whether it withstands objective scrutiny. I would assume that is the FIRST concern of "atheists"; and the FAILURE of such as you to provide CREDIBLE "evidence" for your view.
First, the "evidence" that there IS a "God" is thousands of years of "argument" by theologians, based upon alleged assertions made by illiterate sheepherders who apparently heard voices written as a "bible" many decades AFTER Christ was executed. The FLAW in the theologians' "arguments FOR their being a "God" begin with the BIASED PREMISE that there IS a "God" -- leaving out the actual intellectual honesty of being UNBIASED on the question. That is why, when challenged, St. Augustine asserted: "I believe BECAUSE there is no evidence" -- which is as irrational as can be. "I can walk across the street amid the traffic and not be injured by simply BELIEVING that I can do that and not be injured" makes as much sense: NONE.
Second, it is EVIDENCE that you're a simpleton that you not only leave out the REALITY of your existing IN A SOCIETY WITH OTHERS, but you also ASSume that anyone who doesn't agree with your belief is therefore an "atheist". There is a moderate position: agnostic. Agnostics acknowledge also that they DON'T know. They DON'T know that there ISN'T a "God" or "afterlife"; but they ALSO know that the "evidence" for such is NOT CREDIBLE. BIGOTS such as you FEAR admitting that YOU DO NOT KNOW that there's a "God" or an "afterlife" -- because you are desperate for them to exist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1