Be sure to consult my fully detailed logical and theo-logical book In Consideration of Rev. Dr. Mel White on Christian Homosexuality regarding his claim that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality “as we know it today.”
Here is the link to the Audacity movie site.
To the video, a certain Jeremy posted the comment (and FYI: all of Jeremy’s statements are being quoted sic.):
so if Santa doesn’t like gay people does that matter? no it doesn’t since he isn’t real just like god
I replied thusly:
Friend, I am curious as to how you know that God “isn’t real.”
Jeremy
Ken Ammi the burden of proof is not on me it’s those who propose it. So for example I say there’s an invisible spaghetti monster in the sky it falls on me to prove it not for you to disprove it. So unless you can prove God exists then he doesn’t. my world view is based of science which is ever changing if some thing is wrong with it and can be proven then it changes. the problem with God is he is not needed for any of this to happen
Ken Ammi give me hard evidence God is real and I’ll believe as long it can be tested and shown through peer review to be true. I would love to know there’s an after life but there’s no proof besides an old book written by people living 2000 years ago. Which was only written to make heads or tails of the world they live in
Ken Ammi
One step at a time friend. You noted, “the burden of proof is” on “those who propose it” and you proposed “he isn’t real just like god” is not real thus, how you know that God “isn’t real”?
Jeremy
the first thing i said was a joke to make people upset just like i did you. you know rustle some jimmies. now the problem is i dont need to prove god doesn’t exist you need to prove that he does. i believe in what science tells us and if god is not needed for science to work then i wont believe. the thing is we both read some books and believe what we believe but i read books that a peer reviewed and took multiple years to come to and have scrutinized and if a problem comes up then it gets changed. the bible on the other hand has many problems with it like 1 being if god gave us free will then how could he have hardened the heart of the pharaoh during the story of Moses to not let his people go? he just tampered with free will to not let the Hebrews go, and in return god delivers the Pharaoh and his people the plagues. real great guy there. in summary he made the pharaoh say no to Moses to let Hebrews go (just to do a worshiping of there god out in the country side, not to leave the country as most think). just to deliver the plagues to the people of Egypt. I have also read the bible old testament and new also parts of the Quran. if they didn’t contradict themselves so much they would be more believable.
Ken Ammi
I am unsure why you want to purposefully make people upset as that seems a rather childish goal: in any case, I was not upset. Again, you noted, “the burden of proof is” on “those who propose it” and you proposed “he isn’t real just like god” is not real thus, how you know that God “isn’t real”? Now, since you are unable to, I recommend no longer stating that God “isn’t real” since you believe in that by faith. Now, science tells us nothing rather it is scientists who tell us things. Science has nothing to do with Atheism and Atheism has nothing to do with science. I am sure that you are aware that it was mostly belief in the God of the Bible which served as the premise upon which the scientific method was designed. The very reason why science was thought to work is because a rational being created a rational creation and populated it with rational creatures who could rationally discern it. This is why, for example, cause and effect as well as induction were rightly assumed. You then jump from supposed peer-reviewed science to playing theologian and/or logician. You condemn God based on 1) your own subjective assumptions about will and 2) your own subjective assumptions about ethics (and I find it fascinating that you do not condemn the Egyptians for enslaving the Jews).
Now, since you are appealing to logic and ethics: upon what does your worldview premise these?
Jeremy
ok obviously you are getting made because your not reading what im saying. i believe science and in science god is not need so i am not proposing there is or isnt a god but seeing that he is not need i can assume he is not real. on the other hand you assume he is real, meaing your proposing there is a god meaning you have the burden of proof buddy. nice try tho. your message is tldr btw blah blah blah. i understand i cant change your mind but maybe you can open your eyes and take your head out of you’re a[**]
Ken Ammi
You stated “I’ll believe as long it can be tested and shown through peer review to be true” so please provide one citation to a peer reviewed science paper that proves that “science tells us…god is not needed for science to work”—in fact, send me hundreds since such a conclusion would have repeatedly verified. Now, something that “it’s real” does not exist thus, you entered this conversation by claiming to know that God “it’s real” so that thus, He does not exist but you are unable to prove it and so you retreat. Of course, I only claim that belief in the God of the Bible (for the most part) is the premise upon which the scientific method was based. Your worldview cannot account for induction, for example nor the ethics upon which honesty in doing science is based nor, by the way, the logic upon which you rely in demanding who is responsible for proving what.
So, if you will “believe as long it can be tested and shown through peer review to be true”: what would count as such a test?
Jeremy
Ken Ammi to say this for the 100th time God is not needed for science to work. so seeing this why would scientist waste time and effort to prove or disprove a mythical being. if we did this for God then we should do it for unicorns, dragons, and Santa claus.
Ken Ammi
Exactly friend, you “say this for the 100th time” is just that: merely you saying it based on your own subjective authority. I asked for a peer reviewed science paper that proves that “science tells us…god is not needed for science to work” and you failed to provide even one single one after claiming that such was your epistemology. Again, you made a positive affirmation and we now see that it failed as you failed to defend it. Now, of course, correlating God with unicorns, dragons, and Santa clause is to make a philosophical category error.
So, back to my question if you will “believe as long it can be tested and shown through peer review to be true”: what would count as such a test?
And that, as they say, was that.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.