nikolas said:
By rational i meant he does not suddenly decide to throw me into hell even if i was a good christian for example.
God doesn't throw good Christians into hell. Whatever gave you that impression is, to the best of my beliefs, entirely false.
nikolas said:
I agree, case closed. Faith=ignorance.
Faith
1. strong belief in something, esp. without proof
You see the difference between Science and religion, is that Science is based on facts/evidence and what not, religion has nothing but appeals to authority, emotion, logical fallacies and false proofs.
What are facts/evidence? They are all based on assumptions that we have made, based on our own understandings. Much of science is actually just theory, which can neither be conclusively proven nor disproven - just like religion. You show hypocrisy by supporting one and yet claiming that it is irrational to support another.
Tell me, I assume you accept the model we're taught in chemistry about what atoms look like and the shell structure of them? Why is it that this is somehow more factual than Christianity?
You'll no doubt say something like, because it explains our observations - it's like a theory of best fit. Just as religion explains our cause, our purpose on earth. Just as religion explains, what science can't, about how the universe began (and science will never be able to explain this... for the simple reason that it's impossible for nothing to create something)... about what happens after death... and so on.
nikolas said:
Are you retarded? You have used this whole analogy ...well ...er ...stupidly.
In a court of Australia, if i claim someone is guilty of a crime, it is up to to me to prove it. Otherwise he is innocent until proven Guilty.
In your logic, i could basically say "You are Guilty of murder, prove me wrong". Which is NOT Innocent until proven guilty but the reverse. Guilty until proven innocent.
Way to go and lack basic understanding. Halfwit.
My analogy went over your head - it wasn't meant to be a brain-bender either, I might add. Christianity is my belief,
you're accusing me of being wrong,
hence the onus of proof is on
you to disprove it, or move on.
The analogy works, and I constantly link back to this. However, by saying Christianity is false, you are questioning the integrity of all those who have prayed to God and felt like they've been answered, who have seen God and those who wrote the Bible. So you are accusing them of being guilty of fallacy or misrepresentation at the very least.
So by the analogy that I used, you are the one accusing people of being guilty and hence the burdon to prove your stance is on you.