SoTS,
Thanks for providing what should be from here on in a citation to be referred back to, demonstrating your utter ignorance of what religious belief entails.
So you assert. Let’s see shall we?
Before people discovered gravity, was it a subjective or objective fact that gravity exists?
Based on what we know now, it objectively existed. Prior its discovery though there was at that time no basis on which to call it a "fact".
Did the sum of the square on the hypotenuse of a right-angled triangle being the sum of the squares of other two sides of the triangle only become objective fact when Pythagoras discovered it?
See above.
There is *nothing* stopping you testing Alan Burns' claims for yourself. In fact, that's the advice of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount: Seek and you will Find. However, that's where you guys have a problem. Your philosophy calls that a 'confirmation bias', so once again, you find yourself in the impossible position of asking for evidence of something, whilst using a methodology that makes a predictive claim about the origin of that evidence.
Oh dear. There’s everything stopping me from testing AB’s claims for myself because:
A). The claims are in any case incoherent;
andB.) He offers no method to do the testing. “Just take my word for it” is not a method.
You are without excuse because all of the arguments you use here against religious belief fall down flat when used on your arguments against religious belief.
In English please. If you can’t communicate the thought though, perhaps at least try to give an example of it?
- Your worldview assumes the truth of it's position.
What assumption do you think it makes?
- Your worldview is not falsifiable
I have no idea what you mean by a “worldview”, but as my position relies on testable and falsifiable hypotheses that’s clearly not true.
- Your worldview requires faith (something that is wrong when people with a religious belief do it) as it is unprovable.
What “faith” do you think it requires, and what has “unproveable” go to do with the probabilistic?
It's why you guys have a whole philosophy set up (Negative Proof Fallacy, etc) which means that you never have to account for your own position. If you could defend it, you would and if shown to be true would disprove all religious belief claims.
It’s not “a philosophy”, it’s logic. If you don’t like it when logic undoes you, then suggest a different method of investigating truth claims.
I would go as far as to say that your position is a whole lot worse than those of religious belief. Taking the main monotheistic religions: For Christianity, the falsification test is whether or not Jesus Christ rise from the dead. For Islam, there is only one God (Allah) and that Muhammad is the messenger of God (I'll stand to be corrected by Gabriella on that one). For Judaism, the Messiah is still to come.
So? How would you go about falsifying any of these claims, any more than you would falsify the claim that leprechauns leave pots of gold at the ends of rainbows?
You justify the double standards…
What "double standards”? You’ve yet to demonstrate them.
…by trying to claim that belief v non-belief is not a 50-50 scenario (same as Dawkins tried in 'The God Delusion'). Again, all that illustrates is the double-standards, hence why positive claims from religious believers always have to be backed up, but positive claims by those arguing against religious belief (e.g. God does not exist, Jesus didn't rise from the dead, etc), do not appear to require justification.
And speaking of logic, why do you think trying straw men like these will help you? It’s not that there are statements that “God does not exist, Jesus didn't rise from the dead” etc – it’s that
there are no good reasons to think that these things did happen.
Look, you’re an awful long way out of your depth here old son. If you want to play this game can I suggest that you try first to get a least a basic grasp of logical thinking so as to avoid embarrassing yourself like this again?
