JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Do not shift the burden of proof.
Also, my post was about the authenticity of the quote you attributed to Albert Einstein. Please address the points I raised with respect to that.
Last edited:
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?
- Thread starter Kumar
- Start date
Do not shift the burden of proof.
Also, my post was about the authenticity of the quote you attributed to Albert Einstein. Please address the points I raised with respect to that.
No, I am asking burden of proof from you for what you claimed. Provide A&F proofs. How you could be A&F sure on those religions to which you even neither followed nor opted. Or, you know nothing about those but claimed as if you are omniscient.
Quote was provided. If you do not accept that, it is your problem not mine. Say for eg, one family head shown 100 girls to a family youngsters for marriage. He did not liked anyone. Then , it is his fault, not of family head or of girls. Take care.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
No, you're shifting the burden of proof. You're claiming Jainism is a religion natural, scientific, and universal. Those are your claims. I don't believe those claims. Disputing your affirmative claims does not create a contrary burden of proof.
You didn't provide a quote. You provided references to various people who claimed Einstein said a certain thing. I gave you my reasons for disbelieving those claims. I gave them to you twice. You are obviously unable to respond to those reasons. What's worse, you accused me (and, I suppose, your other critics) of not doing their homework. In fact you just Googled for something and uncritically repeated it without verification. Do you even understand how proof works?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
"Kumar is an idiot." -- Lord Mahavira
See how easy that is to do. Obviously he said it, because I can provide a link to where he said it.
See how easy that is to do. Obviously he said it, because I can provide a link to where he said it.
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
No no no. That's your job. "Some link" doesn't do it.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
If those religions make testable claims of fact, or you make them on behalf of those religions, one doesn't have to be an expert in the religion. One merely has to be an expert in testable facts -- which I am. Examples from nature have been shown to you that dispute your religion. Examples from science have been shown to you that dispute your religion. Examples from comparative religion have been shown to you that dispute your claim that your religion ought to be considered universal.
The problem is that you've already admitted you don't accept any facts that don't already agree with your religion. When you say that, you can't say it's some other person's fault for not knowing your religion. You're simply indifferent to fact, and that's not going to be fixed by demanding that others drink your Kool-Aid.
Straw man. One does not have to be omniscient to be able to draw a reasoned conclusion.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
No.
Religions that pretend to be scientific but patently aren't don't deserve respect. They're trying to leverage others' work to buttress their credibility. Religions that pretend to be "natural" but are clearly just sectarian contrivances don't deserve respect. Religions whose members lord their manufactured morality over others don't deserve respect.
You show zero respect for any ideas that don't agree with your religion. You don't get to be the victim. Respect is earned, not demanded. Earn it, or GTFO.
Where you have shown A&F science proofs, this religion is fake and just a made story?
Previously, We discussed some other well existing practice but most poster here rejected that. But also presented many studies to support that rejection. But you have not provided any such study.
All odds which you raise personally for me, also can apply on you by other side of coin. If I say, Jainism is not in your personal vested interest, so just opposing in your self interest will it look good to you?
Yes when some belief in involved people is kept. For A&F proofs, NO BELIEF in any one other than self, should be thye first condition. Like I told about DNA report. *If you keep on going so far, we can have full logical right to ask proof of your A&F skeptical or non-believer. Any BELIEF without valid A&F statistical and practical evidences can not justify anyone as true skeptical.
I was reading properties of cancer cells. First, they do not harmonize with their family members. 2nd, they are Individual. 3td: they are fast dividing and spreading. 4th: they steals nutrients of other family members. 5th: they do not obey orders of their lord/body mechanism 6th. they do not die themselves but kill their god/body and then also get killed....so on. Although I someway understand how to handle them but still I shall not want anyone become victim of them. Respect, Earn it, or GTFO(?). Sorry.
Provided. I am quite noble or idiot person.
Already provided. Today only, one most valid. My Burden of proof is over not it is your turn to prove yourselves for not to be felt as fake writer.
Bring a Time Machine(it appear, you can) I shall accompany you. Then you will get practical A&F proof. Otherwises can not satisfy you.
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
You are the one making the claim - that this religion is the one true religion - so the burden of proof is on you. Where have you shown evidence - not A&F science proof, just evidence - that this religion is genuine and not just a made up story? Until you provide such evidence everyone else is free to reject your claim out of hand.
Note that JayUtah and the other sceptics here have not, in fact, done that, even though we would be perfectly entitled to do so. As JayUtah says: "Examples from nature have been shown to you that dispute your religion. Examples from science have been shown to you that dispute your religion. Examples from comparative religion have been shown to you that dispute your claim that your religion ought to be considered universal."
So even though the burden of proof is on you, we have provided evidence to support our rejection of your claim that this religion is genuine and not just a made up story. You have provided no evidence to support it.
Your one sided liking is well apparent so value nothing to me. I provided all religious proofs which he is persistently disputing. He is also disputing all other religions. Therefore he has burden of proof to prove his counter claim for it and other religions. Do you remember you have presented many studies & meta studies, to counter claims on H. Here it was also accepted with A&F. You have not counterattacked without proofs. Like it, he should also prove his counter-attacks. Quite justified.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Remember: Kumar thinks that the more hits he gets on a Google search for words about a concept, the truer the concept is.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1014169#post1014169
If you do not believe google, why you people do not pursue their correction or discontinuance? If so, is it not misguiding and harming general public?
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
You still don't understand the burden of proof. Of course JayUtah is disputing the "religious proofs" you have provided, because they are worthless for the reasons he has patiently explained.
Yes you have often been provided with evidence that disproves homeopathy but we didn't need to do that to reject the claims made by homeopaths. As long as homeopaths failed to provide evidence for their claims, those claims can be rejected out of hand. The fact that there is also evidence against them strengthens the case against accepting the claims, but that case was already pretty strong.
Having said that, evidence has been provided against your current claim. Once again, as JayUtah says, "Examples from nature have been shown to you that dispute your religion. Examples from science have been shown to you that dispute your religion. Examples from comparative religion have been shown to you that dispute your claim that your religion ought to be considered universal". So the case against your claim has been strengthened, whilst you have still to provide any meaningful evidence to support it.
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
Bye, Kumar.ALL,
THEASE DISCUSSIONS HAVE BECOME ODD TO VERY VERY ODD AN ONE SIDED> HENCE BEST TIME TO CLOSE THESE DISCUSSIONS> OVER AND ALL FROM MY SIDE. I REMAINED QUITE REASONABLE.
THANKS FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION AND CONTRIBUTION.
GOOD BYE.
Next time you want to discuss a topic, it would be greatly appreciated if you would take the time to learn something about it before you start a thread and make largely unintelligible posts about it.
See you next time.