Related Posts
-
Life Movement - Part 3
+65 points / pics -
Life Movement - Part 2
+81 points / pics -
Life movement - Part 1
+58 points / pics -
Life Movement - Part 5
+50 points / pics -
what is life????
+28 points / ask -
Jesus and Pals! part 2!
+196 points / pics -
Jesus and Pals! part 1!
+181 points / pics -
Motivational pictures PART 2
+60 points / pics -
A story that defined my life part 2
+69 points / misc -
My life (sucks)
+34 points / misc
"Why is it wrong that a man and a woman have courtship if they are befriended? Why would the woman say friendship is more important than love, if that is what friendship is? I wish not to be your 'Boyfriend', I only wish to be your best friend, who hold each other dearest over others. I love you Jenna, even if you never know it."
1) Because in some cases it is true. That is to say: certain individuals just want to feel morally superior. They will go out and bomb an abortion clinic just because they have convinced themselves that's what God wants. Even though God says you can't kill people. They will go out picket, scream, and yell against gay marriage, and not even bat an eye when politicians commit adultery, or steal, or lie under oath. They blind themselves to the truth, because knowing the truth might mean that they aren't as righteous as they want to believe.
2) People who want to believe religion is nothing but fabricated lies and enslavement are just as blind. Never mind that every government that has ever banned religion has only done so because they don't want their people to believe in any authority higher than the government. And that the vast majority of revolutions against oppressive governments/policies were grounded in religion, for example: Martin Luther King Jr. against segregation (Biblical values of equality).
The fact of the matter is that #'s 1 and 2 are simply different sides of the same smug, self-centered, willfully ignorant coin. Neither actually cares about the truth, just the feeling of moral superiority.
As for the "burden of proof", I would say it is the burden of both sides. If you are trying to convert someone to your religion, you need proof. If you are trying to dispel someones religion, then you need proof as well. Currently, both sides have reasonable doubt:
1) Science doesn't know everything, for the longest time scientists thought light traveled instantaneously for no other reason than they lacked a distance long enough to prove otherwise. It wasn't until people started to understand the solar system that they found a long enough distance. To assume that science will never prove the existence/nonexistence of God is at this point premature. From a PURELY logical standpoint, being Agnostic is the most justifiable personal belief.
2) Like I said above, many people don't really care about the truth, they only want that smug feeling of moral superiority. It's pretty unlikely that type of person will ever prove anything other than the lengths at which some people will go to ignore the fact that they could be wrong.
Personally, I have what is called "personal proof" of God, and I understand that it doesn't fit into the scientific definition of evidence because it cannot be repeated. Which is just as well, because the multiple situations in which I received this proof are so personal that I would never share it.
omg i just found a message in my alphabits it says 'ooooooo'
oh wait sorry im eating cheerios.