Mjpasta710

joined 10 months ago
[–] Mjpasta710@midwest.social -2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

So your answer to why your opinion is more valid than everyone else is; Because I say so?

Thanks for providing clear sources as to why your opinion is more valid than the dissenters with credentials.

[–] Mjpasta710@midwest.social 1 points 4 months ago

what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence

[–] Mjpasta710@midwest.social 1 points 4 months ago

Things that exist, can be scientifically proven. We have evidence for the presence of dark matter. This is a placeholder for something we don't know what it is yet.

We don't have evidence of gods in any way that can be tested.

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" - hitchens razor

[–] Mjpasta710@midwest.social 3 points 4 months ago

No. There's a whole mythology that Smith alluded to. That mythology and its alleged revelation were supposedly there before smith or anyone else. Smith is a charlatan who started the myth.

Jesus' myth was started by alleged followers (being generous) at least 50+ years after his alleged existence.

All of the myths attributed to yeshua are torn from other sources and are a patchwork of stories that held attention at the time.

It's more likely yeshua was a myth told by charlatans who needed money to keep spreading the wonderful story of a Jew who could have ruled the Roman empire but fed the poor and healed others instead.

[–] Mjpasta710@midwest.social 1 points 4 months ago

If it's possible, reproduce the claims. Until you can produce evidence of something, they are unfounded claims.

The Heaven's Gate cult wrote things down and had a whole group of folks that would confirm the beliefs they had.

According to you, the burden of proof is on society.

So I challenge you in the same way you're attempting here.

Prove the Heaven's Gate cult wrong. They made very reasonable claims(according to them) and it's up to you to prove them wrong.

That's what you are doing. Until you can prove someone is able to do the things in your text(s). It's a fable. You're still arguing in bad faith.

New topic: provide your initial rules and conditions for entering responses.

[–] Mjpasta710@midwest.social 0 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Happened overnight too. /S

This isn't an accurate account of history.

If you've studied any of the Roman empire in antiquity you're actively acting in bad faith.

If not, why are you making things up? Why are you actively lying?

Constantine is reported as making it the state religion 300+ years after the alleged existence of yeshua.

[–] Mjpasta710@midwest.social 1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Fact: when science holds an incorrect idea, based on observable evidence - the idea changes to match reality. If there were observable evidence of your imaginary sky guy, scientists would update their idea or theory to match the observable evidence.

Saying that there might be elephants living on top of clouds doesn't make it true. Entertaining the idea without proof is not science or even theory.

Even with perfect faith, elephants still live on terra firma.

[–] Mjpasta710@midwest.social 1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Science is about testable repeatable actions and concepts. Science describes what can be observed.

What can be observed and tested in your claims?

[–] Mjpasta710@midwest.social 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

You're making an incorrect assumption that says the burden of proof is not yours. I'm not making absurd claims about things that defy all logic and physical limits.

You are. The burden is on you.

Your invisible helper cannot carry this burden for you.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

[–] Mjpasta710@midwest.social 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

Joseph Smith certainly looked at golden tablets to reveal the holy truth that black people have dark skin due to a curse upon them. /s

view more: ‹ prev next ›