Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Was Jesus gay?
Now this is something I have not come across in all my years. Some people actually hypothesize that Jesus, assuming he existed (and I am not saying he didn't) may have been gay.
Now, this is of little to no consequence to me, and really, shouldn't be to anybody, but I am interested in this because, seeing the title of this movie, I assumed this to be a joke, and it appears to be at first, but then a few interesting things are mentioned, in a half-joking-but-who-knows sort of way....
Is this idea ever given credence by theologians?
Evolution isn't True?
If you have an issue with Evolutionary Theory, read the text on the following picture (click to zoom in), and answer the question at the bottom of it:
(And by the way, to head off any possible ''it's just a theory!!'' responses, the meaning of the word 'theory' in science is much different than the colloquial usage of the term:
In the sciences, a scientific theory (also called an empirical theory) comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.)
(And by the way, to head off any possible ''it's just a theory!!'' responses, the meaning of the word 'theory' in science is much different than the colloquial usage of the term:
In the sciences, a scientific theory (also called an empirical theory) comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
So, which one is it? As it says, if you have a problem with Evolution, you have a problem with one or more of these fourteen points. Which will it be?
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
My Attempt To Return Vampires to Glory. Pt. 1
It's a sad time to be a fan of vampire lore. They started off so well. From Bram Stoker to Anne Rice, vampires have become entrenched in our consciousness, and for good reason. Terrifying yet alluring, these creatures who roam by night and sleep by day strike both fear and curiosity into those who encounter them.
But now......
Now Hollywood has taken vampires and comepletely ruined them. Vampires to not go to school. They do not engage in teen romaces. The certainly do not glitter in the sunlight!
Vampires should be nasty creatures who can put on a veneer of civility if it suits them. They are essentially undead psychopaths. There have been varying iterations of these creatures throughout the years, sarting with Bram Stoker's vision of a refined gentleman living in a gothic castle who harbored a......nasty little secret, and unfortunately culminating in the affront to the horror genre we see today:
Really, what the hell is that?
My personal idea of what vampires should be is a cross between Stoker's original vision and the nasty, viscious creatures seen in the movie 30 Days of Night:
Now THAT'S a Vampire!
And so, with this in mind, I bring you an excerpt from my entry into last years' 3 Day Novel contest, still in the judging phase. The entry is a short novel, written in 3 days, as per the rules, so it's definitely a bit rough around the edges, but I believe it turned out rather well for a 3 day marathon effort. So, without further ado, I give you an excerpt from Hunter's Bluff, my attempt to return vampires to the state to which they rightfully belong, while at the same time hopefully injecting some new ideas.
(Enjoy, and feel free to offer any criticisms you may have. If this garners enough interest, I'll post more, so let me know if you're interested or not.)
As the shadows grew longer and longer in Hunter's Bluff, and as the night began to take over the day, there grew a certain restlessness. In a cave at the south end of the city, the existence of which was and always had been completely unknown to all humans; the entrance hidden in the underbrush of the forest at the city lines, creatures, centuries old and confined to slumber during the day, began to awaken, slowly, in stages. Muscles began to contract as nerve impulses were sent, readying them for the mobility which was soon to come. Dreams of splendor and feasting were broken up and dissipated, giving rise to a growing consciousness as these creatures, anxious to begin an evening anew, awakened from their slumber. These particular few, however, drew from their slumber as though drunken. Weary, weakened, they rose unsteadily to their feet. Some more so than others, as all were in various stages of starvation. These few, however more fortunate than some of their comrades who now, unbeknownst to them, lay dead on a highway, were much less fortunate than their former kin, who lived a life of spoil and splendor, in parts of the world long left behind, feeding upon humans, drinking their maddeningly tasty, nourishing, rejuvenating blood.
No, these few were confined to this reclusive little town by a master incensed by their audacity. For these few, along with their fallen brethren, had dared to challenge his authority, had even the tenacity to try and overtake him. Their former master, whose very name they dare not speak, for it can burn the tongue it crosses, or so it has been said, had, approximately a year and a half earlier, banished the ungrateful few to a remote area with a limited food supply and left them to their fates.
The group of exiled creatures had totaled eleven. Their numbers had been reduced down to three by this day. Five had, due to starvation once the human and animal food supplies had started to run thin, ventured off, at varying times, to try and locate another town that some had believed existed somewhere nearby. Some among their ranks believed this was nothing but a myth. No one who had ventured out had ever returned. None knew for sure what this meant. One other had died of starvation, and two others had died by turning on another one of their kind and trying to feed, which was fatal for these creatures. They had been cognizant of this fact, but the poisoned blood had proved to be too tempting for these frantic, blood thirsty creatures.
The remaining three creatures, now awakened, were a fearsome looking group, even in their compromised conditions. They were as tall as any human revered for height, and stronger and more agile than any human could ever be, although these attributed had been diminished somewhat, to varying degrees, due to their malnourishment. They had complexions so fair they were almost translucent. As they rose from their slumber, there was a sing song of gnashing teeth. Teeth so sharp they could, and have, cut through bone. Teeth hungry for flesh and palettes quenched only by the taste of blood. Teeth that were sharpened to a point.
They had wispy, jet back hair, and black eyes that struck a deep, all encompassing fear into anyone unfortunate enough to be gazing into them. Their arms were unsettlingly long, and they ended in clawed hands with yellowed, razor sharp nails. They were dressed all in black. They looked identical, save for their differing body weights due starvation. However, although their appearance would lend the impression that there are no differences between them, they still had a hierarchical social order, and this division was based mainly upon intelligence. They all possessed a savage brutality, an unquenchable blood thirst, but some possessed enough intelligence, cunning, and foresight to formulate plans and think ahead, and, when they determined it to be advantageous, they had the ability to exercise restraint. This use of this ability had become more useful, but harder to employ, as their food supply dwindled.
This social order had been headed up by their former master, and this had been the arrangement for centuries until the group of eleven had dared plot against him. This order had been broken and the eleven had been banished to Hunter's Bluff, to fend for themselves until eventuality had run its course. Amongst the eleven, there had remained a hierarchical division, and even now, with that broken down to three remaining members, there still existed a for of that hierarchy. The most intelligent of the three, Gideon, was the leader. He stepped forward, fully aroused from his slumber, and called two the other two, Uriah, and Elijah.
“Come.” He beckoned to them, his voice raspy and very deep. Uriah and Elijah, shaking off the last of their sleep, heeded his call.
Elijah was by far the least intelligent of the three, and he mainly operated on instinct, allowing his hunger to dictate his behaviour. If left unchecked, that is. In the situation they had been thrust into, Gideon had to keep control of him, for all their sakes.
Uriah's level of intelligence was much higher than Elijah's, but he did not possess the mental prowess that Gideon did. He lacked much of the foresight, and some of the restraint. He was able to rein in his hunger when needed, but he had been known to slip, especially in the early part of their ordeal, when they had first arrived here at Hunter's Bluff. He had, with Gideon's help, learned to control it, and often times found himself helping to rein in Elijah.
Now, the three of them stood together, awakened, ready to stalk the night in hopes of locating some animals on which to feed. The wildlife supply in and around the town was dwindling, and some nights passed without a single feeding. Animal blood fulfilled their nutritional requirements, but it was human blood that brought ecstasy. Human blood was divine. It had been fifty-seven days since they'd had the opportunity to feed on a human, a fact that escaped none of them. At this moment, facing the possibility of another night gone by with nothing to eat, the idea that there were four humans ripe for consumption would have brought tremendous excitement. However, at least for now, these three hideous, horrifying creatures did not realize they had humans in their midst. And so it was that they stepped out into the night expecting yet another uneventful evening.
NOTE: Here is PART TWO if you are interested in reading more. Thanks, and I hope you enjoyed this.
But now......
Now Hollywood has taken vampires and comepletely ruined them. Vampires to not go to school. They do not engage in teen romaces. The certainly do not glitter in the sunlight!
Vampires should be nasty creatures who can put on a veneer of civility if it suits them. They are essentially undead psychopaths. There have been varying iterations of these creatures throughout the years, sarting with Bram Stoker's vision of a refined gentleman living in a gothic castle who harbored a......nasty little secret, and unfortunately culminating in the affront to the horror genre we see today:
Really, what the hell is that?
My personal idea of what vampires should be is a cross between Stoker's original vision and the nasty, viscious creatures seen in the movie 30 Days of Night:
Now THAT'S a Vampire!
And so, with this in mind, I bring you an excerpt from my entry into last years' 3 Day Novel contest, still in the judging phase. The entry is a short novel, written in 3 days, as per the rules, so it's definitely a bit rough around the edges, but I believe it turned out rather well for a 3 day marathon effort. So, without further ado, I give you an excerpt from Hunter's Bluff, my attempt to return vampires to the state to which they rightfully belong, while at the same time hopefully injecting some new ideas.
(Enjoy, and feel free to offer any criticisms you may have. If this garners enough interest, I'll post more, so let me know if you're interested or not.)
As the shadows grew longer and longer in Hunter's Bluff, and as the night began to take over the day, there grew a certain restlessness. In a cave at the south end of the city, the existence of which was and always had been completely unknown to all humans; the entrance hidden in the underbrush of the forest at the city lines, creatures, centuries old and confined to slumber during the day, began to awaken, slowly, in stages. Muscles began to contract as nerve impulses were sent, readying them for the mobility which was soon to come. Dreams of splendor and feasting were broken up and dissipated, giving rise to a growing consciousness as these creatures, anxious to begin an evening anew, awakened from their slumber. These particular few, however, drew from their slumber as though drunken. Weary, weakened, they rose unsteadily to their feet. Some more so than others, as all were in various stages of starvation. These few, however more fortunate than some of their comrades who now, unbeknownst to them, lay dead on a highway, were much less fortunate than their former kin, who lived a life of spoil and splendor, in parts of the world long left behind, feeding upon humans, drinking their maddeningly tasty, nourishing, rejuvenating blood.
No, these few were confined to this reclusive little town by a master incensed by their audacity. For these few, along with their fallen brethren, had dared to challenge his authority, had even the tenacity to try and overtake him. Their former master, whose very name they dare not speak, for it can burn the tongue it crosses, or so it has been said, had, approximately a year and a half earlier, banished the ungrateful few to a remote area with a limited food supply and left them to their fates.
The group of exiled creatures had totaled eleven. Their numbers had been reduced down to three by this day. Five had, due to starvation once the human and animal food supplies had started to run thin, ventured off, at varying times, to try and locate another town that some had believed existed somewhere nearby. Some among their ranks believed this was nothing but a myth. No one who had ventured out had ever returned. None knew for sure what this meant. One other had died of starvation, and two others had died by turning on another one of their kind and trying to feed, which was fatal for these creatures. They had been cognizant of this fact, but the poisoned blood had proved to be too tempting for these frantic, blood thirsty creatures.
The remaining three creatures, now awakened, were a fearsome looking group, even in their compromised conditions. They were as tall as any human revered for height, and stronger and more agile than any human could ever be, although these attributed had been diminished somewhat, to varying degrees, due to their malnourishment. They had complexions so fair they were almost translucent. As they rose from their slumber, there was a sing song of gnashing teeth. Teeth so sharp they could, and have, cut through bone. Teeth hungry for flesh and palettes quenched only by the taste of blood. Teeth that were sharpened to a point.
They had wispy, jet back hair, and black eyes that struck a deep, all encompassing fear into anyone unfortunate enough to be gazing into them. Their arms were unsettlingly long, and they ended in clawed hands with yellowed, razor sharp nails. They were dressed all in black. They looked identical, save for their differing body weights due starvation. However, although their appearance would lend the impression that there are no differences between them, they still had a hierarchical social order, and this division was based mainly upon intelligence. They all possessed a savage brutality, an unquenchable blood thirst, but some possessed enough intelligence, cunning, and foresight to formulate plans and think ahead, and, when they determined it to be advantageous, they had the ability to exercise restraint. This use of this ability had become more useful, but harder to employ, as their food supply dwindled.
This social order had been headed up by their former master, and this had been the arrangement for centuries until the group of eleven had dared plot against him. This order had been broken and the eleven had been banished to Hunter's Bluff, to fend for themselves until eventuality had run its course. Amongst the eleven, there had remained a hierarchical division, and even now, with that broken down to three remaining members, there still existed a for of that hierarchy. The most intelligent of the three, Gideon, was the leader. He stepped forward, fully aroused from his slumber, and called two the other two, Uriah, and Elijah.
“Come.” He beckoned to them, his voice raspy and very deep. Uriah and Elijah, shaking off the last of their sleep, heeded his call.
Elijah was by far the least intelligent of the three, and he mainly operated on instinct, allowing his hunger to dictate his behaviour. If left unchecked, that is. In the situation they had been thrust into, Gideon had to keep control of him, for all their sakes.
Uriah's level of intelligence was much higher than Elijah's, but he did not possess the mental prowess that Gideon did. He lacked much of the foresight, and some of the restraint. He was able to rein in his hunger when needed, but he had been known to slip, especially in the early part of their ordeal, when they had first arrived here at Hunter's Bluff. He had, with Gideon's help, learned to control it, and often times found himself helping to rein in Elijah.
Now, the three of them stood together, awakened, ready to stalk the night in hopes of locating some animals on which to feed. The wildlife supply in and around the town was dwindling, and some nights passed without a single feeding. Animal blood fulfilled their nutritional requirements, but it was human blood that brought ecstasy. Human blood was divine. It had been fifty-seven days since they'd had the opportunity to feed on a human, a fact that escaped none of them. At this moment, facing the possibility of another night gone by with nothing to eat, the idea that there were four humans ripe for consumption would have brought tremendous excitement. However, at least for now, these three hideous, horrifying creatures did not realize they had humans in their midst. And so it was that they stepped out into the night expecting yet another uneventful evening.
NOTE: Here is PART TWO if you are interested in reading more. Thanks, and I hope you enjoyed this.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Expectations
For a game to be AAA, must it be great in all categories, or can it be a D level game in some respects but absolutely nail an aspect or three that you find particularly important for a certain genre and have the game be AAA?
I ask this because lately I have found myself having to defend myself for considering Bayonetta to be a AAA, 9.5/10 type game. People get so miffed, and proceed to tell me I am crazy, etc. It usually boils down to the narrative, character, music, shit like that, but what I always explain is that for me, a hack n slash game needs 3 things and 3 things only: excellent combat, challenge, and good boss fights.
Competent level design helps, as does adequate pacing, but boss fights, combat and challenge are the most important things to me, at the outright exclusion of the others.
So for me, Bayonetta completely meets and destroys my expectations for a hack n slash game. The combat is sublime, the bosses are incredible, it's decently challenging (although hard could be harder, I'm hoping IC Mode is a lot harder) and the level design is actually spectacular, not just competent.
This is why Ninja Gaiden Black is my favourite game:
AMAZING combat
Hard as fuck (at least at first, and on Master Ninja)
Amazingly balanced
Spectacular AI
Ridiculously good boss designs, save for a few
Good level design with some light adventure elements
Excellent pacing
And yet, all others can see is the bad camera (btw, it is bad, I agree, however, the camera is completely workable once you learn to utilize audio cues, Ryu's tracking abilities, and the Right trigger, but I digress) weak and cliched story, cliched dialogue, paper thin characters, and ''it's too hard!''
I acknowledge all of that (except for the last thing) but it doesn't matter. Not because I am not a discerning gamer, but because I am overwhelmed by how good the rest is, and to me, I ask: who cares about the story and characters? It's a hack n slash game! It's all about the combat!
I might expect more from an RPG, an adventure or a survival horror game, but even then I can excuse certain things.
Am I alone in this, or do you, reader, do this as well? Do you excuse some bad things if the rest is good enough and not let it affect the games status or do you expect ''the total package'' no matter what?
I ask this because lately I have found myself having to defend myself for considering Bayonetta to be a AAA, 9.5/10 type game. People get so miffed, and proceed to tell me I am crazy, etc. It usually boils down to the narrative, character, music, shit like that, but what I always explain is that for me, a hack n slash game needs 3 things and 3 things only: excellent combat, challenge, and good boss fights.
Competent level design helps, as does adequate pacing, but boss fights, combat and challenge are the most important things to me, at the outright exclusion of the others.
So for me, Bayonetta completely meets and destroys my expectations for a hack n slash game. The combat is sublime, the bosses are incredible, it's decently challenging (although hard could be harder, I'm hoping IC Mode is a lot harder) and the level design is actually spectacular, not just competent.
This is why Ninja Gaiden Black is my favourite game:
AMAZING combat
Hard as fuck (at least at first, and on Master Ninja)
Amazingly balanced
Spectacular AI
Ridiculously good boss designs, save for a few
Good level design with some light adventure elements
Excellent pacing
And yet, all others can see is the bad camera (btw, it is bad, I agree, however, the camera is completely workable once you learn to utilize audio cues, Ryu's tracking abilities, and the Right trigger, but I digress) weak and cliched story, cliched dialogue, paper thin characters, and ''it's too hard!''
I acknowledge all of that (except for the last thing) but it doesn't matter. Not because I am not a discerning gamer, but because I am overwhelmed by how good the rest is, and to me, I ask: who cares about the story and characters? It's a hack n slash game! It's all about the combat!
I might expect more from an RPG, an adventure or a survival horror game, but even then I can excuse certain things.
Am I alone in this, or do you, reader, do this as well? Do you excuse some bad things if the rest is good enough and not let it affect the games status or do you expect ''the total package'' no matter what?
Friday, January 22, 2010
The Book of Eli Review
Preface
I think I'm pretty good at game reviews, but I don't really do movie reviews, and I have a lot more knowledge about gaming than I do movies, so don't expect the same quality here as you get in my game reviews. I will keep this a bit on the shorter side, and forgive me if I misuse terminology. I'm not much of a film expert. This is just a layman's impressions of a fairly good (to his understanding) film. Feel free to correct me if need be, but keep the insults to a minimum ;)
Plot Synopsis
I think I'm pretty good at game reviews, but I don't really do movie reviews, and I have a lot more knowledge about gaming than I do movies, so don't expect the same quality here as you get in my game reviews. I will keep this a bit on the shorter side, and forgive me if I misuse terminology. I'm not much of a film expert. This is just a layman's impressions of a fairly good (to his understanding) film. Feel free to correct me if need be, but keep the insults to a minimum ;)
Plot Synopsis
The movie follows a man named Eli (played by Denzel Washington) who has been on a journey for 30 years, walking west across America after the apocalypse. He carries with him a book, the very last of its kind, and his goal is simply to reach a destination somewhere west, where the book will be safe.
After the war and the Big Flash, as they call the nuclear event that nearly ended all civilization, Eli was apparently guided by a higher power to the book, which was buried under some rubble, and given the task of protecting the book and taking it to its final destination. Eli guards the book with his life, because he believes that the book is the only hope that humanity has for its future.
Along his way, he encounters ruthless bandits who rape and pillage for both resources and for fun, and eventually, the self appointed laeader of a town, who has been searching for the very book Eli carries with him. This fellow, Carnigie, wishes to utilize this book to subjugate the masses and bring even more power to himself.
In his dealing with these ruffians, Eli displays inhuman fighting ability and survivability/durability. It leaves one wondering whether he is really fighting alone, or does he have some sort of power guiding/helping/protecting him? This isn't really made explicitly clear, although I think it was fairly obvious what the truth was. Either way, we watch him fight for his life, and the safety of the book. Will he make it to his destination? Or will he succumb to the mounting pressure and fail after 30 years of effort?
Review Part
Well, I went into the movie feeling fairly optimistic, but a little apprehensive as well, as I really didn't desire to be subjected to a bunch of pro-religous sentiments, and luckily, that wasn't the case (well, mostly), and my optimism was justifed.
This was a pretty great movie. I loved the way it was shot; some really great camera work was on display. They filmed the action scenes really well, and none of that shaky cam and quick cut bullshit reared its amatuerish, cheap, and ugly head.
The characters had a bit more depth than I would have expected for a movie of this nature, although there was definitely room for improvement in this regard. Another 40 minutes or so and some delving into backstory would have done wonders for the movie, as I was curious to hear more about the ''apocalypse'' and Carnigie's rise to power, if you will, but I could see how many, or even most, people would say it was long enough and woud have been ''too boring'' had they extended it. Perhaps a dvd release will remedy this?
In terms of look, gorgeous. Great use of color. They really nailed that drab, post apocalyptic look you'd expect, and I ironically found myself thinking how beautiful it looked o-0. The first glimpse of water was quite an astonishing moment, as it really drove home the discrepancy between what once was and what now is.
One annoying thing was the product placement. Is this how all new movies are doing it (I don't see too many anymore)? Another thing was it was pretty obvious where they were going with the movie (ie, a bit predictable) although there was one detail revealed near the end that I totally did not pick up on. I don't know why all these movies need a ''twist'' now, but this one was okay.
I'm often disappointed at movies and therefore try to avoid the theater as much as possible but the last 3 movies I have seen have been great. District 9, Avatar (twice) and now the book of Eli.
Anyone else see it? What did you think?
Interviews with Sarah Palin Supporters (Yes, she has some)
Now obviously they edited this for maximum effect, so I am sure that there were some less incriminating comments from people that were edited out............well, then again, we are talking about people who are purchasing Sarah Palin's book, and want her to run for US President......so perhaps not after all. I mean, come on, if you honestly think this woman should be running a country, you probably couldn't put togther a coherent and non facepalm inducing sentence if your life depended on it.
Anyways, here's the video:
Anyways, here's the video:
Atheism is a Religion? and The Burden of Proof UPDATED
This blog will address 2 claims I see made with respect to atheism:
1) Atheism is (or has become) a religion.
2) It takes as much faith to be an atheist as it does a theist (ie, to not believe in a god requires evidence) aka The burden of proof argument, or the ''You can't prove god doesn't exist'' argument.
These of course aren't posited by all (probably not even most) believers, but they do come up often enough in online (and other) discourse.
However, before I get to the two main points, I would just like to operationally define atheism. It's actually quite simple, as atheism is not a worldvidew; it has no edicts, dogma, or tenets. It is literally and simply the lack of a belief in god(s).
Theism=belief in god(s) (deities)
Add the prefix 'a', which denotes lacking, or being without, to it, and you get:
A-theism, or atheism, the lack of a belief in god(s) (deities)
And that's it.
We can talk about agnosticism (which is not a 3rd option, but that's for another day), antitheism, secular humanism, stron atheism (aka there is no god) aka gnostic atheism, etc etc but do not let these ideas become red herrings in discussion. No matter what the Ray Comforts or the Pat Robertsons of the world tell you, that right there is atheism, and any and all beliefs in addition to this are extraneous (not that they cannot be built upon/from it, they can be, and are). All I have in common with other atheists is my atheism. After that, our ideologies will differ as will anybody else's. I might meet an atheist tomorrow who is socially conservative and thinks religion is a positive influence (aka my total opposite), etc.
Anyways, now that we have that under wraps, let's get to the two claims, shall we?
Claim #1: Atheism is a Religion
Point me to:
1) our church
2) our tenets
3) any atheist pageantry
4) where I pay my tithes
Claim #2: ''You can't prove god doesn't exist'' argument
The burden of proof is on the claimant. Not believing claims is not a claim. The burden of proof is on the theist, not the atheist. The ONLY atheists who must shoulder that burden are the gnostic (aka I know there is no god) atheists. The 99% of us that are rational don't claim knowledge. We lack the belief.
Saying I believe no gods exist is a statement that follows from my examination, and subsequent rejection of, the ''evidence'' for the existence of a god(s). I am not making a positive claim; I do NOT have the burden of proof. How would an atheist prove such a negative?
Russell's Teapot exemplifies this nicely:
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time. -Bertrand Russell, 1952 (unpublished article for Illustrated magazine)Another way of looking at it is to ask yourself if you believe in the Loch Ness monster, and then ask yourself if it's up to you to prove it doesn't exist, or up to the people claiming it does to prove it. Remember, the lack of evidence is evidence. Not proof, mind you, not definitive, but certainly evidence.
Theists and atheists are not on equal ground. Saying ''I believe god exists'' is NOT equal to saying ''I believe no gods exist'' in terms of the burden of proof. I believe no gods exist because I have not been convinced otherwise. If no one had proposed a god, you would never say I have to prove this position. Now, because gods have been proposed, we're on equal ground?
No way. As soon as these gods were proposed, the burden of proof was on the ones making said propositions. If they fail to prove this claim is true, the person who continues to disbelieve is not suddenly required to provide evidence to show that this unbelief is justified.
This is why, in court, the crown has to prove the defendant is guilty. The defendant is NOT required to prove their innocence, and neither is the jury. The burden is on those making the claim. Until the person was brought up on charges, they were presumed innocent. As soon as the gulty claim was made, the burden of proof was created, and it rests on those making the claim. If this burden is not met (aka reasonable doubt) the propsoal is rejected aka disbelieved, without any further burden on the disbelievers.
This is allegorical to the atheists. Until a god is posited, I'm an atheist. Once a theist comes by and makes their case, the burden is on them. If, at the end of their presentation, I say ''I find the evidence lacking, I do not believe you,'' they don't get to say ''but you didn't PROVE that he doesn't exist!'' That job is theirs.
This is why, in court, the crown has to prove the defendant is guilty. The defendant is NOT required to prove their innocence, and neither is the jury. The burden is on those making the claim. Until the person was brought up on charges, they were presumed innocent. As soon as the gulty claim was made, the burden of proof was created, and it rests on those making the claim. If this burden is not met (aka reasonable doubt) the propsoal is rejected aka disbelieved, without any further burden on the disbelievers.
This is allegorical to the atheists. Until a god is posited, I'm an atheist. Once a theist comes by and makes their case, the burden is on them. If, at the end of their presentation, I say ''I find the evidence lacking, I do not believe you,'' they don't get to say ''but you didn't PROVE that he doesn't exist!'' That job is theirs.
Theirs and theirs alone.
Unless of course I retort with "I know there is no god!" In that case, I say, good luck, pal ;)
Unless of course I retort with "I know there is no god!" In that case, I say, good luck, pal ;)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)