# FriendofGod's posting style **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 23, 2000, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/friendofgods-posting-style/23318 "2000-06-23T13:51:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2000, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/friendofgods-posting-style/23318/81 "2000-06-27T20:08:10Z")
**matt** wrote: > [@](#): > > But I’d still rather see if I could get Esprix to go to Sky with me. What’s Sky? Esprix ---
**Author:** ![Unauthorized\_Cinnamon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/bc8723/32.png) [@Unauthorized\_Cinnamon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unauthorized_Cinnamon)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2000, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/friendofgods-posting-style/23318/82 "2000-06-27T20:12:22Z")
> [@](#): > > But this does not constitute disproof of my contention. (To give them credit, none of them so claims; simply that it is not proof to their standards, which I can accept.) But by the standards they require, one cannot prove that slythe is not David B’s sock puppet, or that Andros and Gaudere are not the same person (making the assumption for purposes of this -completely hypothetical!- parallel that moderators are not bound to the one-screen-name rule, and intentionally using a couple of old and laughable canards for examples to avoid stirring any feathers). I could, if I felt trollish, demonstrate how any evidence they might advance to the contrary could be faked. Of course I don’t seriously assert any such thing. But it makes a perfect parallel: what one can prove is delimited by one’s assumptions. And while I agree that demonstrating the existence of God, much less his intervention in human affairs at some given time and place, requires a higher standard of proof, being so extraordinary a claim, I venture to suggest that it also requires that the universe of argument be modified to not automatically disprove what is being asserted. If there is a God who is spirit, then something other than matter/energy exists. If you choose to assume there is nothing else, fine, but don’t disprove my theology on your assumptions. Polycarp, I like your style. However, I must note that if you posit that slythe is DavidB’s sock puppet, you bear the burden of proof. Making silly suppositions and requiring others to disprove them is hardly firm logical ground. As to the meat of the above quote, I understand your point, but my problem is that religious folk (in my personal experience, they have all been Christians of some stripe BTW) try to prove their theology using my assumptions, or pretending to use my assumptions. I have plenty of friends and family members who have faith. We don’t have to discuss it. I approach the world as a skeptic, and include religion in my skeptical analysis. I don’t make an exemption for faith, I require proof. My religious friends/family have decided to embrace faith. There is no argument to be had here, as you seem to be pointing out. That’s fine. But when certain religious folks find out I’m an atheist, they may assume that I am ignorant of their faith. Okay, once I tell you that I know enough of your beliefs to have examined and rejected them, please accept that we are on different philosophical turf and stop trying to convince me! Things like Pascal’s Wager and the Watchmaker argument are attempts to use “logic” and thereby somehow lasso me into the faith camp. Ain’t gonna happen! Just admit that one has to make a leap of faith to believe what you beieve, and leave it at that. Don’t even get me started on “creation science.” So my plea to proselytizers is, once you have determined that I have knowledge of your faith and have decided to reject it, stop trying to use “logical” or (snigger) “scientific” arguments to **make** me embrace faith. Let’s agree to disagree and talk about something more interesting! ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2000, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/friendofgods-posting-style/23318/83 "2000-06-28T13:42:52Z")
I’m not certain there is any particular call on me to **prove** any points as regards God’s existence. If He has a particular reason for wanting anyone to be convinced, He is quite capable of revealing Himself in a way that will convince him/her/them. I’m simply asking for a level playing field on that sort of debate, in much the same way that, on a largely liberal-oriented board, a conservative would expect not to be laughed out of court but have his political assertions taken as seriously as the evidence he could adduce in their support would justify. As for another sidelight: > [@](#): > > \*\*Matt\_mcl: Well… MAYBE with Esprix. > > Maybe. > > But I’d still rather see if I could get Esprix to go to Sky with me. > > **Esprix** : {snippage} What’s Sky? Just visualizing the two of them getting down to a dance remix of the old '60s “Spirit in the Sky” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/friendofgods-posting-style/23318.md?page=4)