Sort:  

If you would like to have a debate on something, make a post and I'll engage you there. This particular post is not pushing any particular belief and I'd like for it not to go down any rabbit trails that distract from it's intended role of poking fun at agnostics.

Note that the only moral to the story is:

  • Saying you "don't know" does not absolve you of the risks you incur from not knowing.
  • The burden of proof lies with the person taking the risk not the person providing the warning.
  • You have to decide what negative assurances you need to walk out into the Serengeti having been warned that the opposite of what you hope is true.
  • You require 100% proof on the warning side but 0% proof on the assurance side.

This applies to all questions, not just theological questions.

I provided the simple parable for pedagogical purposes.
He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

LOL I had a post, it inspired this post and you invited me here. Why would I make another post about it?

All you've done is construct a bizarre straw man. The straw man itself is even riddled with logical flaws. The biggest one being that cats exist and are known to exist all over the world.

To say that there are large cats is not an extraordinary claim. We don't have any gods that we know exist and can point to. The credibility of those giving the advice is far superior to anyone gabbing about god. There are reasons to tentatively trust the villages based on evidence.

Your tale actually betrays the weakness of your argument for being so absurd to begin with. It's not a real life scenario. People know lions exist from the outset the premise is absurd. You've had to purposefully craft it to remove normalcy and protect your bias.

It's just getting awkward and cringe worthy.

Let me know if you'd like to drop the straw men.

I shouldn't have to read all your posts to be able to have an honest debate.