That is very mature of you to respect both. But your statement about believing in the Buddha as much as you do YHVH is irrelevant. One being a human being who lived on earth, the other a subjective belief.
A "Creator" God, I would say is a Female. Evidence?? The scrotum.... Testicles are vital to the survival of the species. Yet they are protected by the thinnest layer of skin on the Male body.. I have to think if God was male the scrotum would be like a 2nd skull..
I don't give a fuck if he/she/it/xe/xir identifies as a squirell-kin star-kin other-kin asexual demiboy, I'm going to punch em' when I see em'.
lmao this thread Why would "This superior infinite being that created everything"they call god even be in an inferior category that involves life forms and genders? No one knows whats out there, Its so massive what couldn't exist?
And if it turns out that the environment itself is "intelligent", wouldn't THAT be quite the shocker.... ------
God has a penis, He uses it too pleasure Marilyn Monroe, princess Diana and a bunch of other chicks, True story,
False Logic. Shifting the Burden of Proof. Also, we are well aware of the fact that dreams and nightmares aren't real. I'm sure he was trying to sound deep or mysterious, but he is simply wrong.
Agreed but you can't really put the burden of proof on either side if you want to be objective. So I see it like this, either side can believe either way and be completely justified in believing so since neither is able to debunk the other. I never understood why these things are so serious, it's literally like arguing what side of a coin is going to land before you even flip it and claiming to have an insight.
That's not really how shifting the burden of proof works though. For instance, in the quote he mentions dragons. If someone makes a claim that dragons are real, it's up to them to provide evidence that it's so. Nobody has to debunk anybody if there is no evidence to back a claim to begin with. If I said that there is an invisible man behind you that demands you give me all of your money, I bet you'd demand evidence that it is so before handing over any money. The fact that you can't debunk the claim doesn't make it true. That is what "shifting the burden of proof" means.