is suvi romance worth doing?

People in this thread are debating whether you can prove whether God exists or not and getting super heated, like:


Meanwhile, me, who's just tending to the gay crops:

Asshole Sara who has the friends with benefits with Peebee and flirts with Suvi only to reject them both ultimately for Vetra while still having Keri on the side.

You are telling other people to read up on how to debate, but like you committed the ultimate debating sin. That's not how the burden of proof works and its not useful in any context in this situation. 

The claim has to be in dispute. If no one here disputes it then there is no burden of proof. You can't dispute something unless you are going to claim that God does exist. So are you going to claim that? It seems like to me you are basically trying to play devils advocate which is just code word for "I don't have any real reason to say anything here, but I am going too anyways because WHY NOT?" and no one likes a devil's advocate. On top of that burden of proof generally lies with whoever is going against *perceived* status quo. That is going to depend wildly on the community (going to point out doesn't seem to be in your favor). What is considered proof depends on the conventions. Those depend on the community and context of the argument. Which as I said means the perceived status quo generally makes those determinations. That is what determines what evidence is accepted or not. The burden of proof is often flung by philosophical feel goods on the internet who want to pretend they are intellectual and yet no nothing about it.

So right now acceptance for evidence would be on whoever has the contrary opinion to the community and the community gets to decide the standard to which the burden of proof needs to be met. They get to determine even what evidence is accepted. That's what the burden of proof really means. 

What you are talking about is God being real/not real is a logical fallacy. You seem to be mixing up burden of proof with a logical fallacy often associated with it. That you cannot assume something is true simply because there is no evidence against it and you cannot simply assume something is false because it hasn't been proven. That's the only thing that makes sense to me anyways. You got them mixed up. So anyway, burden of proof has no meaning for these sorts of debates because they are purely philosophical without any way of ever resolving them because there is no way that evidence will be accepted. So invoking it is stupid and there is even more stupidity when you factor in more modern thinking below. 

Faith doesn't work that way and that's not how its defined. There is a reason faith is defined within religion because it is based on no actual evidence and even CONTRARY to evidence. If people actually believe anything in any bible happened they are displaying faith because we have real life evidence these events didn't happen. The flooding for example? We have scientific evidence there was no such "massive flood". The bible has the first human living far beyond a capable lifespan for any human even today. It isn't hard to discredit those writings. Atheism doesn't require faith because there is actual evidence against a God. It isn't absolute, but nothing can be. Not even the concept of something we know for a fact like gravity. We can't physically see it and how it works in space is completely different in how it works on earth, but we know it exists. We have enough evidence to claim that. We also have enough evidence to claim there isn't a god, but anyone who thinks otherwise is going to discredit it all because that's what their faith teaches them.

This is coming from someone who is not an atheist. The science has way more points on their side and until that outweighs it, it is disingenuous to claim that saying there is no god is displaying faith. That's not how faith is defined or even termed. Burden of proof is useful for things that can be quantified or actually proven with reasonable people who aren't going to say "na-uh! because faith!" at everything. Burden of proof has no use in the majority of philosophical debates and questions because at the end of the day evidence doesn't matter and can be hand waved. Debating with philosophy majors is worse than getting hydrochloric acid on you because you can come up with evidence that proves their stupid ideas false they'll find another way to justify it. Ultimate goal moving posters. Faith and philosophy are actually pretty alike now that I think about it....lol. 

Yes, my bad. I think I was assuming she was Christian but maybe she isn't. A Christian wouldn't have sex, but then a Christian wouldn't be a lesbian either. So maybe she is just a theist of some other kind.

I'm Catholic and gay af. Aren't you cute.

And we're stopping that right there. Religious beliefs and sexuality may be at odds sometimes but people can and do reconcile them for themselves. You'd be surprised at how malleable beliefs can be. Dogma is another matter.

But while interesting, this is also off-topic. Kindly return to discussing pros and cons of the Suvi romance.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

Gay Christians exist, how delightfully sheltered and old fashioned this view point of yours is. And what constitutes as an actual believing Christian to you? Are gay Christians lesser?
Didn't you also post that Christians don't have sex, lmao, how do you think other Christians come to be then? Immaculate conception?

Incidentally, I'm planning a Suvi OR Jaal romance for Sara PT3.
Anyone got any thoughts on that?

Suvi is a lesbian christian and likes to sink her face in Sara's vagina. The End.