-->
@Reece101
I fail to see the doctrine in religion or theism.
There is doctrine when organization is set up, where legalism and law is set up.
But this is possible in atheism as well.
Seems to 'me.
I fail to see the doctrine in religion or theism.
There is doctrine when organization is set up, where legalism and law is set up.But this is possible in atheism as well.Seems to 'me.
You’ll find next to zero results showing atheists killing anyone due to atheism (The lack of belief in god(s)Atheism doesn’t have a whole ideology/culture underpinning it.
I don't understand the problem with admitting that atheists are capable of good or ill acts, same as with theists.
No mention of Islam that is terrorising the globe as we write. He seems overly desperate to me to want to distance himself from Christianity.I used the term religion - this is a general term. I then used particularly referring to one of the religions. Christianity.
I keep asking myself - why does this Stephen keep analyzing every word and sentence I make?
Stephen, just FYI, My words, [.............................................] are words that are meant to ask, answer, and attempt to produce discussion.
I am flattered you make so much of my words,
such a person of your skills has much better things to be doing.
And that Stephen is a classic sign of ............................... someone who refuses to learn.
Dimtim8967 wrote: It is quite confusing and to me contradictory. #186. I think the best place for the bible is on a burning pile of books #8
Dimtim8967 wrote: Do you have any conception of how dangerous religion is and in particular christianity? #153
It is not about you or about me
Everyone on this site learns from everyone else.
Everyone on this site learns from everyone else.
We need to start being proactive. We need to take the bull by the horns.We need to give ourselves the b.o.p. to prove that God exists. Why?Because we have the truth.
I never mentioned we in my last post.
You are intentionally bringing things up which have been answered.
I would like to think that I am open to learning new things and to have my views changed when confronted with new ideas. So thanks.When I read some of my posts, I think I do come across a little or a lot contradictory. So thanks Stephen for pointing that out. And thanks Zed and others for noting my inconsistency for calling for people to stop giving air time to religious stuff when it is plain I am doing just that. I have decided I will stop calling for that for it does not make sense.I am going to simply request that everyone delete my previous comments since many of them are nonsense and unhelpful.And I will try and start again.
Please stick to the topic -
Please proceed to prove me wrong. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6079/post-links/263887
Please proceed to prove me wrong. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6079/post-links/263887This is what my thread started with. It was not me proving anything - I asked others to prove me wrong.
No, you wanted to prove that I am a fraud.
So prove me wrong?
You are intentionally bringing things up which have been answered.
It is not fault that you cannot see this because of your prejudice.
with no regard of the word
29 days later
The first thing to do when discussing how to prove god is a lie is to understand what proof is.
Proof is not convincing someone that what you say is true. It is not providing empirical evidence. It is providing a rational scientific proof. 100% proof that is not probable.
For example - many people try and convince others that something is true - by trying to convince them they are correct. This is typically inductive reasoning - but it is not proof.
For example - I see 100 swans and they are all white. This means I can infer - or try and convince you that all swans are white. It does not prove it is so - but if I ever see white swans then there is a probability I am correct.
What we need is rational proof. For instance - all men are mortal. Socrates is human - therefore Socrates is mortal. And so far as the premises are correct then - the conclusion and the proof will be true.
Not probable but true.
It is suggested that the biblical god is all knowing - all powerful - and all loving. All that needs to prove god is not true is by proving any of these things is not true.
The Holocaust - demonstrates god is not all powerful or that is he is not all loving -
because he would have stopped it if he is all loving and all powerful.
Similarly, if god is all knowing he could have stopped the first people from doing evil - before they did.
As you can see - god - at least the god of the bible is not true - assuming the premises are correct.
Please proceed to prove me wrong.
The first thing to do when discussing how to prove god is a lie is to understand what proof is.- I would say the first thing is to know what God is, but that works too.
Proof is not convincing someone that what you say is true. It is not providing empirical evidence. It is providing a rational scientific proof. 100% proof that is not probable.- No scientific "proof" is not not probable...
For example - many people try and convince others that something is true - by trying to convince them they are correct. This is typically inductive reasoning - but it is not proof.- Scientific "proof" is inductive...
For example - I see 100 swans and they are all white. This means I can infer - or try and convince you that all swans are white. It does not prove it is so - but if I ever see white swans then there is a probability I am correct.- Do you have any doubts as to wether the sun will rise from the East tomorrow?
What we need is rational proof. For instance - all men are mortal. Socrates is human - therefore Socrates is mortal. And so far as the premises are correct then - the conclusion and the proof will be true.- How about this. All Marsians are immortal. Zod is a Marsian. Therefore, Zod is immortal.
Not probable but true.- No scientific "proof" is ever true.
It is suggested that the biblical god is all knowing - all powerful - and all loving. All that needs to prove god is not true is by proving any of these things is not true.- Indeed.
The Holocaust - demonstrates god is not all powerful or that is he is not all loving -- I can see the issue, but only if you hold the belief that God does what is Good, as opposed to what God does is Good.
because he would have stopped it if he is all loving and all powerful.- If anything, the invasion of the americas should've been stopped.
Similarly, if god is all knowing he could have stopped the first people from doing evil - before they did.- If you look at it from a pure materialistic view it does cause confusion... What if the oppressed end up in Heaven & the oppressors end up in Hell. I reckon the oppressed wouldn't mind suffering a short while to gain eternal Paradise. Maybe then, they wouldn't want the "evil" to be stopped, so that's probably a good thing rather than an evil thing.
As you can see - god - at least the god of the bible is not true - assuming the premises are correct.- Fetch those premises first, then we can check wether they are correct.
Please proceed to prove me wrong.- Was hard not to.
I think logic is necessary to prove anything - not necessarily its subjects. god is a nebulas construct. And there is no consensus. So it is pointless to begin with the construct. Hence why the logic to me is a first place of call.
That is a double negative. Scientific proof is 100%. It is providing a syllogism - and meetings its criteria.
No scientific proof is deductive. It might well use induction in relation to its premises. But scientific method is not inductive.
It uses powers or deduction to reduce the hypothesis to a particular point,
But that is the point isn't? The sun does not rise. The earth turns. My experience is not reliable.
Sorry that does not even make sense. We have no evidence for the existence of martians. We do have evidence of humans not of martians.
It is true when it is rational. that is its definition.
Not sure that I understand what you mean. Can you give an example?
What do you mean the invasions of the americas should be stopped?
Then you would be making assumptions about what people think. That is not reason. That is speculation.
What do you mean fetch those premises first?
Well you have not proved me wrong. You have commented on some of my points. Indeed you have made assertions contradicting me. But an assertion is not proof. It is not argument. It does not even get the level of refutation. Thanks for your input though.
education???I am not your student. You are not my teacher.
Yes, you really are a funny one. Certainly, humility is not one of your strongsuits.
A syllogism is perfectly true if its premises are perfectly true. That is the point. Anything else is not able to demonstrate the soundness of the same.Your reasoning in relation to Martians was not a good syllogism because it was in error in its premises.
Dimtim wrote:->@Yassineeducation???I am not your student. You are not my teacher. Yes, you really are a funny one. Certainly, humility is not one of your strongsuits.