3RU7AL

That's like saying if you like the story of Goldilocks, you can't also like Jack and the Beanstalk.

To you it is because you have an extreme confirmational bias. You treat it as nothing but a fairy tale, or make-believe. 

Only you believe that different god stories can cancel each other out.

It is a matter of logic, isn't it? Two contrary beliefs regarding the same issue at the same time cannot both be true. 

"It is raining in my neighbourhood now."

"It is not raining in my neighbourhood now." 

One of those two statements does not meet the criteria of what is fact or the case. Thus, one of those statements is false. 

"There is a God."

"There is no God." 

Again, the same reasoning.

Ok, iff I'm following you, you're steel-man would be, "ALL human beings have a basic right to live UNLESS they commit a capital crime"?

Well put!

People already know what logic is

Logic varies from person to person because they value different things. 

Why should that matter?

Because the truth matters. Because anyone can make a delusional claim or believe something that is not true.  

  If you have a personal relationship with an all-powerful god, who cares if anyone believes you?

Because evidence can point to whether a belief is justified or not, whether it is reasonable or irrational or blind. When you have two or more conflicting beliefs about God one if any can only be true. 

When you say "depends", what are you talking about.  Thog is non-contingent.

So you say. Why should I believe you or what you believe is true? It appears to have no means of verification other than your word. 

Why should I believe you?

YOU SHOULDN'T.

NEVER TRUST SOMEONE ELSE'S GNOSIS.

FIND YOUR OWN GNOSIS.

Well, you have established your made-up god knowledge is not worth believing. The message is not worth repeating or dying for. 

Who else believes in this Thog and where is this documented?

Thog created the concept of religion a hundred thousand years ago and all religions are aspects of Thog.

What is your proof? Present some evidence other than your hearsay. 

All religions are evidence of this.

Are evidence of what, Thog creating a concept of religion? How is that evidence? It is just one persons hearsay - mere assertion. 

If you don't believe me, it's because Thog doesn't want you to believe me.

Thog cannot be omnibenevolent. He leaves no witness of himself/herself/itself except your weak belief to date. Go ahead and belief such nonsense then. 

Hold up.  Don't move the goal-posts.  First you say ALL human beings have a basic right to live and THEN you suggest only INNOCENT human beings have a basic right to life.

While it is true we all have the basic right to life, justice must also be served. When a person takes the life of an innocent human being what is equal justice? It is a life for a life, but that life should not be taken by us but by the State unless in self-defence of us or our loved ones or during an act of war. 

Most people believe it is reasonable to say "BigFoot doesn't exist".  You are the only person I've ever encountered that insists that BigFoot exists.

Ad populum arguments do not inform veracity, unless it's about the number of people itself.

I believe it is perfectly reasonable (if not mandatory) to believe in a logically necessary originator and sustainer of all things (NOUMENON) which I also believe is fair to call "god" (I consider myself a GNOSTIC DEIST by the way).

So your position is one against the Biblical description of God, then?

HOWeVer, I also believe it is important to very clearly distinguish between what is REAL-TRUE-FACTS and what is (indistinguishable from) PURE-IMAGINATION.

Why? What's the essential difference between the two?

I also believe it is important to very clearly distinguish between what EXISTS and what (is indistinguishable from) DOES NOT EXIST.

How can you distinguish between that which does and does not exist when its is impossible (logically incoherent) to ascertain information on that which does not exist?

I also believe it is important to very clearly distinguish between TRUTH and (what is indistinguishable from) LIES.

If there isn't a logically coherent objective experience, then what is a lie?

In order to call something a REAL-TRUE-FACT, it MUST be independently and empirically verifiable and Quantifiable and indisputable and logically necessary.

All of which is informed by conception which bears no fundamental difference from pure imagination. You're essentially using pure imagination as a metric for what is real, true and fact.

Why do you believe all human beings have a basic right to live?

Because from a biblical standpoint, we are created in the image and likeness of God and it is not for us to murder or kill an innocent human being.

Everything that is conceived and perceived has being (by definition); therefore they must exist. It's an unsavory logical consequence, but frequent mentions of "Big Foot" undermine only the arguments which propose that God exists and Big Foot necessarily must not. To my understanding, no one here has made such an argument.

Or perhaps, you're equating the belief in God to the belief in Big Foot. That is, God is an "urban legend"; this assertion is necessarily misinformed because, as I've gathered, you believe in neither; therefore, you have little understanding on what it entails to believe in either, much less equate them. In "reality," you're just equating your disbelief in God to your disbelief in Big Foot, and are attempting to hold your opponents responsible for that.

Why should that matter?

Because the truth matters. Because anyone can make a delusional claim or believe something that is not true.  

What if I like having people attack me and test my strength so I go around attacking people to test their strength?

Then you live by the fallacy of might makes right.

What's the underlying principle?

The underlying principle is that 1) all human beings have a basic right to live, 2) murder takes away that right, 3) all human beings should be treated equally under the law or there is no justice.

What is wrong with murder? It is the intentional and malicious taking of innocent life. 

My goal is to get them to present a logical, skeptical argument against some religion they DON'T believe in, and use that to establish common-ground.

Easy counter, my Religion is not contradictory. They can apply different standards to other Religions compared to theirs and you will get nowhere. They would have to admit they are not using the same standards but at that point I think you are talking about a minority.

Which sort of begs the question of why they're so divided on doctrine that they can't even meet in the same building (if they agree on the "important stuff" can't they just ignore the rest?).

It is multifaceted like pretty much anything. I would say the most important thing is that in order for anything to be gained in some sort of coalition both sides need to concede ground, I don't think they are capable given what they think is at stake.

by applying simple logic.

The problem is that you are using your own standards against theirs. If they actually thought they were wrong why would they still be following something they don't believe in?

These are real-world questions that demand "objective" (not-opinion-based) real-world answers.

That is you talking not the world. The world doesn't owe us anything. That is you applying value to something.

(IFF) there is variation in the interpretation of the holy scriptures (multiple Christian denominations) (THEN) the holy scriptures cannot be the true and plain, infallible, perfect, literal word of an all-wise and all-knowing god.

You don't know that.

You are making a claim about something we cannot know. We are using this world's rules to apply to a place we don't even know exists. 

So whether what god wrote is true or not depends on whether two people disagree on its interpretation?

(IFF) the holy scriptures are the true and plain, infallible, perfect, literal word of an all-wise and all-knowing god (THEN) there can be no variation in its interpretation.

Common defense would be all the other sects are wrong.

The holy scriptures command god's people to treat foreigners as they would treat each other (native born).  And yet, Christians seem to be the first in line to express their outrage about "illegal immigrants"!!

That isn't a contradiction to the true premise of whatever God says. If you say God says this in the Bible then they can default to well you read it wrong and appeal to a priest who said you were wrong.

How exactly do I determine what god says?

It doesn't matter. You can see it here already, people shift the burden of proof so they don't have to defend what they hold.

For you to even sufficiently say God doesn't exist you would have to see what we can't currently see now and hope that is enough because I don't think it is enough for blinded ignorance. 

Based on what?

On the context and usage.

And yet you can't seem to provide an alternative definition.

Because word meanings in literature is gotten from context and usage, not personal taste.

Do you need a dictionary when you read Stephen King?

Why do you need one now?

I'm going to guess you're in favor of definition 2?

So you know words can have more than one meaning? How you've grown!

Now, we are looking at a work of literature from a human mind, I do not "provide" definitions, the author has already provided one.

Read it with your brain on.

[COMPLETENESS] "which means that there are no true sentences in the system that cannot, at least in principle, be proved in the system"

So basically God exists because the logical system deems it to be so. Okay. 

"consistency"

Doesn't actually mean they have to adhere to any form of real world ways we use to define consistency.

They can be contradictory and still call themselves consistent.

All they have to say is whatever God says goes.

It doesn't matter if you show that people are pro-life to one thing but another they are anti-life, the thing that you need to show is that God didn't say that and at that point you have already conceded grounds that you accept the Bible in some sort of way thus giving them ground.

"(which means that the system's rules of proof will never allow a false inference from a true premise)"

Okay then, a simplified version of the earlier paragraph. True premise: Whatever God says goes.

I'm a GNOSTIC DEIST.

Would you please explain what you mean by this term?

Your hypothetical god must be a moron if they expect error-slaves to be able to figure out which religion is "the right one".

Now you are using ad hominem implications for what would it say about those who believe in this God? Are they morons too? 

Can you show me that you are not a slave to those desires that control you?

I contend we are all slaves to something if you want to use the slave analogy.

It is by the grace of God, His mercy, and His revelation that we come to the truth. Take that statement however you want. 

Apparently, at least in animals, the most successful strategies promote survival of the species.

In a universe devoid of meaning why does it matter what animals do?

Why are you creating meaning in what is ultimately meaningless?

Why do you continually look for meaning and find it significant?

You continually borrow from my Christain worldview, not an atheistic or materialistic worldview.

Thus, you are inconsistent.

In an atheistic worldview, you are determined.

You are just a machine.

The way your electrochemical processes react to stimuli and outside influences such as your environment determines what you will do.

What is moral about that.

It is just the way things are. Why should my electrochemical functions or anyone else act in the same way? If they do, bonus. You live!

1. Is the one making the alarm aware they are lying?

2. Do they know they are stealing?

Please make your moral AXIOMS EXPLICIT.

Moral laws stem for ten. 

What all these laws and the others boil down to is doing unto others what you would want them to do to you. Do you want someone to murder you, steal from you, lie to you, cheat on you, want what is yours? Then you should treat others the same way. 

Words have meaning jethro. Our debate is about the meaning. You keep simply saying "evil" as if the word has only one meaning.

I told you. Because "evil" here is not immorality, but unwanted things from a human point of view.

For example, apes will sometimes [1] make a false alarm call to scare the troop away from a choice piece of food, but if they are caught (lying and stealing), the troop beats them senseless.

[1] How is that immoral?

Okay. How is that morally good? Behaviour is what is. How does what is correspond to what ought to be? Perhaps it keeps you alive. Are you saying that makes it moral? Whatever keeps you alive is morally acceptable?

That purpose demonstrates to us that without God we are in a sea of moral relativism.

Others say, if you DON'T follow god, then you are an error-slave.

I say, if you are an error-slave, how can you be expected to identify "the truth"?????????????????????

It becomes willy nilly, doesn't it, if you have no fixed and absolute reference point?

Are there 66 canonical ancient writings we call the Bible? Yes or no?

Do these writings all convey information about the being called God therein as to His speaking to them and revealing information to humanity?

Is that a true statement that they do recount such things?  Yes or no? 

There are many external pieces of evidence and proof than just me.

Yours, to date, depends solely on yourself as a reliable witness.

Why should I believe you?

Who else believes in this Thog and where is this documented?

Different families develop unique customs.

Dolphins, wolves, and apes all have eccentric customs they pass down to their children.

By instinct.

Do they think and reason that eating another animal is wrong? Do they debate whether one takes the prey from another is wrong or do they just do it if they are stronger and are able to do so? Do they have elaborate laws on what is an is not to be done?

No, we are not what God intended since the Fall.

OTHERWISE, "I make peace and create evil." seems like an open-and-shut case.

For your agenda driven bias, sure.

You do not want to know why "peace" was used to contrast "evil".

You do not want to consider that contrasting "evil" with "peace" could mean that "evil" is being used in a non-typical way.

Please explain how you know which (if any) holy scriptures can be taken literally.

I turn on my brain when I read it. I notice that atheists never have this question about the great secular works of literature.

But when its the bible, suddenly they become reading idiots, only able to read the bible like retarded 3 year olds.

There is another way we know which holy scriptures can be taken literally. But you're not ready for that yet.

Christian faith is not blind. But belief in a hypothesis that has zero evidence could be called blind faith. Abiogenesis qualifies.

If you want to dispute the definition of "evil", please simply present your preferred definition.

The word evil, as do many words, have different meanings. You want to pretend it has only one. The meaning of words are not assigned by preference, it is gleaned from its usage in context.

All literature is this way, but when it comes to the bible, you dolts pretend this is some unusual, shady thing.