Total posts: 459
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Now that is a great question. How about we ask the Christians for their definition of god? Perhaps a new thread might help.
Of course, this is going to be helpful because if they cannot come up with a definition - then they don't have a definition or measure to falsify our definition.
If they do define one - then it will put them into a situation that they need to defend.
At least then we can dispose of the strawman one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I agree that premises need to be valid and sound. My initial point is that given the premises are correct, then the conclusion is 100% correct.
That is my point. It has always been my point. I simply applied this logic to the alleged definition of the biblical god.
If you have read my posts - in a different topic that this alleged definition of god is a strawman definition.
And incidentally this is what most proponents on this thread have actually argued. Which means that atheists and non-theists like myself need to try and find a better definition of god to dispute, rather than pushing the same old strawman argument, which I have also argued belittles the atheist position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
If it does, would images from space of a round Earth disprove the Bible?
A not tainted or amended photo is unable to demonstrate the earth is flat. It is impossible to do so.
We however do not have to rely upon a photo. Science has demonstrated the earth is a globe.
The bible has verses which might well indicate its authors believed the world is flat. Certainly, it declares the world is fixed in its place. And even that the sun can be stopped. And that the world has four corners. Of course this is probably metaphorical. But it is a fact that many people around the world emphatically declare that the bible teaches flat earth theory - and themselves are advocates of it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Stop trying to find a conspiracy behind every comment you come across.
You want so much to believe that I am someone else that you have lost perspective. I say "get a life".
I AM NOT TRADESECRET. No matter how much you want to believe this.
I am a non-theist who has consistently reflected this on this forum.
I called you out and you did not like it. Get over it.
I do think that non-theists and atheists give too much airtime to theists.
I do think that theists hold the B. of P.
YET - I also think that if atheists and non-theists continue to hold to this ridiculous standard that we are going to continue to go around and around in circles.
EVERY forum in this world - does that. WHY? because despite the fact that athiests and non-theists hold the truth in relation to reality - they want to continue to do the dumb thing and say- it is theist who needs to prove it. so does anyone really wonder why this story never goes anywhere. The theist runs around the atheist. Yet the atheist allows the theist to do so - because of this dumb burden of proof.
So call me a fraud if it makes you sleep better at nite. Yet the simple fact is you are WRONG. You are the fraud. You are dogmatic -- as dogmatic as any religious person I have had seen. You just deny it. You just laugh at this notion. You ARE the FOOL.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I have never talked about the burden of proof, not that I can recall anyway. Let me be clear. Theists have the burden of proof. I cannot recall ever saying otherwise. And I don't recall thinking otherwise either.How did know that you would point blank deny making statements and comments about burden of proof and where it lays?
Is that the best you can come up with? Seriously.
Timid8967 wrote:Butby suggesting that the theist has to make the first move - and thatthey have the burden of proof, we give up our natural place inthings. Let's take it back.You must think everyone here was born just minutes ago. There is a lot more to that comment of yours clearly saying that "we" and "us" i.e. theist and non theist, should carry the burden of proof..
I did not deny that the theists have the burden of proof. I said we need to stop being so bloody up ourselves all of the time. I do think we need to take it back. I think we do non-theism and atheism a disservice by always putting it on the theist. Yes Theists do have the b. of proof. Yet, non-theists have the truth. We don't need to be on the back foot. And only a moron would think that I was suggesting otherwise. It is not me who is the fraud. I want to see a better dialogue between religious people and non-religious people - and it is persons such as yourself - who give atheists a bad name - dogmatic and stupid.
Unless we are able to find a way to dialogue then these arguments go round and round in circles. That is where your topics generally end up. In a circular fashion over and over again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
If you are referring to an interpretation of a fact, then no empirical evidence is not proof, but a deductive argument is not necessarily sound, and yes - dependent on the claim itself, empirical evidence is a proof.
Please substantiate your assertions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I have never talked about the burden of proof, not that I can recall anyway. Let me be clear. Theists have the burden of proof. I cannot recall ever saying otherwise. And I don't recall thinking otherwise either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
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. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6079/post-links/263887
As you can see - god - at least the god of the bible is not true - assuming the premises are correct. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6079/post-links/263887
Qualifiers in my very first post - indicating that conclusions can be 100% accurate and known if the premises are correct.
you cannot be 100% of almost anythingYou did notice the qualifier right? Because you seem to have a problem with qualifiers, its fairly obvious that somethings are within the realm of certainty, but there mere fact that there are a couple propositions like that do not prove that you can be certain with the vast majority of things - please - go ahead and prove 100% that the reality we perceive is real.Also do you agree with the rest of my argument? Because your non-interaction would suggest that.
I suppose I missed your initial qualifier - although it was against the thrust of your argument.
Are you 100% sure of your proposition: "its fairly obvious that somethings are within the realm of certainty, but there mere fact that there are a couple propositions like that do not prove that you can be certain with the vast majority of things".https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6079/post-links/263909. Is it a true statement or not? It certainly seems like "Fairly obvious" is fact enough for you.
Uh no - you have an epistemological problem their bud - first of all - a syllogism does not provide "proof" at least not in the regard that you're referring to. Syllogisms provide a deductive argument that can highlight logical flaws in certain propositions; however, unless the premises of such syllogism are true, that syllogism is unsound, therefore, yes - empirical evidence is indeed proof.Furthermore, you cannot be 100% of almost anything, its an absurd claim to make - it means you KNOW that there are no other possibilities - but you don't even have 100% evidence that the reality you share is real - is that reality most likely real, yes, but that's not what you said, you said: "100% certain", please own that. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6079/post-links/263909
I cannot see why this is an epistemological problem for me. Please explain further. A syllogism does provide proof. Yes, it is deduction, based on induction. I do not know why you need to highlight what I had already said in my first post. I agree that syllogisms require sound propositions. Empirical evidence is therefore not proof - but evidence. You are incorrect to call it proof. It can only at best be a best guess. or reasoned position. Empirical evidence is a part of the puzzle - not the solution. It is the process - not the end. Of course I am willing to be corrected.
You seem certainly sure that you are correct. Besides being 100% does not require "knowing there are no other possibilities". It requires knowing what is true. To suggest otherwise is diversion tactics. Bank tellers do not learn how to tell a counterfeit by looking at lots of counterfeits- but by knowing how the real ones feel and smell and rub on their fingers. I own my words.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
An all loving god would not let evil occur if he was all powerful.You’re begging the question, how do you know this?
It goes without saying. If an all loving god existed, to permit evil to exist demonstrates he is either not all loving or not all powerful.
Unless of course you are suggesting that god loves perfectly and that within that perfect loving - suffering and pain and evil are perfectly acceptable? Who would want to be loved by that kind of god?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Uh no - you have an epistemological problem their bud - first of all - a syllogism does not provide "proof" at least not in the regard that you're referring to. Syllogisms provide a deductive argument that can highlight logical flaws in certain propositions; however, unless the premises of such syllogism are true, that syllogism is unsound, therefore, yes - empirical evidence is indeed proof.Furthermore, you cannot be 100% of almost anything, its an absurd claim to make - it means you KNOW that there are no other possibilities - but you don't even have 100% evidence that the reality you share is real - is that reality most likely real, yes, but that's not what you said, you said: "100% certain", please own that.
Taking about qualifiers - I assume you noticed mine. Or did you conveniently miss them?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
The premises are not proper.1. There is no statement that God is "all-loving"2. Being all-knowing and allowing other beings freedom of choice do not contradict3. Being all powerful does not mean doing whatever you think should be doneThe problem is often not one of premises leading to logical conclusions, but a lack of agreed upon definitions of terms and expectations.A child is taken to a doctor who gives the child a shot. The child yells at the parent "you don't love me because you let him hurt me."If the child believed that the parent is "all loving" in a sense that the parent would never let any harm befall the child, can the child disprove the existence of the parent based on the pain of the shot?If the parent lets the child try to ride a bike without any instruction or preparation, knowing that the child will fall, and the child falls, does this deny the parent's foreknowledge?Socrates is a manall men are mortalSocrates is mortalbut define "man" first. If "man" is related to the presence of genitalia, DNA or something else, then is a dead man a man? The google dictionary has "an adult male human being" which says nothing about being animated. If so, that man who has already died is no longer mortal but is still a man so all men are not mortal. Precision in language is vital. So far, all living humans of either gender who have been born prior to 1905 have died in a biological sense. If Socrates was born before 1905, then he has died in a biological sense.
So just to be clear, are you saying god is not all-loving? And all-powerful? And all-knowing? Or are you saying that people misunderstand what "loving means". Or all powerful means? Or all-knowing means?
Man is defined in this context as an human. Whether he is dead or not changes nothing.
Do you deny that all humans are mortal? Are there people who do not die?
Are you opposed to logic?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
People can be 100% sure of things. I am 100% I am alive. What is the proof of that?
I am therefore I exist.
Yet it is more than this.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Okay let's put you in a scenario - you're starving - you think that stealing is generally bad - but you do so in order to survive, does that mean that person isn't against stealing? No - it means that person acted in desperation - it isn't "if it's not convenient" you have entirely missed the words "HAVE TOO" in the qualifier their bud. Yes it is a moral view that says you shouldn't do it all, but just as all moral views make extremely clear IF ITS LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO DO THAT THEN YOU DO YOUR BEST.For example - would the fact that a Christian lied once make them not a Christian? Would the fact that a Christian sinned at all somehow make them not a Christian? No....because its a FRAMEWORK and even if you don't apply to it at all, the fact that you accept it to be the correct moral framework means you accept it.
This is a scenario that works for you. I don't know how many others it would work for. It depends upon how their ethics works. I remember reading a book called the Foxes Book of Marytrs. It had a story of a young Christian girl - who was told to deny that Jesus is god or have her hand burnt by a candle. She was holding her hand over a candle - forcefully. She refused to deny Jesus and her hand was seriously burnt. She then was thrown to the lions. It would be convenient for her to give up her faith - but she did not. She could have thought of her temporal life rather than eternal life. But she didn't. Her ethics were not pragmatic. They led to her death for what she truly believed.
perhaps your morality or ethics thinks that your own personal life is more important than the animals. I think that is situational ethics. It is (in my opinion) a fake ethical position. If something is right - it is right. If it is wrong - it is wrong. I think having sex with a chicken is wrong - just like I think it is sick to have sex with a baby. I cannot think of any reason why this might change. Yet - you seem to be saying - it depends on whether you have the option or not. Or whether there is an alternative that justifies it or not.
Christianity is more complex than you are allowing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
You are the one quoting the bible - like it means something to you. It does not support your case. Yeah, I have read the bible once - from cover to cover. It is not like I have not glanced at it in other places since - or that I don't have access to commentaries etc. My brother -was a fundy and was trying to convert me for years. Yet sadly he died recently and does not bother me anymore. Does that make me evil too?
I still think you are a freaking nightmare.
This thread is not for people like you - atheists who are dogmatic in their opinions. It is for theists who want to prove that god is real. I have put the challenge out there - and hopefully some will attempt to do so - so that others like you and me are able to remind them that proof is proof.
I think the best place for the bible is on a burning pile of books. It has caused more harm than many others. Yet - that is the problem isn't? How much airtime do we need to give to these things - what is the line of balance - that will enable us to find reason - proof - real proof.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
@Tarik
Why does God have to prevent every evil thing from ever happening to prove He is all loving?The bible doesn't ever say that " god is ALL loving". In fact, the bible makes it perfectly clear that god is a "jealous god of war". And there are stories IN THE BIBLE - that prove just how insignificant life is to him and that us mere mortal humans are literally 10 a penny.Have you never read the sad story of Job or Lot?
That's the thing, though, isn't? the bible is so contradictory and over the place - that christians pull up the big three. All knowing, all powerful, and all benevolent.
And just because god is three things does not mean he cannot be others - or that any of the other so called things - reduce these three big things.
If he is all powerful and he refuses to stop pedophiles from hurting children - then he is not demonstrating love to the children.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Why does God have to prevent every evil thing from ever happening to prove He is all loving?
Because if an all loving god has the power to do all things and he can prevent it - he would. An all loving god would not let evil occur if he was all powerful. Otherwise it would be not evidence of being all loving.
So if he is all loving and he does not stop evil happening, then he is not all powerful. Therefore the god of the bible is false. He is a lie.
Created:
Posted in:
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.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Of course I know the difference. Duh!
Yet it is an issue of morality - not pragmatics.
If I think it is wrong to kill animals - then I think it is wrong to kill animals full - stop - not just because it is convenient to do so.
Look, I initially made my comment as a bit of humor. Yet, it seems that died in the arse. My apologies.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Ethical veganism, on the other hand, is the basis of the animal rights movement. It is a movement that maintains that animal rights mean literally nothing if we claim it is ok to kill animals and use them as commodities. Ethical Veganism - Ethical Vegan Educationethicalveganeducation.com/ethical-veganism/
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Actually, the different sites go further than you - it says using an animal produce as a commodity is the issue - not just when you can.
Point is - many vegans do wear leather shoes - and other items of clothing and use vaccines which contain animal traces.
Of course I am incorrect to say it is unethical - it is just their own ethics - which don't necessarily relate to the rest of humanity.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Vegans wear shoes don't they? Shoes made out of leather?
How can that be ethical?
just saying that so called ethical vegans kill lot of things in order to live as "ethical vegans".
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Yep, like military intelligence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Brother,
Did you miss the memo? I am a non-theist. I am not a theist. I do not believe in god or gods or anything supernatural.
Go and read my posts. dumb arse.
Created:
-->
@Safalcon7
Chicken, dead (No harm done to it)The one having sex with it, happy with himself.How do you view this specific act? Irrespective of you calling it a disgusting thing to do, do you call it immoral or not?
Weird question - but what are the hierarchy of rights here? Is fu#$% a chicken lower or higher on this hierarchy than killing it or destroying it or owning it as a slave producing eggs for your lunch?
Sex without consent in this situation is assault. Eating is assault. locking it up without consent is assault.
I think the bigger question - is do chickens have rights? Or rather does a dead chicken have rights? And what are these rights? I would suggest that possibly live chickens have the right to be treated without cruelty. Yet, a dead chicken - has none. None at all.
Yet the question is not about the rights of the chicken - really - it is about the morality or not of a sexual act by a human with a dead chicken? Would it be immoral for a rooster to have sex with a dead chicken? I doubt anyone would entertain the question for long. What a spider eating the male spider while copulating with it?
Who determines what is moral or not? Is it our culture? Possibly. And if this is the case - then our culture still currently would suggest it is immoral - which is why we have laws again having sex with animals.
So the answer is while the culture we live in - says it is immoral - then it is immoral. It is both subjective and objective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
The only thing you have exposed is your own stupidity.
And having the entire forum laugh at your foolishness.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I assume you mean "leave their country". Why not? If they abused their national citizenship, why should they not be forced to leave?
The same rule applies to EVERY club in our country. The rules state is you abuse the rest of the club, your membership will be terminated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
@Stephen
@BrotherDThomas
Oh, I thought you understood animal and pussy. Ask your god, it might help. Although it seems to be silent.
I never said I wanted to be like Ethang. He seems to have vanished. A bit like your brain. And I have never communicated with him or her.
Stephen is a dick. Did you notice Stephen does not have a bio? Or has that eluded your dumb arse skull? Or perhaps your intentional ignorance is evidence of you being Stephen.
See how similar you sound. Any objective reader would draw the conclusion:
Stephen "You are barrel scraping ."https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5599/post-links/263721
Brother " ARE YOU KIDDING?! SURELY YOU JEST!" https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5599/post-links/263756
Stephen: " You are not on your own there , Brother. Dimtim is almost a clone of the Reverend chaplain Tradesecret in his use of language, isn't he? "https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5599/post-links/263720
Brother "It's uncanny in how you remind me so much of the total Biblical fool Tradesecret who changed from being a male, to a woman, and then unknown, especially with your specific syntactical sentence structuring and in not having a biography."https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5599/post-links/263613
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I never said otherwise.
Well actually I suppose I was using sarcasm, which obviously went over your head.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Have you ever looked to see how many people don't have bios?
I am sure they will be pleased to see you think they are all hiding something.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
So for the record then, dear Freak face, you admit to laughing at yourself:
And to his annoyance, neither did disciples understand a word Jesus said, if we are to believe the scriptures ,- BUT YOU DO? !!!!!! some 2000+ years after Jesus is said to have walked the earth!!!!? https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6063/post-links/263552
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
ou don't understand the culture of the time, thus the audience that Jesus was addressing and what such as statement as "coming in the glory of the Father" meant to them.And to his annoyance, neither did disciples understand a word Jesus said, if we are to believe the scriptures ,- BUT YOU DO? !!!!!! some 2000+ years after Jesus is said to have walked the earth!!!!?
I laugh at why you make such a silly statement. It is obvious that Jesus' disciples did not understand. We all know that. They did not understand until Jesus has apparently been raised from the dead. And this made all of the difference. Do you just ignore that? Of course you do. Sorry forgot you are an ignoramanus. Get with the program. At least try and understand what Christians believe and why before you try and belittle them.
You never countered my argument by showing you knew what Jesus was speaking about.I did. I said that you regurgitating unreliable and ambiguous cherry picked verses from the same unreliable and ambiguous source is not proof of anything,
Oh that is right. when challenged don't respond with intelligent answers - just pretend the other side is cherry picking. Because then you save face - well at least you think so - well done Freak face. You lose again,
Instead, you took your 21st-century understanding and applied it back then."Every eye will see him" return, says the bible, but not a single written record.
What a funny guy you are freak face. Again rather than addressing the obvious - you attempt to change the topic. Loser.
You demonstrate you have little understanding of the background that Jesus refers to.Your opinion of what you think I do or don't know, isn't proof that you have proof.
It has nothing to do with opinion - you demonstrate over and over again how dumb you are. but hey that is ok. Until you ACTUALLY provide a proof - you just speak spoof. Just like a freak face is expected to speak.
Jesus and the NT writers continually referenced the OT.Yes they did. And the reason they did this was to make the OT prophesies ` fit` their own narrative and agenda and candidate.But lets no derail someone else's thread with anymore of your nonsense.
Or it might just be because their understanding was completely understandable to anyone who was not an ignoramus. As for derailing threads - you seem to be the most proficient of all of us.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Ah FreakFace, are you still alive,? I thought you would have crawled back into your little hole by now. Still, just to be clear, it was the Brother - not you who revealed my ignorance.
Created:
-->
@Wagyu
What would you do if God commands you to murder.
Pray like that crazy is was someone I really despise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kadin
The one that is sitting on top of the burning pile of books - and because such writing is not worth the paper it is written on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
What is it with you and Freak Face?
Show me were the terms of joining this forum require me to give any information about myself?
In respect of the Trinity - I am ignorant. Thanks for revealing just how ignorant I am.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
It's not really primarily related to swearing. It is a bit like a wife taking a husband's surname - only to be a freaking whore.
She wants all of the good stuff - but nothing of the responsibilities.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Why repeal the first four? Just amend them to enable the state to be the final authority.
The State is the only supreme authority. No one is above the law.
There shall be no competition of authority. And no individua human rights. If the state says one thing - everyone else asks "how high"
If you don't want to be part of this state - you will die or be put out.
The only holidays the state declares are legal and must be sacrosanct.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
As I said before you are a FREAKING genius.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
My point was giving air time to nonsense - is a mistake.
Just like people give air time to Nazi Propaganda. The best way to stop something burning is to stop giving it oxygen.
Complaining and raising questions about Jesus and the bible obviously draws people to it. And some people will use this fuel to burn an entire new way of life.
That was my point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
You do realize that biblically - this leads to parents getting away with abuse? With never being questioned? Dogma and indoctrination? No - it should NEVER be any sort of legal recommendation to honour your father and your mother - also - let's interpret this charitably, what about gay couples? What about single couples? What about polyamory couples (and don't even try to argue that the bible is against polyamory, it isn't.)
Created:
-->
@Stephen
The real god is more of a bystander who sometimes intervenes, we are like an enjoyable television show or experiment to them (I don't feel it's appropriate to call god an 'it', I'd say her as I find god to be more feminine than masculine however I would say they/them if we discuss 'sex' as opposed to gender).
The real god(dess) isn't concerned with being evil hut also isn't concerned with being entirely benevolent. I am certain she/they experimented a while back and realise it's boring as fuck to have a world where everyone is always kind and predictably selfless, even for the humans involved.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
There is a difference between believing the bible to be true or false as opposed to understanding what any particular author is attempting to say.
I don't believe the Manifesto Communist by Marx either - yet I can understand what he is attempting to say. I can say that I believe he is trying to say such a thing - without saying I believe it is true.
When I referred to David, who traditionally is the author of the Psalms, as referring to a Roman Cross, it did intrigue me. Yet, Castin informed me that others back in David's time also talked about crosses, not necessarily Roman Crosses. I think Castin makes a valid point. My error in history was revealed to me and now I am less ignorant. I really don't care about the rest of your post.
Created:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Wow! I did not know that. I was merely considering why some theists might think the holocaust was a good thing. And Muslims and some Christians find the Jews offensive. Another good reason to not turn to god in the first place.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
We should import the entire population of Mexico and Somalia into America
Created: