Total posts: 5,875
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Atheism is not defined as not knowing something.
I disagree.
ATHEIST is literally "NOT-a-THEIST".
It simply describes someone who does NOT follow the teachings of any THEISTIC god($).
But atheists DO follow something! They DO have beliefs. Saying atheists have no belief about God is a lie. They do have a positive belief, and that is that God does NOT exist. If an atheist makes this claim, then the BoP is his, whether he likes it or not.
The atheist can say he has no obligation, but he has an obligation for what he believes. And he believes that there is no God. Hiding behind semantics will not shield him.
Trying to define an atheist as "not a theist" is like defining oranges as "not red". Both atheist and theist define beliefs. The atheists belief is not theism, but he does have beliefs about God. Denying that fact is an untruth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
The only reason demon was permabanned was because a mod didn't like him. (That mod even mentioned his "likability")
Demon was no more toxic to the site than Bro D. Thomas. The claim that he was banned for being toxic spurious.
What has been lost in the drama is the rotten behavior of the mod. Demon being guilty of offenses does not excuse the mod. Were I a head mod and not gay, I would have demoted that mod for unprofessional behavior. Of course, I'm old and not gay, so I'll never be a mod.
The mods act as if their behavior has no effect on the success of the site, not only do they seem incapable of understanding this, they seem incapable of modifying their behavior even if they did understand. It irks me that the potential of the site could be squandered so cluelessly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
For me, something which is objective is true independent of any minds,...
Look at the dictionary definition again. The word "mind" there refers to man's mind. God is not a man. Morality from God's mind is objective of man's mind, and morality can only come from a mind. It does not simply pop into existence.
A truly objective morality will have three qualities...
1. It will not have come from the mind of men - Be objective
2. It will be immutable - Be unchanging
3. It will be authoritative - Be legitimate
Only one moral system satisfies these necessities. There are other moral systems, but they will lack one or more of these necessary components.
Before getting into the debate, I must say something about theoretical arguments. Logic can be used to validate the soundness of an argument without having to present physical proof. In an argument, for example, on whether or not men can live on Venus, we need not prove that men can go there first, the logic that Venus is too hot for human life holds even if we cannot get there.
Likewise, the logic of God's qualities holds even if we cannot prove God exists. (I did NOT say we could not) This is a theoretical argument. Logic holds. Could I defeat Godzilla with a BB gun? No one needs to prove Godzilla exists for the logic to hold that given the qualities of Godzilla, I could not defeat him with a BB gun.
This is done all the time in science. Einstein found out that time slows down the closer one approaches the speed of light without any physical proof. A logical argument remains logical even if it's premises don't exist but the conclusion follows. So the argument,
"If Maria is in the house, and the house is in Germany, then Maria is in Germany"
Is logically sound even if no house or girl named maria exists. The argument is not about Maria or the house, it is about the logic.
Now, if God existed with the qualities the bible says He has, would it be logically sound to conclude that his moral laws would be objective TO MEN? Yes, for they would satisfy the 3 necessities given above.
So for right now, whether men are correctly transmitting the laws of God, or whether there actually is a God, the logic holds. The logic that if there was a God with these qualities, those laws would be objective and authoritative holds. That argument is sound.
NOTE: Saying there is no God is not an attack on the soundness of the argument! Saying that even if God existed, His laws would not be authoritative and objective TO MEN would be an attack in the argument. The Christian is not trying to convince you right now that God exists, but that the logical soundness of his argument does not need God to exist.
Created:
Posted in:
Not really, can you present the variables that allow us to determine if it's more likely that life began from non-life (something we have no example of true) or that it began from an eternal, living creator (that we have no example of either)?
I said nothing about an eternal, living creator. And if we have no instance of life from non-life, why would that be one of our assumptions? The fact is that life does exist, and it has always come from prior life. How is that not more likely than life coming from non-life? Why are we even considering something that NEVER been known to happen over something we have seen happen in every known instance?
How do you determine which is more or less likely?
Life from life has happened in every known instance. Abiogenesis never. We don't even have a coherent theory of the mechanism of how such a thing would occur. You are asking to compare the likelihood of something that has NEVER been know to happen in all of human history, to something that has happened in every instance known to man! Does that sound reasonable to you? The thing which has NEVER happened is less likely than the thing which has ALWAYS happened.
If all life must come from life then don't we have an infinite regression?
Slow down. Science goes one step at a time. Right now, all the evidence points to life from life. That may present problems in the future, but that is no reason to disallow what science is clearly pointing to. There is no logical scientific reason to even be considering abiogenesis.
If we talk an eternal creator, then how do you show that's more probable than abiogenesis?
Again, I've said nothing about a eternal creator. I'm talking about processes. Life from life or abiogenesis. Life from life happens in every known instance, abiogenesis never. Life from life is the more probable than abiogenesis.
The first part of this is an argument from ignorance, the second is a pretty broad assumption.
Untrue. That we cannot do something that has NEVER been known to happen is not from ignorance. If we had no evidence of life from life either, you'd have a point, but even considering abiogenesis is absurd. There is no scientific or logical reason to do so. Why is it a consideration?
That we can't do something doesn't suggest that it is impossible.
I did not say it was impossible. I said life from life is by day more likely.
It may suggest our ideas on how abiogenesis is inaccurate, but that again only goes to show our shortcomings, it does nothing to prove nor disprove abiogenesis.
I'm not trying to prove or disprove abiogenesis any more than I'm trying to prove or disprove voodoo. I'm saying that you have absolutely no scientific reason to even bring up abiogenesis.
You could equally argue that the fact that the only intelligent beings we know to exist being incapable of creating life would seem to indicate that intelligence can't create life.
And I would agree. Both my argument and science indicate that life comes from life.
Both seem to be unsound and leave us having only the position that humans can't create life from scratch.
It isn't about humans. Life has never been known to start from scratch at any time anywhere. The evidence is obviously about life, not just humans or their ability to create life.
Nothing in the argument suggests a reason to assume we can make a reasonable assumption as to how life came to begin.
I find that to be amazing. You think we can make no assumption on how we have seen life come about in EVERY known instance, and should consider a thing that has NEVER been known to happen of equal likelihood! Is there anything else in science we treat this way?
Yet don't naturally occurring forces interacting produce the same results if all the variables are consistent?
Life isn't naturally occurring.
If the variables are usually consistent wouldn't we expect to see the same particular arrangement form? When we consistent particular results that would suggest that the variables hadn't changed, when we see different results that simply suggests that one of the variables had changed. In the first case we'd get a repeating pattern.
This is true for inanimate objects, isn't true for life.
SETI is quite selective in what it wants to see to my understanding.
As it should have been. SETI wants to be able to distinguish conscious intelligence from random naturally occurring forces.
It's not so much about information, but about information in a form familiar to how we (the only known sample of intelligent life) produce information.
Yes. We are conscious and intelligent. SETI assumed we would be able to distinguish information that was from a conscious intellect.
Ultimately I would say there is no evidence for either position, everything presented seems highly inconclusive, with that conclusion accepting either claim as true seems unfounded.
There is plenty of evidence of life from life. In fact, ALL evidence we have is for life from life. There is no evidence for abiogenesis. None at all. That you would equate a claim that has no evidence and has never been known to happen with a claim that occurs everyday all over the world is testimony to how evolution has corrupted scientific thinking today.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@amandragon01
This is your repeated assertion, it is however unfounded.
I wish you'd say how.
I have addressed this, it addresses humanity.
We know. But why?
It addresses the fact that humans are the only beings we know of relevant to the discussion of religion.
But relevant in what way?? You are dodging dragon, and I think I know why.
I haven't dodged any question, I've already answered this question. It's because of humanity, of all known species humans are relevant in the discussion of belief in a god.
Relevant in what way?
1. Why is personhood necessary for atheism?
Because only humans are relevant.
Relevant how? I say it's because only humans can think. You're dodging.
2. Why can't a scarf be an atheist?
Because only humans are relevant.
Relevant in what way? I say it's because only humans can think. You're dodging.
3. What is it that makes a lemon tree different from a person, and thus, unqualified as an atheist?
Because only humans are relevant.
Sorry. That doesn't answer the question. What is it that makes humans relevant and lemon trees NOT relevant?
It's because of humanity, of all known species humans are relevant in the discussion of belief in a god.
Relevant in what way? There are a thousand ways to formulate this question and I will ask you till you answer it, or run away. Either way the result will be the same to your argument. It will kill it.
I won't dismiss babies from the position of being human.
No one is asking you to dismiss babies. Babies are human. Your semantic ploy is disingenuous. Babies are not atheist. Being atheist does not confer humanity. So saying babies are not atheist does not mean they aren't human. Only humans can be atheists, but not every human is an atheist.
Nor will I accept the effort of theists to shoehorn in 'rejection' into atheism/atheist.
And yet you will not answer WHY only human are relevant! Do you see your conundrum dragon?
There is no implication or necessity or rejection or knowledge of god in the definition of atheist, only that one is human and doesn't believe in god.
Theism and atheism are describing states of belief in a certain thing. Namely God. As EtrnlVw pointed out, the definition of atheist cannot possibly simply be, "doesn't believe". If theism/God is taken out of the picture, atheism become incoherent. There is no state of belief that is " no belief". But that is what you are trying to say atheism is.
That is untrue. Atheism is NOT a state of having no beliefs, it is the state of having no beliefs about God, but without knowledge of God, that definition become gibberish.
Can you tell me why you think babies are not agnostic?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
It's a great and interesting subject to discuss, but I don't for a minute subscribe to it.
You've got a sirens voice.My ship was wrecked upon the rocks.
I see what you did there. That was refreshingly intelligent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Spirituality is a...
I guess you think your pronouncements gain authority if you repeat them. They don't.
Support your positions Zed, don't simply declare them. No one views you as a philosophical authority. We're interested in the process of your thinking, not in having you dictate to us your version of reality is. That way we can discuss both our perceptions and either change minds, or at least understand a different point of view.
That is what the board is for. You seem to want teach or preach. That is fine, but we already have schools and churches for those. Here, we want to debate ideas, not just bow in humble supplication to your godlike dictates.
This isn't a put down. Your ideas are interesting, but if you present them as pronouncement from on high instead of ideas to be discussed, people just tune you out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I'm not certain that science can be said to have an "exact opposite"....
Your comment comes very close.
There are logical reasons to assume every possibility, even seemingly illogical possibilities.
Wow. Breath taking! If ever there was a definition of what science is NOT. This is it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I've already tried to explain.
And your perceptions are reality.
You said so...
Spirituality is....
And that is to be taken as gospel truth. I don't think you know what this site is for.
Created:
Posted in:
Athias posted this....
Religious people bear the BoP. Provide an argument against this statement.
The burden of proof rests with whoever affirms. So, if one were to affirm the existence of God (i.e. "God does exist") then the one who affirmed the aforementioned would bear the onus to substantiate said affirmation. If one were to affirm the nonexistence of God (i.e. "God does not exist") then the one who affirmed the aforementioned would also bear the onus to substantiate said affirmation.
The notion that Atheists merely bear no burden of proof because of the prevailing notion "we don't have to prove a negative" is nonsense.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, In the interest of disclosure, I must say that Athias doesn't respond to my posts anymore, (he told me he wouldn't) but how can I not like this guy? He just consistently has the most precisely logical posts on the board.
Notice that with all the talk about BoP, not a single atheist mentioned a claim? BoP's come with claims! No one has the BoP simply because he is this or the other. This is like an extension of identity politics.
You're black, so you must be claiming you're equal to the white man. You have the BoP to prove it.
You're a woman, so you must be claiming you're of equal worth to a man. You have the BoP to prove it.
You're a theist, so you must be claiming God exists. You have the BoP to prove it.
But they won't like the corollary,...
You're an atheist, so you must be claiming God does not exist. You have the BoP to prove it.
Athias said,
If one were to affirm the nonexistence of God (i.e. "God does not exist") then the one who affirmed the aforementioned would also bear the onus to substantiate said affirmation.
This is true and correct. But the atheist wants to claim that theists are positively claiming God exists just by virtue of being theists! And atheists lack belief, so they are making no claim.
But if atheists are making no claims, then theism has nothing to counter as there is no challenge to their claim! Why do I need to support the claim that "God exists" if no one opposes my claim? Only counter-claims can oppose a claim, and if the counter claim is "God does not exist, then the one who affirmed the aforementioned would also bear the onus to substantiate said affirmation.
There is no way around this. The atheists fighting this know they cannot support atheism, and thus do not want their worldview examined. I can defend my claim, but your counter claims will require you to defend them too.
If you say you have no claims, then my claim is unchallenged and needs no support.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
@janesix
Reminds me of the song,
We all are one, we are the same person
(You be you, I be me)
We all are one, same universal
(You be you, I be me)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Good post Etrnl.
I think he gave us a clue in one of his posts where he said (I'll paraphrase) not calling a baby an atheist would be "forcing" a belief on them!! It's like they think a-theism has nothing to do with God (theism)! It is just neutral and default.
I suspect this is where American atheists are heading. They wish to de-couple atheism from theism. They see the problem they have at needing theism to give them a coherent definition. I predict in the next few years, atheists will suggest a new word to define them that they think will not need theism to give it relevance.
Anti-theist is a step in that direction, but they want something with even less connection to theism. It will be interesting to see what they come up with.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
Ah, so you responded to what you decided I “implicitly implied”not anything that I posted.
Logic being a challenge for you is not my responsibility.
Your perception of what I liked or disliked is immaterial. It neither validates your argument or invalidates mine. It only makes you appear petty.
I can only go by what you posted. If you react by trying to bring in all sorts of other ideas (like politics) and you feel the need to impute an explicit statement when none exists, I can conclude your emotional content.
Sure you can. I didn't say you couldn't. I said it neither validates your argument or invalidates mine. But if petty is what you were going for, be my guest.
That should resolve the question.
What you decide to call something resolves only the turmoil between your ears. (Why do liberals think they can speak reality into being?)
Fine. I’ll stick with “your error which you confuse for the truth”
Stick with whatever you like, just try to remember that your personal mental contortions are not my interest in being here. Find someone who is interested.
I haven’t said anything to indicate my vote and yet you have let your error construct a world-view.
I'll repeat what I said. "OK Rosends".
You aren't that important.
Lol! You seem to be trying pretty hard for that "unimportant" thing.
What I “seem” to you has no impact on the truth. That’s your perception and your issue to deal with.
Is your claim that I'm not that important yet you keep responding also just my perception?
I could but I am trying to understand how you think you will respond before I do.
Uh huh.
My question still stands.
Because you cut out my reply. I'm not important enough right?
Because your reply did not answer the question.
Well now. If you're going to delete my responses and put in your own comments, I can make better use of my time and just follow on the sidelines as you debate yourself. That might be more entertaining than listening to you pontificate over and over about how wrong you find me.
What does that have to do with your idea of your importance?
Not my idea, your Idea. I've said nothing about my importance. You said I was not important enough. That must be why you think it is OK to delete my replies and then claim your questions still stand.
Lol. In your mind, you've already proven I am wrong haven't you?
Well, actually, I haven’t proven it, but I have the proof.
Then you advice on how I could have avoided being proven wrong was a little premature was it not Rosends? Lol.
I said you could have avoided being wrong.
You admit that you have not proven me wrong, but say I could have avoided being wrong. This is a perfect example of liberal logic. If I have not avoided being wrong, you don't need to prove me wrong now do you? To you, just your feeling that I am wrong is proof enough for you to start telling me how I could have avoided being wrong! How could I have "avoided" what you admit you have not yet done?
The bothersome part or the Karen part? Lol. Don't bother answering. Its rhetorical.
Sad that you insist that your response is rhetorical.
It was. What's truly sad is that you don't know what "insists" means.
If you can't explain then admit you can't...
No one asked me to explain. So then why would I "admit" I cannot?
- if you could have, you would have already.
Before I was asked? Your pettiness is now morphing into making you look stupid. Thanks, but I don't need the help.
I'm asking for clarification. Both parts.
If you need me to explain to you what a karen is, and why they are bothersome, you do not have the ability to get it. I won't waste my time.
You are still hanging on to that silly liberal idea that you are the arbiter of what is true and relevant. That everyone must agree with your thinking or else they are "bad/mistaken/evil". That the only proof needed for someone to be wrong is for you to think they are wrong.
You can't wear me down, anger me, shame me, or trick me. I don't tire, get bored, or get frustrated. You cannot " win" against me with pettiness, obstinacy, obtuseness, or pigheadedness. I care about logic. I don't know you. Only your logic is real to me.
Your insistence that I'm bothered or angry doesn't help you. Drop the SJW attitude and give me logic. If you don't, I will just toy with you. And I can do that longer than you can play the liberal "you must agree with me because I'm right game".
Now, do you have anything of substance, or do you only want to say yet again that you think I'm wrong?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
There are logical reasons to assume every possibility....Even if those possibilities are seemingly illogical.
OK, give us an example of a logical reason to assume a seemingly illogical "possibility".
This comment of yours is the exact opposite of science. I should frame it for posterity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@amandragon01
Three things...
1. There is no known instance of life ever starting without prior life
This neither removes the possibility of such an instance nor shows intelligence must be involved.
Agreed. But yet it is more in favor of intelligence being involved than not. So you have less reason to assume abiogenesis than I have to assume creation.
2. Man has not been able to create life at all
So the only example we have of intelligence hasn't been able to create life and this is evidence that life must require an intelligence to form?
Not must, but highly likely. It is more reasonable to conclude that life comes from life than to assume abiogenesis when not only is there absolutely no evidence for abiogenesis, but there is a ton of evidence for life only from prior life.
How does this prove the necessity of an intelligence at all? It really only seems to show what we can't do.
Why can't we do it? The science seems to indicate because abiogenesis is incorrect/impossible.
3. Life makes, uses, and adapts information, and information creation & manipulation requires intelligence.
I agree that life creates and manipulates information if you define information as"What is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things.
Acceptable.
Then however I would ask why that requires an intelligence? What would prevent natural processes forming and manipulating such sequences?
Only intelligence can produce a "particular" arrangement or sequence. Non-intelligence can only produce random arrangements or sequences.
Without the information in DNA/RNA, life cannot start. Without life, we cannot have DNA/RNA. It's simple and intuitive.
Again we derive information from sequences, nothing seems to suggest these sequences. Why must these sequences be formed by an intelligence?
Because only intelligence can produce, use and store "particular" information.
S.E.T.I. was based on this truism. Otherwise, we could never know if a thing like a spaceship or a novel was a product of intelligence of of random chance.
Though the reasons to conclude intelligence in crestion life are not ironclad, there is absolutely no logical reason to assume abiogenesis. None whatsoever.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
I can only go by whatyou posted Rosends. I was the one who corrected you that it was never a matterof "your truth" or "my truth". Please don't try to pretendnow that you didn't come up with that liberal subjective gem.
You corrected me whenI said you had “your truth” - I didn't claim that I had "my truth."
Unless the "your truth" you referred to meant "all truth", then you implicitly implied, "my truth" too.
I corrected you and you don’t likebeing told that...
Your perception of what I liked or disliked is immaterial. It neither validates your argument or invalidates mine. It only makes you appear petty.
“your truth” is not the same as “the truth.”
I was the one who told you that. There is no "your truth". Therefore it cannot be " the truth". Please don't try to pretend now that you didn't come up with that liberal subjective gem.
Yes, “your truth” asopposed to “the truth.” That makes you in error.
There is no personal truth Rosends. There is no reason for you to keep repeating your opinion that I'm in error. And even if I am in error, there is still no personal truths. Keep your opinion, lose the illogic.
If you assert anerror is “the truth” then you must have invented a truth of your own. That’s aproblem you have.
"My problems" that exist only between your ears are fine with me.
...but in the fact that I said YOUhave a version, not I.
I know. I quoted you. And I corrected you in that there aren't "versions" of truth. Truth is objective. What you think isn't.
You want to hold it as something called “truth”then it is “your truth” but certainly not THE truth.
Then you are asserting that anyone holding any truth makes it become "their truth"! Nonsense. What a person holds is either the truth or not the truth, either way, there is no your truth or my truth. Truth is not subjective.
If you would prefer, I will just call your position "untruth" and not allow for an error in thinking on your part to help you craft a false world-view that you see as truth.
I couldn't care less for what you wish to call my position. You don't think my position is the truth. You've incessantly told us. We get it. Regardless, there is no personal truth. Truth is objective.
Trust me, you have noidea how I vote...
OK Rosends. My knowing how you vote is much harder than you knowing my false world-view that I see as truth.
Yet you keep harping that you didn't find my comment "useful".
Because it doesn’t further dialogue. If you are OK with that, then fine.
I'm always OK with truth. And I value truth far above furthering dialogue. Sorry.
If I told you I was bothered, would it make you happy Rosends?
You already did.
Actually I haven't, but would it make you happy?
And ithas no impact on my mood. You simply aren’t important enough.
Lol! You seem to be trying pretty hard for that "unimportant" thing.
if I could show, demonstrate or prove that something that you posted was objectively and provably false -- that your statement which you think of as being "the truth" is wrong, would it make you reconsider your truth claims...
If you could do that, you would have done so already.
No, I wouldn’t have because it wouldn't serve the conversation, butI could.
Uh huh.
My question still stands.
Because you cut out my reply. I'm not important enough right?
So you are botheredby someone who can prove that you are wrong? OK.
Lol. In your mind, you've already proven I am wrong haven't you?
Sometimes a littleresearch can help you avoid being proven wrong.
There ya go. You say you didn't prove me wrong because it wouldn't have "furthered dialogue", but here you say you still proved me wrong (somehow) and that I could have avoided being proven wrong! Did you use magic?
Your choice. I guess your holdon “the truth” isn’t as firm as you would like it to be so you squeeze tighterand close your eyes.
It must have been when my eyes were closed that you proved me wrong.
Why you call me a “bothersomeKaren” escapes me.
The bothersome part or the Karen part? Lol. Don't bother answering. Its rhetorical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
@ethang5: John 8:24 - I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. - King Jesus Christ. "
Why you have posted that verse?
You asked me to.
It doesn't prove anything at all.
Lol. OK.
The rest of your post obsessively ranting about Trade secret again I ignored. Please seek some help. Even if its only talking to a friend.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@amandragon01
Point one is a strawman there is no people/thinking requirement,
Untrue. The "people" requirement is due to the fact that only people think. If you remove the thinking requirement, you lose the logical reason for restricting the definition to people.
simply a people requirement. Infants fit that. They are people, they fit the first criteria to be an atheist.
No, they fit the criteria to be people. They do not fit all the criteria to be atheists.
And you are still dodging the question of why a "people" restriction. If not because of thinking, then what?
Point two is also flawed in assuming person = thinking.
We are not trying to define person, we are trying to define atheists. And "atheist" does require "thinking". True that "person" ≠ thinking, but thinking does = person, as only persons think.
Your definition, and therefore your argument is dead in the water unless you justify the restriction to people that is independent of cognition. So far, you have dodged telling us why the definition of atheist must be restricted to people, if thinking is not necessary.
I consider infants people. They fit perfectly under the definition.
They fit under the definition of people, NOT under the definition of atheist.
Can you support the claim as to the reason atheist requiring thinking to be part of the definition?
I was forced by logic into that claim because you could offer no reason for why atheist require people to be part of the definition of atheist. The only logical reason seems to me to be that only people can think. So I've asked you several times to justify the "people" restriction in your definition without referring to cognition. You have so far dodged answering that challenge.
For me, your dodging gives the same result as an your honest answer would. It validates that your argument is illogical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@amandragon01
Then the White House is an atheist. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Your own definition specifies the rejection as a condition.
Are you asserting the White House is a person?
No. I'm pointing out that, according to your argument, the White house is an atheist.
Because the definition of atheist clearly states being a person as a criteria.
The definition of atheist clearly states rejecting a belief as a criteria. You will not be allowed to use an equivocal definition that wriggles depending on whether we're talking about "persons" or "rejection".
In post #103 Drafterman said,
The implicit scope of any "-ism" is humanity. It is only within this implicit scope that I have been speaking. Anything non-human is out of scope.
I'm assuming you agree with this, so I'm asking again, WHY is the implicit scope of any "-ism" humanity? It is because humans think, is it not? Babies are people, but do not think. Thus including them as atheists, non-thinking people, makes the -ism incoherent.
Then trees and platypuses do too. Your definition said rejection of a belief in God or gods was a criteria. A rejection requires knowledge of. Babies do not meet the criteria
No not once does it state rejection is necessary.
It implicitly does by restricting the definition to "people"! Only people can reject a belief. That is why the restriction exists at all.
Being a person is necessary, which none of the above are.
Being a person is one necessary criteria for being an atheist, but being a thinker is a necessary criteria for being a rejecter. If being a thinker is not necessary to be an atheist, Lego blocks qualify as atheist as the thinking requirement is moot.
Disbelief or lack of belief is necessary. Lack of belief doesn't require rejection of the claim.
Then why is personhood necessary? How is the personhood restriction not ad-hoc? How does the fact that a lemon tree is not a person bare on the definition? What is it that makes a lemon tree different from a person, and thus, unqualified as an atheist?
Then flat head screwdrivers are atheists too!
Now you say, flat head screwdrivers aren't people. So, tell us, why is people-hood is a criteria? Because only people think. But babies don't think! It is not being people Alone that makes one an atheist, it is being people + rejecting belief in God.
if you say babies are atheists, then it must be only their people-hood causing them to be atheist, for they have rejected nothing! That is on its face illogical.
If you think the only criteria is not having a belief in god, then frisbees are atheists, for your criteria of people-hood must be coherent. In other words, why must an atheist be a people? Do you have an answer?
Of course, it's because it is the discussion of humanity that is relevant. The debate of and search for religion is by all evidence a deeply human enterprise. Infants are humans. They lack belief in gods, so they are atheist, if that changes or not depends entirely on if they should ever come to accept as true the existence of a god or gods. To not recognise them as atheists would be to either force beliefs upon them or reject their humanity, I will do neither.
You dodged the question and spoke about the discussion instead of the definition. Here, try again.
1. Why is personhood necessary for atheism? Why can't a scarf be an atheist?
2. What is it that makes a lemon tree different from a person, and thus, unqualified as an atheist?
...it is the discussion of humanity that is relevant.
I'm asking why is it restricted to humanity? There must be a reason. And that reason must be coherant and relavent to your definition. Because you also claim that, "Lack of belief doesn't require rejection of the claim.
It is true that a " lack of belief" doesn't require rejection of the claim, but atheism DOES require a rejection of the claim. That is why it is called a - theism. Atheism is in coherant without theism!
To not recognise them as atheists would be to [snip] force beliefs upon them....
And pray tell, what belief would that be? And how would it be forcing?
...or reject their humanity,...
How would calling them atheist be "accepting" of their humanity?
...I will do neither.
What you are comfortable doing is immaterial. Your argument is all over the place, ad-hoc, and incoherent. This is why you can't answer the simple questions posed to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
He probably eats for a living.
If he soothed his angst by over eating, he wouldn't have so much on the board, though history says he's probably obese.
And apparently, neither does being lawyer prevent one from believing in fantasy tales.
And apparently, being true doesn't stop one from calling them fantasy tails. Some people are convinced that what they think - is reality.
For every jibe there is a counter jibe.
And for every truth, there is a counter lie.
Created:
-->
@Fierceness
I do. To torture the lone racist stuck there.
I occasionally see people from here drop by, but the board is dead, so they never stay.
What was your name when you were there?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Checkmate
If for some reason you cannot defend your claim, don't make it
Just like how you are incapable of proving God is real.
Proving "to you" is not the same as proving. Every week in my church we convince people that God is real. Your disbelief doesn't make our proof false.
These things are true and will remain true no matter how much you fuss and fume
The only thing you seem capable of doing is shifting the BoP.
The BoP is never "shifted". If you make a positive claim, you have the BoP. Unshifted from anywhere. This is equally true for both of us
Why was God even considered to be real?
For the same reasons anything is considered to be real. People can feel His effects in their lives, in their environments, or it makes logical sense.
Can you provide any evidence?
Sure I can, but the question is, are you capable of accepting the evidence? But whether I can or not, you are not the final arbiter of my evidence, and it doesn't need your validation. You may accept or reject it, but the evidence itself remains unchanged by your acceptance or denial.
You are clearly a very confused individual. If you are accused of murder and are facing a court system, do you have to a) provide evidence that you are not a killer and risk being charged or b) rebut all allegations thrown at you and maintain the status quo. Perhaps the lawyer can help us out here.
You don't have to do either. The prosecutor has to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are a killer. Short of that, you go free without having to rebut anything. Allegations do not become true simply because you do not rebut, the prosecutor must prove his allegations, not simply make them.
So you see, I'm not confused at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@amandragon01
An atheist isn't necessarily someone who has rejected belief in god. An atheist is simply a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of a god or gods.
Then the White House is an atheist. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Your own definition specifies the rejection as a condition.
Rejection is not required for that definition to apply...
Then orange trees are atheists. I reject any argument with such a ludicrous conclusion.
Infants are people.
You might as well call infants trees.
The statement that infants lack belief in the existence of a god or gods is meaningful to this discussion.
It lacks meaning in any discussion. It is tautology.
It directly Impacts if they meet the criteria necessary to be an atheist.
Then trees and platypuses do too. Your definition said rejection of a belief in God or gods was a criteria. A rejection requires knowledge of. Babies do not meet the criteria.
This leaves us to determine if they disbelieve or lack belief in the existence of a god or gods.
No sir. This leaves us to determine if they know of and rejected belief in the existence of a god or gods. They did not.
Their lack of belief in the existence in a god or gods is what makes them atheists.
Then flat head screwdrivers are atheists too!
Now you say, flat head screwdrivers aren't people. So, tell us, why is people-hood is a criteria? Because only people think. But babies don't think! It is not being people Alone that makes one an atheist, it is being people + rejecting belief in God.
if you say babies are atheists, then it must be only their people-hood causing them to be atheist, for they have rejected nothing! That is on its face illogical.
If you think the only criteria is not having a belief in god, then frisbees are atheists, for your criteria of people-hood must be coherant. In other words, why must an atheist be a people? Do you have an answer?
...it is the only conclusion that makes sense given the above definition of atheist.
Sorry, it simply doesn't make sense. There is a reason atheists have been restricted to people. That reason is not true for babies. Babies are people, but do not qualify under the definition.
Your only 2 logical choices are to,
1. Ditch the peoplehood/thinking requirement, rendering all inanimate objects as qualifying as atheists, or...
2. Keep the peoplehood/thinking requirement, rendering all infants as unqualified under the definition.
Now, if you can show us a reason that is not dependant on cognition for why only people can be atheists, then I will agree with your inclusion of babies. Otherwise, the fact of babies being people is immaterial.
Created:
Posted in:
As I always say....
Psssst, Z-man, your saying it doesn't make anything true. Honest.
The Bible is a naive hypothesis....That's not to say that I do not credit scientists of the day with their derived levels of understanding....Though what may or may not have occurred billions of years ago has always been speculated about, but has never be pinned down.
Some things have been pinned down. You just don't know the science yet.
Darwin concerned himself with species evolution and development....In terms of universal evolution just one short chunk of comparatively recent events.....The Bible however plucks from thin air the notion that a speculative GOD figure created everything as is, just a few thousand years ago.
Untrue. That is the view of what the bible says that you've gotten from equally ignorant atheists. The bible does not pluck from thin air, which explains why it often knows before science, the bible does not say everything was created everything as is, or that everything was created a few thousand years ago. You have been misled.
In terms of contradiction, you contradict yourself by acquiescing to the speculation of a pre sun/star universe, to use as evidence for a very recent creation hypothesis.
I did not use it. I simply mentioned it as one of the atheists favorite claims used to be that plants could not grow without the sun. It is science that has caused them to move closer to the bible.
Flood events occur and regional flood events can be catastrophic....But catastrophic flood events that occur in the southern U.S. for example do not effect the U.K.
First thing is, both the southern US and the UK were not always where they are now. The bible takes that into consideration. Science now agrees. Second, it depends on the size of the flooding doesn't it? Today, climate change hysterics insist that every continent will feel the effects of the world flooding.
As I often say....
Anyone can say anything Z. Most people are not as enamored with what they say as you seem to be.
A guy with a boat rescued a few goats....And the story tellers and scientists had a field day....
Is this supposed to be convincing to us because it's your opinion?
And so Noah et al, saved a breeding pair of every species that existed at the time,
Noah did not save every species that existed at the time. And the bible does not say "species". Species is a man made concoction dreamed up thousands of years later.
in a vast boat that they were able quickly knock together....
You don't know how long it took Noah to build the ark do you? Go ahead, look it up so you can pretend later that you knew all along.
Not to mention all the dietary needs and associated food stuffs that it would have been necessary to acquire and store.....Come on Mr Ethan your cleverer than that
Right. A worldwide flood, lasting 40 days, predicted and caused by God, who then gets all these animals to come to Noah and get on his ark, never attacking each other, and you can swallow that but strain on, " where did the food come from"? I AM more cleaver than that.
.....And as this all happened just a few thousand years ago, how come humans are not all Middle Eastern in appearance.....Where did all the Chinese suddenly pop up from.....
The bible does not say a few thousand years ago. Your washed brain does not hold the text of the bible. You have been hoodwinked.
Perhaps when 30,000 feet of water oozed up out of the Earth's mantle, the clever Chinese hid underground.
Three oceans worth. But error will be your girlfriend as long as you get your information from biased ignorants.
Nope... The Bible and other associated naive hypotheses are just as much a product of material evolution as everything else is.
It is completely unsurprising that your conclusion is as bogus as your error filled hypotheses.
A masterclass in illogical argumentation!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
John 8:24 - I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. - King Jesus Christ. Read the whole chapter 8. It will help you greatly.
Oh I have, and more.
I wish you had read it BEFORE you started your militant rants about me lying and that the bible supported your ignorant claims.
So if I don't believe in him I will die in sin or my inherited sin from thousands of years ago or both?
Does the verse say anything about inherited sin from thousands of years ago?
It doesn't state " King Jesus Christ" . You have added that.
Lol. It doesn't state "John 8:24" either Einstein. One is there so you know where the verse is, and the other so you know who uttered the words.
Anyway , Can you clear up the question BEFORE YOU start claiming any more shite.
The shite being that you didn't know, and were wrong about what the bible said? That shite? My claim was that the bible says you will die in your sin if you do not accept Jesus' payment for you. Is that claim shite?
We maybe able to proceed with your argument then.
Proceed where? You called me a liar, saying the bible said the exact opposite of my claim. I humiliated you by posting the verse and you call it shite. You were not only wrong, you were militantly wrong.
So, am I not a liar anymore? Has the bible suddenly changed? Does the bible no longer completely & utterly contradict MY UNSUPPORTED claims that - you " will die IF " you don't accept His sacrifice? Have I moved out of the corner I painted myself in?
Where do you wish to "proceed" to now? See, I am not as nice as Trade secret. I will not let you bully and insult me and then pretend everything is fine when I demonstrate you are woefully ignorant.
Why would I want to "proceed" with a person so ignorant, he didn't even know his chosen topic, and so rude and uncouth, that he would throw out terms like "liar" and "shite" to his betters?
You must think speaking to you is some sort of privilege. It isn't. I've addressed everything you brought up in your OP. You still have your sin because you have not confessed them to Jesus and asked Him to take them away from you, and thus, if you die in that state, you will have to pay for them yourself. Scripture did not say YOUR sins are forgiven, it says your sins can be forgiven, IF you take them to Jesus. You say you have not taken your sins to Jesus, and that you don't want to.
Ok then. Stop whining about no one asking your permission and about how your sins were taken away without your permission. No one needed your permission. You lost. Jesus' payment was not made to you.
If you now want to ooze to yet another topic, start a new thread and I will demonstrate there too how little you know of Christian doctrine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
It's no longer your truth eh?
it never was a matter of "my truth"
I can only go by what you posted Rosends. I was the one who corrected you that it was never a matter of "your truth" or "my truth". Please don't try to pretend now that you didn't come up with that liberal subjective gem.
You had said that you posted something which was "the" truth and I simply corrected you.
By telling me it was "my truth". You can't run away from your old comments Rosends. I can cite it if you'd like.
You don't like that correction because you see your version of the world as "the truth" but you are wrong.
You flatter yourself thinking I didn't "like" something you said. All I did was point out to you that truth didn't come in flavors of mine and yours. That remains true no matter how angry you'd like to imagine I am.
If you want to refer to earlier parts of this dialogue, it is useful to note them in context -- I was conceding that you have a version of "truth" -- not that there are different truths.
Uh huh. "A version of truth" being different than, "different truths"? Sorry. There are no "versions of truths". That is the same PC liberal nonsense as, "your truth" and "my truth". You keep harping that I am wrong. I don't care. But right or wrong, there are still not " versions of truths".
I still don't understand how you tie the post modern idea of truths to a political position (or do you mean liberal in terms of some other set of values). You don't know how I vote and yet because I am tolerant of your erroneous position, and humor your calling it "truth" you want to guess at my various leanings. Weird.
The "post modern idea of truths". Lol. I do know how you vote Rosends. But liberal is not only political. And thank you for being " tolerant" of my position. Lord knows you don't want to deny me my rights by saying what you think.
It doesn't matter whether you find my thoughts fascinating...
Notice that I said I didn't?
("How "useful" that was to you is of no concern to me.")
Yet you keep harping that you didn't find my comment "useful".
If you find this to be a bother, then that is your problem, and if you are looking for a fight then you have looked in the wrong place.
The fact that you keep returning telling me what I've already told you, would make me doubt your above comment is true, but as I don't care, ....eh,
All I'm doing is posting information on the truth and you are bothered that it makes clear that your version of things isn't the truth
If I told you I was bothered would it make you happy Rosends? I have limited time, and if you're going to keep coming back with silliness, I will have to conclude that you aren't just mistaken, you are seeking a fight. As you know, I don't mind fights, but I'd rather them be about substance rather than petty PC butthurt.
Separate question -- if I could show, demonstrate or prove that something that you posted was objectively and provably false -- that your statement which you think of as being "the truth" is wrong, would it make you reconsider your truth claims and see that what you insist on as being "the truth" is really just your perception and understanding?
If you could do that, you would have done so already. What you think of my statement doesn't matter that much to me. Chasing me around insisting I agree with your position smacks of sjw-hood. You've told me you think I am wrong. I've told you I disagree. The PC liberal in you cannot accept that and wants to force me to "see it your way".
But your process is wrong. You don't think Truth is objective. How then would "prove that something I posted was objectively and provably false? And why would I care? I know you're only going to gave me what you see as "your truth" anyway.
Now here is what I said to you in my last post. Find someone who finds your personal thoughts fascinating, and bother them. If you missed it, I meant that I did NOT find your personal thoughts fascinating, AND that you were being a bothersome Karen. (redundancy deliberate)
No one HAS to agree with you. And you don't have to agree with anyone. I am not facinated with what you think. As a PC, post modern liberal, that may be hard for you to accept, but sometimes people end up agreeing to disagree. So suck it up and move on, Ethan is not interested in what you're selling.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Wow!
I thought Ethang was joking when he said you were obsessed.
Lol. Told ya.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
You seem fixated on politics instead of on the fact that what I speak of is the truth.
It's no longer your truth eh?
It does not depend on you, and the truth does not comport with your particular version of it. It simply is and according to that truth, you are wrong.
Lol. You just repeated the lesson I gave you.
Just as a side note, I am willing to grant you "your truth"...
Oops! Don't slip back into PC nonsense. First, you can't "grant" anyone the truth, and second, there is no your truth or my truth. I know these non-liberal ideas are scary for you, but trust me, you will be fine.
because those false notions are so firmly ingrained in you that you mistake them for something transcendent. They aren't, but that's the foundation upon which you work so I wouldn't want to take that away from you until you are ready. And you aren't -- I can tell by how you cling to your errors.
Liberals also love to pontificate on their thinking. No one cares Rosends, that's why no one asked you. Opinions are like you know what, everyone has one. Now, find someone who finds your personal thoughts fascinating, and bother them.
Liberals always think they are so interesting to others.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I'm a liberal and don't use that kind of reasoning,
So you say. But we'll see.
so no, that doesn't apply. That's a generalization without evidence, try again.
That kind of reasoning is what makes a person a liberal. If you are really a liberal, you use that kind of reasoning. Otherwise, you aren't a liberal. People have been known to mis-label themselves. Not by lying, just by mistake.
Liberals tend not to see the fallacies in their reasoning, and think its only the "other guy" with "that kind" of reasoning. But I will take your word for it, least someone accuses me of denying you your "rights".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
Remember now, your "truth".
No, the truth.
At first it was my truth. You changed your mind on the subjectivity of truth. Bravo!
I know because I said so and I said so because I know.
No one asked how you know. And how you know doesn't affect truth. If it is true, it is true regardless of how you know.
I'm glad that you feel comfortable embracing your untruth.
I'm glad that you're glad. But untruth is like truth in that it is not mine or yours. Untruth is untruth no matter whether it is from Jew or gentile.
It took years to put that liberal nonsense into you, it will take some time to get it out of you. But liberals love being victims, so you will have to wrestle with having to give up victimhood. Keep talking to me and you will improve.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Humans were created good - not perfect.
Well, it depends on their creator doesn't it?
A perfect design is one that fits the purpose of the designer.
Reminds me of the movie, the matrix. The perfect society did not work. But one with built in "flaws" worked perfectly. Which design was "perfect"? The " flawed" one that fit the designers purpose? Or the "perfect" one that broke down?
This is why I say the "flawed" argument is just silly. It's far to subjective to carry any real useful information. It's someone's opinion on a speculation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I just watched a Nova program on PBS that speculated that plant life may have sprouted on some planet long before any suns lit up.
They said that soon after the big bang, the universe was hot, even before suns became luminescent. The energy of some planets coming from friction caused by gravitational changes in its shape. And some plants could have lived off that energy like the ones on Earth that do not need sunlight but can live off of chemical and heat energy.
The bible does not say life first, it says sun first, but most atheists get their information about the bible from other atheists, and not the bible itself.
Science even has to catch up sometimes with the bible. For example, for years science said there wasn't enough water on Earth to cover every peak in the world. Recently science found out that in fact, there is MORE than enough water in the Earth's mantle. More than 3 times all the world's oceans!
Or the atheists who did calculations noting that no matter how hard it rained, the resulting precipitation could not cover the Earth's peaks in 40 days. More than 2,000 years ago, the bible noted that the flood was augmented by water from inside the Earth. It was not just rain.
There are many other examples like this, where the bible says something, scientific atheists giggle at it, until science shows that the bible was right all along. But its currently cool to be darwinist, so the faddish PC crowd falls over themselves trying to parade their evolution credentials, most of them knowing nothing about evolution or even science in general.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@amandragon01
...nothing has been presented to me that would demonstrate the necessity of a creator.
Life doesn't?
Not in any demonstrable way no. What about life necessitates a creator (for the sake of clarity here I am being colloquial and mean an intelligent creator).
Three things...
1. There is no known instance of life ever starting without prior life
2. Man has not been able to create life at all
3. Life makes, uses, and adapts information, and information creation & manipulation requires intelligence.
Most of the arguments I've heard are essentially arguments from ignorance. How do you propose life demonstrates the necessity of an intelligence in its formation?
Without the information in DNA/RNA, life cannot start. Without life, we cannot have DNA/RNA. It's simple and intuitive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@amandragon01
Infants are specific human beings.
So what? Infants have not rejected belief in god.
This makes them people.
That has never been in contention.
They don't have belief in the existence of a god or gods
Tautology. They have no belief in anything and cannot have beliefs in anything. Saying of a baby, "It doesn't have belief in the existence of a god or gods is silliness when a baby cannot have belief in the existence of a god or gods.
...being both people and not believing in the existence of a god or gods makes Infants atheists.
No sir. Being people and rejecting a belief in the existence of a god or gods, makes people atheists. No one is atheist simply because they exist.
Which of the following do you assert is false?
Infants do not believe in the existence of a god or gods.
Tautology. To "not believe" requires knowledge of the belief and the ability to believe.
Infants are people.
I believe infants are people. But most liberals do not.
You keep skirting that directly relevant question. Do you agree with those statements?
Of course not. One is illogical and the other is irrelevant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
My merry band has been keeping the truth alive...
Remember now, your "truth".
...for a while now and we aren't dwindling, even in the face of many insisting that they have access to some erroneous notion of "truth."
Like I said, at least you learned that your rights aren't harmed by others asserting theirs. The education was free.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I think Rosends means my logical fallacy is not agreeing with her. It's liberal logic 101.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Instead of making threats on behalf of your god show us where the scriptures actually state this.
So you keep saying but offer not a single piece of biblical proof.
You have painted yourself so tightly into a corner with all of your shite made up as you go, that you forget what you have already said.
when people like you start to make things up and tell lies when cornered. You simply cannot prove you claims because THEY ARE LIES
...you know not your scriptures then do you?
And this is probably why you seem to think that you can get away with making things up.
Is it any wonder it is so easy to run rings around you.
Your just lying.
I know that you're a compulsive liar and cannot ever prove your claims.
The scriptures< on the other hand don't say this at all!
If fact they completely & utterly contradict YOUR UNSUPPORTED claims that - I " will die IF " I don't accept his sacrifice?
John 8:24 - I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. - King Jesus Christ
Now your talking .
Lol!!!!
Read the whole chapter 8. It will help you greatly.
Oh I have, and more.
I wish you had read it BEFORE you started your militant rants about me lying and that the bible supported your ignorant claims. But better late than never eh?
So if I don't believe in him I will die in sin or my inherited sin from thousands of years ago or both?
After all your ignorant rants calling me a liar, you just ooze to yet another question as if there is no egg on your face?
Wait, am I not a liar anymore? Has the bible suddenly changed? Does the bible no longer completely & utterly contradict MY UNSUPPORTED claims that - you " will die IF " you don't accept His sacrifice? Have I moved out of the corner I painted myself in? : )
Have you even ever spoken to Jesus?
No.
Then what is it making you think your sins have been taken away?
Have you?
Sure. How do you think my sins were taken away?
And that wasn't the question.
I will not keep answering a question I've answered because you like repetition.
It's funny how certain you are given your poor reading comprehension.
About what?
That your sins have been taken away. Do you even have any memory of giving Jesus your sins?
" giving" !!!! 2memories of me giving"??????? You really are in a mess aren't you princess.
I'll assume you have no such memory.
...you have gone against all biblical claims by telling me Jesus didn't die for our sins...
I never told you that. Instead of sputtering and cursing, just post where I said Jesus didn't die for your sins. I bet you cannot.
Where is your evidence for your claims that Jesus didn't die for my sins?
I never said that Jesus didn't die for your sins. I said you still have your sins, they have not been washed away or forgiven. Reading comprehension Stevie. Reading comprehension.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
Hopefully the "truth" won't die with your small dwindling band of merry men claiming their archaic way is the truth.
I checked, and reality doesn't reside between your ears. But at least you learned that your rights aren't harmed by others asserting theirs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
If there is only one truth then you insist that my understanding of the authority of certain texts is wrong and you deny my the right to a distinct and acceptable belief system.
I deny you nothing by stating the truth. Your right to a distinct belief system acceptable to you has not been curtailed. Your rights do not need my validation. This is more of that illogical liberal idea that one is "denying" your rights unless they agree with you.
...and you are positing that your statement is a universal truth.
I value truth over tolerance. If the truth bothers you, you shouldn't talk to me. Though I do not wish to offend you, that will not make me forsake the truth.
...you are ok with people going around and denying other people the opportunity to have valid faith systems then that, by itself, speaks volumes.
No one has denied you anything. Stop being a victim. My stating what I believe does not deny you any of your rights. It is not your right that I agree with you.
And posting a source text which someone who IS a Jew doesn't hold in esteem then has a parallel lack of value.
If what you asked for is in that text, I will tell you it is there. How much value you place on the truth is your business.
You made a claim about the existence of a textual support for your position and supported it with material that doesn't perform that function to someone outside of your culture-context, but you don't want to see that as a flaw in either your source material or presentation...
Because I operate on logic, not liberal nonsense. I will not Tailor the truth to fit the cultural bias of the person asking. The function of the truth is not dependant on what you think of it.
That's fine with me. Fascinating and amusing, but not with any rhetorical value.
Liberal logic. Amusing at least. It's long since stopped being fascinating. Have a pleasant day Rosends.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I was never asked AND YOU tell me "Jesus didn't need my permission".
He didn't.
Didn't need my permission for what?
To offer Himself as a sacrifice for the payment of the world.
Peter & Romans & Mark & Hebrews & others are not referring to you.
Then who?
Those who take Jesus up on His heroic offer.
And now you are telling me that Jesus didn't "TAKE AWAY" the sins of the world as the scriptures will have us all believe.
I did not tell you that Jesus didn't take away the sins of the world, I said you will die and pay for them if you reject Jesus' payment for you.
Those to me count as you not knowing fk all that which you now are pretending to know about.
How things "count" to you doesn't concern me in the least.
Your sins have not been washed away AND paid for. You still have them.
Not according to your scriptures.
I can only tell you the truth. Your reading comprehension is your responsibility.
His not needing your permission to die does not mean your sins have been forgiven.
Then why are you even here arguing on my thread.
I corrected your error in thinking your sins had been forgiven.
Is all you had to do was - - tell me my sins were not forgiven...
I told you this.
...and that the bible is totally wrong on the matter of forgiveness of sins and Jesus didn't sacrifice himself to take away the "sins of the world" , and then thread would have been finished.
And I would have been a liar. Ethan never lies. Nor will Ethan feed you stupidity simply because its what you want to hear.
But as it is, you have raised so many more questions.
That often happens when one tries to debate a subject he is ignorant about.
The scriptures have a way of doing that, you know. I.E. I put a question, you lie about it and then backtrack causing more questions to be raised.
That must be why so many people are Christian.
And are you denying too that Jesus didn't pay for our sins with his blood sacrifice as Christians and the scriptures are always at pains to tell us?
You aren't a Christian.
That wasn't my question. And I was Christened over 65 years ago
So? You aren't Christian. The payment is for Christians.
I never said Jesus made any payment for you. Nothing has been taken from you and I haven't the foggiest idea why you think something has.
Because the scriptures say Jesus PAID for my sins...
Sorry, but I've seen no verse saying Jesus took away YOUR sins. And I've read the entire bible several times.
...and has " taken way the sins of the world" Are you denying the scripters?
No. Validating scriptures. Your sins have not been forgiven. You still have them.
If you don't accept scripture what does it matter?
Who said I don't.
Well, you did. You say so in almost every thread you post.
I believe a lot of what is written in the bible. I have no reason not to. So AGAIN! where in the scriptures doe it say that?
I've answered this question.
[Jesus becoming a sacrifice] doesn't mean He DID take your responsibilities away from you.
But the scriptures say he did!!!!!.
No. The scriptures say Jesus sacrificed Himself as a payment, but that doesn't mean He DID take your sins away from you. You still have them.
This is what happens all the time when lying Christians LIKE YOU find themselves on the backfoot after digging big holes full of lies, you start denying what even the scriptures clearly state. How fkn pathetic is that !!!!?
Something here is pathetic. That's for sure.
But he's already done it and he's dead.
He's not dead, and you still have your sin.
Ok so then according to you,...
Nope. According to the bible.
...and contrary to the scriptures and all four evangelists,...
Nope. Just contrary to you.
I still have my sin and Jesus didn't "take away the sins of the world"
Jesus hasn't taken away YOUR sins. You aren't the world.
That requires nothing more than a yes or no.
I've answered you several times. No one has taken away your sins. The bible doesn't say your sins have been taken away. Do you even have any memory of giving Jesus your sins?
As I have said, and you ignored - my sins were washed away AND a blood sacrifice paid for by Jesus and his "heroic selflessness" sacrifice.
I did not ignore this. I told you that your sins had not been washed away. That is why you're so angry that you've started cursing now. Saying that I ignored you is a lie. That is funny because you're accusing me of lying!
So [A] Do I still have my sins as you clearly state over and over thereby making the scriptures are wrong?
Trick questions don't help your argument.
- OR - [B] my sins have been paid for by the "heroic and selfless" sacrifice Jesus made as the scriptures clearly state making you wrong?
As I said, reading comprehension is your responsibility. Anyone can claim the scriptures say anything. You still have your sins. It is painfully obvious. You could give them to Jesus, but you'd rather rant about how you didn't ask Him to die for you.
Have you even ever spoken to Jesus?
No.
Then what is it making you think your sins have been taken away?
Have you?
Sure. How do you think my sins were taken away?
And that wasn't the question.
I will not keep answering a question I've answered because you like repetition.
It's funny how certain you are given your poor reading comprehension.
About what?
That your sins have been taken away.
You are forgetting who it was that was asking the questions on MY thread in the first place, aren't you.
Nope, I didn't forget. It was you asking the questions. It is also you pretending not to see the answers too.
Let me clue you into something, asking questions is not a sure sign of certainty, it is quite the opposite.
Refusing to see the answers and re-spamming the questions is a sign of certainty though.
...your poor reading comprehension.
Don't you Christians ever get fed up of wheeling out that old shite of an excuse when you have been put in check.
Lol. If everyone is telling you about your poor reading comprehension perhaps you should do some introspection.
Listen , I can read what is written in the bible. You on the other hand have done a complete 180 ° contradicting and refuting all of your own earlier statements on this thread and are even now denying what the scriptures and the evangelist themselves say .
I've only denied what you claim the scriptures say.
YOU<, After pages of now pointless argument, are now saying that I "still have my sins and nothing was taken away" and that I will pay for them if I reject the already paid payment
I said that on the 1st page. The pointless argument after was from you.
...and without ONE single piece of supporting evidence!!!!!!!. and no explanation of how I will pay for them.
Why in the world would I tell you how to pay for them when you've told me that you think Jesus paying for your sins is disgusting and you would never have accepted it if He had asked? I take your words seriously
The scriptures< on the other hand don't say this at all! If fact they completely & utterly contradict YOUR UNSUPPORTED claims that - I " will die IF " I don't accept his sacrifice?
John 8:24 - I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. - King Jesus Christ
Read the whole chapter 8. It will help you greatly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
@BearMan
I know you said you never debate God so just ignore this post if you want Bearman.
Merely saying that "everything" is evidence is a baseless claim, as you have to prove every single thing in existence is solid proof that a God exists.
He was not presenting his evidence, he was telling us the nature of his evidence, that is, all creation is evidence.
But there is a problem. He doesn't have to prove every single thing in existence is solid proof that a God exists. To require that is disingenuous. Consider this:
If I claimed the the sum of two numbers is always larger than either of the two numbers added, would I have to add all numbers to prove they all produce a sum larger than the two added numbers? No. We would just pick numbers at random and test them against the claim. Why the different, unfair standard for god claims?
The fact of the matter is if an atheist challenges the evidence correctly, there shouldn't be any reason why the atheist should believe in that piece of evidence you have provided.
This is another bit of fancy footwork. The theist is not debating for your belief. His job is to present a sound and logical argument. And it doesn't depend on the atheist for its validity. Theists are not submitting an argument for your belief and acceptance. The atheist is not the boss sitting in judgement of the theist's argument. The strength of the theist's argument remains unchanged regardless of the acceptance of the atheist.
You claim that it's not really reversing the burden of proof, which it actually entirely is.
Whether it is a reversal or not depends on the claim being discussed.
Claim made: God exists. Claim Maker: Theist BoP On: Theist
Claim made: God does not exist. Claim Maker: Atheist BoP On: Atheist
The principle is clear, logical, and consistent. If the atheists says that he cannot prove a negative, who forced him to make a claim he could not prove? Certainly not the theist.
The thing is that the atheist wants to use "God exists" as the original argument for every God argument. Why? Why can we not use HIS argument? He will barge into a debate where no one has claimed that God exists, and try to use the person simply being a theist as if that was a positive claim, already made, that God exists.
What this does is to force the theist in every argument between a theist and an atheist to have the BoP, regardless of the claims of the atheist!
TS was absolutely right to reject such self-serving nonsense. TS was even more magnanimous than I would have been. He agreed to defend his claim, if the atheist would defend his own claim also. How is that unfair or unreasonable?
But no. The atheist wants an argument where all his claims go unchallenged, as he hammers away at the theist. This was doable back in the days before militant anti-theists, when atheists were still intellectually honest. Not so today. And certainly not on the internet.
If you can't or won't defend your claims, we can dismiss them. If you think your only position is offense, you will get a nasty shock. If you claim you believe nothing, then you hold no beliefs that contradict mine and we thus have nothing to debate.
That's how I see it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@amandragon01
...nothing has been presented to me that would demonstrate the necessity of a creator.
Life doesn't?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
Your truth.
There is no such thing as personal truth. That is liberal PC nonsense.
I asked the question and your answer was useless to me
You asked me where something was. I told you where it was. How "useful" that was to you is of no concern to me.
so your initial claim remains unsupported.
My claim is fine and does not need your validation.
All I'm pointing out is the same response as you made to my citation of the Talmud.
Untrue. You said, "saying "thank you" for a condition admitted to be "worse" doesn't necessarily follow." Someone other than a Jew who holds Jewish sages in esteem saying thank you does follow. The ones "admitting" it to be worse have no baring on our opinion.
I didn't take it as an insult, only as a comment as accurate and relevant as mine about the gospels.
I made no statement about your comment's accuracy or relevance, as both are irrelevant. You either accept my answer or you don't. Either way is your choice.
If you can't handle someone rejecting what you think of as "The bible" then you need a thicker skin.
How did I "not handle" it? You said you rejected it and I went, "Eh." Were you wishing for a fight? The thickness of my skin is irrelevant. I am not hurt or angry. I'm just wondering why you're so bent, and why you're thinking I somehow "rejected" your claim.
If someone sent you here to pick a fight, go back and tell them Ethan was not interested.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
If you didn't know to cite texts relevant to me as the one asking the question,...
You asked me where something was. I told you. How "relevant" you find it is immaterial. My answer was restricted to the truth.
...then maybe you shouldn't be making unqualified claims or expecting everyone in the world to abide by your personal definitions.
I had no expectations. I gave you no definitions. You said in post #17, "So saying "thank you" for a condition admitted to be "worse" doesn't necessarily follow." I told you Jewish sages had no impact on what non-jews said or felt about being born.
If you took that as an insult, you shouldn't have. It wasn't an insult and was not intended to insult. As much as it might thrill you, there aren't "Jew haters" lurking under every rock.
Created:
Posted in:
As the "flaws" argument was pure subjective hokum, it was appropriate that they not try to disguise it in science and went with the laughable spaghetti monster argument. But the implication that evolutionary theory agrees with the FSM has some truth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Checkmate
Do you not understand humour?
Lol. Stephen doesn't have a sense of humor.
The joke is that the lawyer doesn't understand the law, hence they cannot comprehend how the BoP works.
TS understands how the BoP works just fine. The humor is you and Stephen doing logical contortions on the BoP. (Well with Stevie its just contortions)
The logical fact is, the one making a positive claim holds the BoP for that claim. You want to choose TS' claim for him. Why? And if you do, why can't he choose your claim for you?
If for some reason you cannot defend your claim, don't make it. These things are true and will remain true no matter how much you fuss and fume. If you wish to debate TS, it will happen on terms you both agree on, not just your terms. If you don't like that, TS has told you he's not interested.
You're liberal, so you think others have to do what you like. You will learn better.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I have said "what is mine is mine". They don't have free will to take what belongs to me.
Nothing was taken from you.
The freedom to bare my own responsibilities was taken from me.
You do bare your own responsibilities. Nothing was taken from you. Why is that difficult for you to understand?
I was never asked AND YOU tell me "Jesus didn't need my permission".
He didn't. So why would He ask you?
So what are you even arguing about if you are now saying "nothing was taken from me"?
Lol! Your claim was that your sins and responsibilities were taken from you. I've been trying to get you to understand that nothing has been taken from you.
And are you now saying that Jesus didn't sacrifice himself and didn't die for our sins or to take away the sins of the world ?
No. I'm saying your sins have not been taken or " aid for" by Jesus. Why in the world would you think your sins were taken away by Jesus??
And that Peter & Romans & Mark & Hebrews & others are all wrong and simply telling lies? Because if that is the case then I am in agreement with you.
Peter & Romans & Mark & Hebrews & others are not referring to you.
What is mine is mine. Unless of course, you are saying my sins were not mine to begin with?
Your sins are and you will die and pay for them if you reject Jesus' payment for you.
Yes you have said that twice now and offered not a single piece of biblical evidence for your claim..... AGAIN!!!
I'm not here to teach you bible doctrine. This is Sunday school stuff. If you don't know it, you aren't equipped for this debate.
Yes I know my responsibilities are mine you hence the sole reason for this thread.
Then your thread is pointless.
And you keep telling me that "heroes do not need to be asked to sacrifice themselves.
Excuse me Sir? Could step in front of that bullet and sacrifice yourself for me? Thank you ever so kindly. (Hee,hee!!)
When I asked you does it even bother you that someone took responsibility and DIED! for your crimes you flippantly said - "Not at all. I didn't ask Him to. He volunteered".
All true, except for you thinking I was being flippant.
So if we still have ours sins what did Jesus die for?
I don't have MY sins anymore. YOU still have your sins. Who is this "WE"?
Jesus either died for our sins or he didn't which is it?
Read your bible. I'm not here to school you. Especially not when you have the arrogant attitude of someone who thinks he knows.
But however can this be true. My sins , according to your own scriptures have been washed away AND paid for with a horrendous torturous and agonising death of a blood sacrifice THAT NO ONE EVEN ASKED FOR.!!!!!!!
Your sins have not been washed away AND paid for. You still have them.
Then why are you even arguing that he didn't need my permission to take responsibility for my sins and die for them ?
He didn't. His not needing your permission to die does not mean your sins have been forgiven.
And are you denying too that Jesus didn't pay for our sins with his blood sacrifice and as Christians and the scriptures are always at pains to tell us?
You aren't a Christian.
You will die and pay for them if you reject Jesus' payment for you.
Three times now.
You will die only once.
And no biblical evidence to support that claim. You have said "nothing was taken from me" and again you are back to talking about "Jesus' payment for me" WHAT PAYMENT AND WHAT FOR?
I never said Jesus made any payment for you. Nothing has been taken from you and I haven't the foggiest idea why you think something has.
Where in the scriptures does it say that?
If you don't accept scripture what does it matter?
You don't know do you.
Again. Does it matter to you?
You're just another lying Christian that is desperate to win a argument through sheer bloody mindlessness now that you have well and truly painted yourself into a corner with your own contradictions and backpedaling.
Lol. Thanks for confirming that my responses don't matter to you.
One minute Jesus is a "selfless hero" that doesn't need my permission to take my responsibilities away from me,...
Which doesn't mean He DID take your responsibilities away from you.
...and the next your telling me "nothing was taken away from me". THEN WHAT THE FK ARE YOU ARGUING ABOUT!!!!!????
I'm not yet arguing, I'm listening to you foam. Calm down and read slowly.
Well that`s the point of this thread isn't it, princess. I want to, and am prepared to, take responsibly for my own crimes. But he's already done it and he's dead.
You still have your sin,
Well not according to you above or the scriptures.
Not the scriptures in the Bible.
As I have said, and you ignored - my sins were washed away AND a blood sacrifice paid for by Jesus and his "heroic selflessness" sacrifice.
Read my lips. YOUR sins have NOT been washed away AND a blood sacrifice has NOT been paid for YOU by Jesus and his "heroic selflessness" sacrifice. Now, if you think your sins have been washed away, please show us why you think such a ludacrous thing.
Did Jesus die for my sins or not? Have Christians been lying for over 2000 years as to why god sent his "ONLY son" to earth?
Have you even ever spoken to Jesus?
And by all accounts my freedom of choice was taken from me before I had the chance to even object. You are silly and thoughtless sometime aren't you.
It's funny how certain your are given your poor reading comprehension.
You have done a complete 180 ° contradicting and refuting all of your own earlier statements on this thread.
OK Stevie.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
How you choose to see it is immaterial. You asked where. I showed you. If you didn't know I was referring to the bible, or what the word "bible" means to me, then perhaps you aren't qualified for this conversation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@amandragon01
Then babies are not atheists because they have not NOT accepted as true (believe) the existence of a god or gods! Even by your revised definition, babies do not qualify.
You're wrong.
I am completely correct that babies have not NOT accepted as true (believe) the existence of a god or gods.
By the simple law of non-contradiction if they haven't accepted the existence of a god or gods as true then they have not accepted the existence of a god or gods as true
Tautology in reference to a baby. Babies cannot accept or not accept any preposition.
If they haven't accepted the existence of a god or gods as true then they do not believe in the existence of a god or gods.
More tautology. Your argument is akin to, "Babies can't fly, so they aren't birds."
That means they lack belief in the existence of a god or gods.
Babies have not rejected a belief in God. Babies cannot reject a belief in God. Babies lack a concept of God.
Are unborn babies "people"?
I bet you believe unborn babies are not people and thus are pro-abortion. So babies are " people" when you want to label them atheists, but not "people" when you want to kill them for your convenience.
This is a red herring. I'm not going to be drawn into a debate on abortion with you.
Of course you aren't. You would lose. The debate would not be about abortion but about the consistency of your belief that babies are people. Your claim that babies are people in this argument is ad-hoc. I know this because you deny "peoplehood" to babies in your abortion argument. Babies either are, or are not people. They don't change to suit your argument.
I accept infants as people the only question now is do you?
I did not ask about infants. I asked you, are unborn babies people.
The reason that atheists restrict the definition to "people" is because people think. A reasonable restriction. But babies don't think. And neither do trees. So then, why is the definition restricted to people? If not because of thinking, then why?
If the restriction is due to the fact that only people think, then a baby cannot be included. Or perhaps you are saying babies magically become atheists the moment they exit the birth canal?
Firstly how do you propose atheists restrict the definition to people? I have used a dictionary definition. The Oxford dictionary certainly isn't an atheist, can you show that its authors were or is this just supposition.
The religious leanings of the authors are immaterial. I've shown that babies do NOT qualify under of the definition YOU offered. Your definition required atheists to have had NOT accepted as true (believe) the existence of a god or gods. Babies have NOT done that. Babies are not atheists because they have not NOT accepted as true (believe) the existence of a god or gods, a requirements of being an atheist by your definition.
I say infants are people do you disagree?
I say infants are not atheists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
You asked me "where". A assumed you meant, " Where in the bible?" So I gave you the verses. I didn't need your acceptance, nor was I seeking it. I was being polite.
Created: