Does this cover Christian belief or not?

[Arioch]

@NM --

prove that he is evil.
arguments that don't count:
I asked God for X and he didn't give it to me.
If God was good then he wouldn't let X happen.
If you bring bible verses as evidence, then be sure you read it in context to the rest of the chapter.

If you're right and god is both omniscient and gave us free will(ignoring the mutual exclusivity of those) then your god is evil. Omniscience means that he would have to know exactly what was going to happen when he gave us free will, he would know that by giving us free will we would use it to harm each other(and him, according to some theists). This means that he did this knowing the evil that would come from it(also scripturally valid, the bible does say that he is the author of evil).

If our eternal salvation is contingent on our belief in god, or the right god, then hiding his presence is an act of the grossest evil as it knowingly and deliberately condemns billions of people to eternal torment.

Also, the whole infinite punishment for finite crimes can't be considered anything but evil and unjust.

You want in-context biblical evidence? How about this, he slaughtered every single man, woman, and child on the planet(save for one small family) merely because he didn't like the way they were acting and thinking. How is that not evil? Besides, who are you to say that an argument isn't valid? If the logical foundation of the argument is solid and it fits the "evidence" then you have no basis to reject it.

Oh, and don't come back with that tired old excuse of not using human standards on god, it's a bullshit argument that has never had any validity as it's merely an example of special pleading.

are you hindu?
don't you enjoy christmas?
why would you choose these things to argue about? why don't you find something a little more personal and relevant..

Because what is personal to me is irrelevant. I mentioned these things in response to a request that those of us who don't believe in god should "respect" the beliefs of those who do by not blaspheming. That request goes both ways, if you christians want everyone else to stop blaspheming then you've got to stop blaspheming as well....of course that will never happen as it would mean that you'd have to stop proselytizing(considered blasphemy by more than one religion). So it's far better for everyone to simply ignore blasphemy regardless of how distasteful you find it.

Once again though, this point simply sailed right over your head.

keep in mind that believers are ppl too..religion does not circumvent our humanity, they are just as screwed up as the rest of us..religion just makes it easier to play 'perfect'.

I do, in fact I see their humanity better than you do. I see that their humanity is just as responsible for the good that they do as it is for the evil that they do. I see that people are what they are(good, bad, in between) regardless of their religious beliefs, in fact religious beliefs seem to have very little to do with inspiring "morality" or "good behavior" that a person wouldn't do anyways.

@Frish --

You mean like how Pope John Paul II did on March 13, 2000?

Really? I read that and never saw even a mention about their active participation in the Holocaust, did I just miss that bit? Oh wait, no I didn't, it wasn't in there.

Don't even try to admit otherwise. Easter is celebrated on the Sunday after Passover. Has been since about 200CE. The name, the traditions of bunnies and chocolate and celebrations, all of it originated with the Germanic pagans who decided to combine the celebration of the Resurrection of Christ with their vernal equinox celebration, in which they worshipped the goddess Aster, a fertility goddess.

Bullshit. The various pagan Spring Fertility rituals predate christianity by a good thousand years or so, maybe more. They can't steal a ritual from you that predates your own religion.

And, even though it invokes Godwin's Law, can I get an apology from atheists for the Holocaust?

How do you figure we owe you one? Atheism didn't cause the Holocaust, that was rabid antisemitism which was plucked straight from the fingers of the RCC. You don't believe me? Of course you don't, but if you look at the writings of Hitler you'll notice that the antisemitism he professed was stolen directly(word for word in some cases) from the lips of "great" thinkers like St. Augustine and the protestant Martin Luther. Hitler didn't do a damn thing that the churches hadn't been doing for a thousand years, he was just more efficient at it.

So, if the only evil in the universe is committed by man (or woman), and according to theism G-d gave us the right to choose and according to deism G-d left us alone, how is He evil, precisely?

The very act of giving us the right to choose while knowing what the outcome would be is evil. As is everything else I've already mentioned. Nice attempt at a straw man argument by the way, though in the future you should probably wait until I say what my position is before you attempt to butcher it.

@Slides --

1) Please expand on why you think He is evil, and we will discuss.

I covered some of the basics in my above response to NM, that should be a good starting point. Though I must repeat my admonishment to avoid the "god isn't human so we can't use human standards" bollocks, I know how popular that one is with you theists.

I was only stating that the rules laid down aren't irrelevant. If anything, your argument supports mine.

You're right, some of them aren't irrelevant, and I already covered that. But some most certainly are irrelevant. Anything about keeping the Sabbath holy is irrelevant to a culture that isn't explicitly christian or jewish. The bit about adultery is superfluous, already covered by another commandment. The no graven idols thing is also irrelevant and even discriminatory against other religions(which, I suspect, was the original intent behind the commandment) The "have no other gods before me" is not only irrelevant in our world, but is would actually be illegal to engrave into law in this country, and for damn good reasons too.

I think that personally, I'd be a little embarrassed if an all powerful being had to come down and remind me what I knew when I was less intelligent.

Interestingly enough we're not actually any more intelligent now than we were then. The difference is that we've built up a much larger knowledge base and developed tools for weeding out bad ideas(the scientific method). While our brains have changed a bit in the past ten thousand years or so, no significant intellectual changes have really occurred that we can see.

Adultery is infidelity.

Adultery is also defined as premarital or extramarital sex. And the definition used when these commandments were written was much stricter than even that. Premarital and extramarital sex are not always bad, thus the commandment is incomplete at best.

Don't assume that because I'm a Christian, I am ignorant to the ways of the world.

I didn't assume that because of your religion, I assumed it based on your posts. Granted that's not much data to go on, but your posts did show a very limited view of reality and the human experience.

You shall not want want/desire/wish greedily for your neighbor's belongings. You can desire things that are like or even probably an identical copy of your neighbor's things. But specifically, those items which are already owned and worked hard for by your neighbor are not fair game for a person.

But there's nothing inherently wrong with desiring your neighbor's actual belongings(though I disagree that this is the statement actually being made in the commandment). If I want my neighbor's computer and offer to pay him for it then I'm still coveting his belongings but there is absolutely no harm in it. Now, if I were to steal his stuff that would be wrong, but that's already covered by another commandment, so this commandment is at best superfluous. Also, this does nothing to counter my original rebuttal, the commandment is telling you not to want things when you claimed that it didn't.

Besides, it's human nature to covet the possessions of others, it's something that we can't help but do. So the commandment is impossible to follow as well as being superfluous.

Yes, I did simplify, much in the same way Dawkins simplified.

No, you didn't. Dawkins didn't leave out more than fifty years worth of knowledge on the subject(he couldn't have as the texts supposedly haven't changed that much *snort*), you did. You completely ignored entire swaths of biological research in your statement about human nature. That's not a simplification, it's simplistic, there's a difference.

How do I figure? Because when someone's self esteem is already in question, the knowledge of their partner choosing porn over them creates the same pain in their minds as in a relationship where one partner chooses to physically cheat.

That's a problem with their relationship or with the person's brain, not with the act of looking. If a relationship is so fragile that a bit of porn would hurt it then the problem lies not with looking at porn but with why they're together in the first place.

Everyone's mind works differently, but for some, the not so harmful can be just as impacting. That's the other thing. I said "can be". I didn't say the case was the same for all.

Again, then this isn't a problem with looking, it's a personal problem that needs to be dealt with one way or another.

Once more, in case the point wasn't made multiple times, I was not trying to convert/prove anything.

I never said you were, however the topic came up in some of your posts(whether you were responding to another or not is irrelevant) so I commented on it.

@Knowledge --

I stopped reading here. Learn to be selfless.

Hence why your knowledge base is quite small. I am selfless in the only way that a human can be, selfishly.

 

[carl]

There is no evidence for a historical Jesus, and the guy described in the New Testament is obviously not hisorical. So, we're talking about a fictional character here who was created by some Jewish collaborators with Rome who offered an alternative to violent Galilean Messianism that would be friendly to the Roman occupiers. Most of the story was appropriated from the fables of the solar god of the Mystery Religions. Such nonsense should have no meaning in the modern world.

 

[NMSquirrel]

....that by giving us free will we would use it to harm each other.......

If God was good then he wouldn't let X happen. (X in this case being us harming ourselves)

If our eternal salvation is contingent on our belief in god, or the right god, then hiding his presence is an act of the grossest evil as it knowingly and deliberately condemns billions of people to eternal torment.

depends on who those ppl are listening to..(God or Man?)

Also, the whole infinite punishment for finite crimes can't be considered anything but evil and unjust.

this is not definitive,
some argue(me too) it is a consequence of our own actions,not a consequence of not listening to God.

How about this, he slaughtered every single man, woman, and child on the planet(save for one small family) merely because he didn't like the way they were acting and thinking. How is that not evil?

prove it.(now who is taking the bible too literaly..)

Besides, who are you to say that an argument isn't valid? If the logical foundation of the argument is solid and it fits the "evidence" then you have no basis to reject it.

exactly..
there is no logical foundation for :
"I asked God for X and he didn't give it to me."
and
"If God was good then he wouldn't let X happen."
both these is of our own selfishness(what we want),and has no bearing on whether God exists or not.
as far as:
"If you bring bible verses as evidence, then be sure you read it in context to the rest of the chapter. "
this is scientifically sound.

what they are(good, bad, in between) regardless of their religious beliefs, in fact religious beliefs seem to have very little to do with inspiring "morality" or "good behavior" that a person wouldn't do anyways.

True enough..but for some, God helps them to moderate themselves,may not make the difference for the majority,maybe because the majority are listening to the wrong ppl..

 

[kx000]

@NM --

If you're right and god is both omniscient and gave us free will(ignoring the mutual exclusivity of those) then your god is evil. Omniscience means that he would have to know exactly what was going to happen when he gave us free will, he would know that by giving us free will we would use it to harm each other(and him, according to some theists). This means that he did this knowing the evil that would come from it(also scripturally valid, the bible does say that he is the author of evil).

I don't believe YHWH became omniscient until after he gave us freewill. Even if he did its all part of the plan. If God were evil we would be a race of slaves, simple and plain.

If our eternal salvation is contingent on our belief in god, or the right god, then hiding his presence is an act of the grossest evil as it knowingly and deliberately condemns billions of people to eternal torment.

not belief, faith.

Also, the whole infinite punishment for finite crimes can't be considered anything but evil and unjust.

It doesn't work like this.

You want in-context biblical evidence? How about this, he slaughtered every single man, woman, and child on the planet(save for one small family) merely because he didn't like the way they were acting and thinking. How is that not evil? Besides, who are you to say that an argument isn't valid? If the logical foundation of the argument is solid and it fits the "evidence" then you have no basis to reject it.

The devil had taken control of every man woman and child except for Noah and his boys. Plus, according to my faith death is just the begging.

Oh, and don't come back with that tired old excuse of not using human standards on god, it's a bullshit argument that has never had any validity as it's merely an example of special pleading.

We do not judge him, he judges us. He probably has a laundry list on you in the short of your existance, compared to this bs list you have compiled on him.

I do, in fact I see their humanity better than you do. I see that their humanity is just as responsible for the good that they do as it is for the evil that they do. I see that people are what they are(good, bad, in between) regardless of their religious beliefs, in fact religious beliefs seem to have very little to do with inspiring "morality" or "good behavior" that a person wouldn't do anyways.

Remember, Lucifer is the 8th great angel. Remember, their are 4 beast that stand at the foot of God until Tribulation has taken place. More, and more it seems like evil is necessary for judgment. Evil was introduced to man because eventually he would have figured it out himself, probably right around now.

Really? I read that and never saw even a mention about their active participation in the Holocaust, did I just miss that bit? Oh wait, no I didn't, it wasn't in there.

Again, sad, but death is not something to shutter at.

How do you figure we owe you one? Atheism didn't cause the Holocaust, that was rabid antisemitism which was plucked straight from the fingers of the RCC. You don't believe me? Of course you don't, but if you look at the writings of Hitler you'll notice that the antisemitism he professed was stolen directly(word for word in some cases) from the lips of "great" thinkers like St. Augustine and the protestant Martin Luther. Hitler didn't do a damn thing that the churches hadn't been doing for a thousand years, he was just more efficient at it.

Do not ball me up with the Christian church and other tyrants, so saith the LORD.

The very act of giving us the right to choose while knowing what the outcome would be is evil. As is everything else I've already mentioned. Nice attempt at a straw man argument by the way, though in the future you should probably wait until I say what my position is before you attempt to butcher it.

The outcome is tribulation. Over 1/3 of the world parishes into the lake of fire, and the rest become as the angels in Heaven. Evil is human nature, the devil merely brings it out.

I covered some of the basics in my above response to NM, that should be a good starting point. Though I must repeat my admonishment to avoid the "god isn't human so we can't use human standards" bollocks, I know how popular that one is with you theists.

He made us in his image. What he does is necessary, if you don't trust that then by my faith hell awaits.

Anything about keeping the Sabbath holy is irrelevant to a culture that isn't explicitly christian or jewish.

Sunday is the day of rest, that is all. Also, im pretty sure the Sabbath is actually Saturday.

The bit about adultery is superfluous, already covered by another commandment. The no graven idols thing is also irrelevant and even discriminatory against other religions(which, I suspect, was the original intent behind the commandment) The "have no other gods before me" is not only irrelevant in our world, but is would actually be illegal to engrave into law in this country, and for damn good reasons too.

You know nothing of the commandments, if you want to get into it we can.

Interestingly enough we're not actually any more intelligent now than we were then. The difference is that we've built up a much larger knowledge base and developed tools for weeding out bad ideas(the scientific method). While our brains have changed a bit in the past ten thousand years or so, no significant intellectual changes have really occurred that we can see.

Thus, making Atlantis a possibility. Blah blah blah we have never found it. Well it was destroyed, and for great reason.






@Knowledge --

Hence why your knowledge base is quite small. I am selfless in the only way that a human can be, selfishly.

And in there lies the problem.

 

[Arioch]

@Knowledge --

If God were evil we would be a race of slaves, simple and plain.

Hardly, there's worse, and more insidious, forms of evil than slavery. Apparently you either didn't read or didn't comprehend much of my post.

not belief, faith.

Faith is a form of belief. Specifically, it's the most unjustified form of belief.

It doesn't work like this.

Oh really? Or is that just what you believe?

The devil had taken control of every man woman and child except for Noah and his boys. Plus, according to my faith death is just the begging.

A specious assertion and not a scriptural one. Of course I would hardly expect a scriptural one from someone who says that the bible is full of shit.

Beyond that, it's irrelevant. If any human had done the things that god has supposedly done they would be condemned as the worst human in all of existence and possibly even the most evil being of all time. Therefore, according to the only standards we have, god is evil.

We do not judge him, he judges us.

Oh but I do judge him, as is my right.

He probably has a laundry list on you in the short of your existance, compared to this bs list you have compiled on him.

I've never killed anyone, I've never started any fights, I don't lie often, I don't steal, I've never even gotten so much as a parking ticket. That's more than can be said for god, who supposedly created evil in the first place.

Evil was introduced to man because eventually he would have figured it out himself, probably right around now.

Again, this is not scripturally accurate. Humans wouldn't have "developed" the knowledge of good and evil, they needed to acquire it from an external source. And, of course, the fact that it was merely knowledge that they acquired means that evil was already in existence, created by the god you worship.

Do not ball me up with the Christian church and other tyrants, so saith the LORD.

Defensive much? I didn't lump you in with anyone, I merely stated the facts.

He made us in his image.

Which logically means that our standards must be at least close to his standards, giving us a benchmark by which to judge his actions.

What he does is necessary,

Ah, the old "if god does it it's automatically moral" bullshit. Yeah, this tired argument was refuted long ago and is, in fact, self collapsing.

if you don't trust that then by my faith hell awaits.

Then by your faith you are a sadist who is incredibly unethical. Infinite punishment is never just for finite crimes.

Sunday is the day of rest, that is all. Also, im pretty sure the Sabbath is actually Saturday.

Red herring, none of this is relevant to the topic under discussion.

You know nothing of the commandments, if you want to get into it we can.

I just demonstrated a knowledge of the commandments, if you don't like my analysis then point out it's flaws. Merely stating that I know nothing of the commandments is intellectually lazy and does nothing to refute my arguments.

Thus, making Atlantis a possibility.

Not so much. If you read my statement carefully you'll realize that while our innate intelligence doesn't appear to have increased in our historical times, our accrued knowledge has increased dramatically. We simply know more than anyone could have imagined even a hundred years ago.

Blah blah blah we have never found it. Well it was destroyed, and for great reason.

Well actually that's not the route that I was going to go, but the complete lack of evidence that should be there is a compelling reason to reject the idea. No, I was going to tackle it from a geological perspective. If you look at the various crustal plates you can observe that it would be impossible for a continent to have existed in the Atlantic Ocean.

And in there lies the problem

Yup, the problem is that you don't know enough and apparently don't want to know enough.

 

[NMSquirrel]

there is no logical foundation for :
"I asked God for X and he didn't give it to me."
and
"If God was good then he wouldn't let X happen."
both these is of our own selfishness(what we want),and has no bearing on whether God exists or not.
.

sorry for quoting myself..but i had another thought..

In order for this to hold truer the opposite has to qualify also..
there is no logical foundation for;
"I asked God for X and he did it."
and
"If God was evil then he wouldn't do X"
still qualifies for the 'what we want' aspect.

 

[kx000]

Hardly, there's worse, and more insidious, forms of evil than slavery. Apparently you either didn't read or didn't comprehend much of my post.

Kim Jong il is not talking to the Father

Faith is a form of belief. Specifically, it's the most unjustified form of belief.

Its part of the deal

A specious assertion and not a scriptural one. Of course I would hardly expect a scriptural one from someone who says that the bible is full of shit.

The bible is half full of shit.

Beyond that, it's irrelevant. If any human had done the things that god has supposedly done they would be condemned as the worst human in all of existence and possibly even the most evil being of all time. Therefore, according to the only standards we have, god is evil.

God created you in the first place. Have faith what he is doing is right.

Oh but I do judge him, as is my right.

And it is his right to judge you

I've never killed anyone, I've never started any fights, I don't lie often, I don't steal, I've never even gotten so much as a parking ticket. That's more than can be said for god, who supposedly created evil in the first place

.

A test to you and me. Good job

Again, this is not scripturally accurate. Humans wouldn't have "developed" the knowledge of good and evil, they needed to acquire it from an external source. And, of course, the fact that it was merely knowledge that they acquired means that evil was already in existence, created by the god you worship.

The devil, which is the evil God created.

Which logically means that our standards must be at least close to his standards, giving us a benchmark by which to judge his actions.

And he will judge you

Ah, the old "if god does it it's automatically moral" bullshit. Yeah, this tired argument was refuted long ago and is, in fact, self collapsing.

Its moral to his plan one way another, he says that he is just and moral and we have no reason to doubt him except what we as humans portray as evil

Not so much. If you read my statement carefully you'll realize that while our innate intelligence doesn't appear to have increased in our historical times, our accrued knowledge has increased dramatically. We simply know more than anyone could have imagined even a hundred years ago.

I say were behind on the times.

Well actually that's not the route that I was going to go, but the complete lack of evidence that should be there is a compelling reason to reject the idea. No, I was going to tackle it from a geological perspective. If you look at the various crustal plates you can observe that it would be impossible for a continent to have existed in the Atlantic Ocean.

Remember, its described as a giant flood in genesis. If God wanted to get rid of evidence, he would get rid of evidence. Were talking 2012 (the movie) shit. The poll shift theory according to Albert Einstein is what we have to thank this unseasonal weather for. If a mass realignment of tectonic plates can happen, then it possibly happened before, maybe some time after the ice age. There is evidence of Atlantis in ancient Egypt. If Atlantis were proven true that would essentially prove tectonic realignment happened, further proving the account of Genesis.

Yup, the problem is that you don't know enough and apparently don't want to know enough.

 

[rcscwc]

NMSquirrel, #127


Still there is a minimum age below which a child cannot be trained in many things. Yes, modesty is taught. But at what age does a child learn and observe modesty? Mature reasoning comes with a certain mature age. This maturity of course can be at different levels at different ages.

RCS
I am a Hindu. I might enjoy xmas. But am I expected to join in the mass and other celebrations too? No, I don’t.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Yes, modesty is taught. But at what age does a child learn and observe modesty?

not 5..my granddaughter comes home from school and strips down to her panties...

 

[Arioch]

@NM --

I didn't see your earlier post so let me respond to it.

If God was good then he wouldn't let X happen. (X in this case being us harming ourselves)

Irrelevant as my logic is solid. If you give an infant who doesn't know any better a loaded gun, is that not unethical if not downright evil? A god giving humans free will is the exact same thing.

depends on who those ppl are listening to..(God or Man?)

Red herring, fallacy. Try again.

some argue(me too) it is a consequence of our own actions,not a consequence of not listening to God.

Irrelevant. Everything we do in this life is finite in both it's execution and it's impact. Hell is an infinite punishment. It's akin to locking up your child in the basement and torturing them forever because you caught them in a lie, the punishment does not fit the crime and is therefore unjust. Beyond that it's evil by any sane definition.

prove it.(now who is taking the bible too literaly..)

I would only have to prove it if I accepted the entire premise of a god, I don't. Therefore no burden of proof, this is yet another red herring.

both these is of our own selfishness(what we want),

The first one sure, I can buy that. The second one not so much, and we can determine this by creating scenarios which are parallel to the one proposed, the example of the infant and the gun I used above is just one such example.

and has no bearing on whether God exists or not.

That wasn't the argument though, the argument was over whether or not your god, if he exists, is evil. Logic fail on your part here, again.

but for some, God helps them to moderate themselves,

This has yet to be demonstrated and the numbers don't seem to bear it out.

may not make the difference for the majority,maybe because the majority are listening to the wrong ppl..

Well, if the numbers are correct then it appears that the majority of people are listening to some form of holy text with the most popular one being the bible. Seems to me that maybe we'd be better off if people started listening to their reason instead of their "good" book.

So far you've said nothing which refutes any of my arguments, though I applaud your attempts to punch holes in my logic. Better luck next time perhaps.

@Knowledge --

Kim Jong il is not talking to the Father

How the hell is this relevant? So far as I can see, this is just another red herring. That fallacy seems to be a favorite among the theists on this site.

The bible is half full of shit.

Ah, so the bible is full of shit...except for the bits that you accept. Got it now. You're attempting to base an objective conclusion on a subjective premise, that's not going to work too well....in fact it's not going to work at all.

God created you in the first place. Have faith what he is doing is right.

Why? Why should I believe that god knows what he's doing? There's no evidence of this at all.

And it is his right to judge you

That depends on what the judgment entails. My judgment is entirely harmless, it can harm no one. His judgment could destroy my very soul. Depending on the stakes my right to life trumps his right to judge me, from a moral standpoint at least.

A test to you and me.

A test that, according to scripture, we can't possibly pass. Now, what's it called when you force people into a test that they can't possibly pass and then use that as a basis for sending them for eternal torture? Oh, that's right, it's called being an evil bastard.

And he will judge you

Oh will he now? Prove it.

Its moral to his plan one way another, he says that he is just and moral...

I already told you, the "if god says it's moral then it's moral" argument doesn't work, it's self collapsing. If morality is whatever god says it is then it is absolute, however at the same time it's relative to whatever god wants it to be. Paradox.

Besides, we already know that to be false. According to god's "morality" slavery is fine, even moral. We know this to be false.

...and we have no reason to doubt him except what we as humans portray as evil

Wrong, we have no reason to trust him. God has provided no evidence that his actions are either just or ethical(and he's provided plenty of evidence to the contrary). Anything which can be asserted with no evidence can(and should) be rejected with no evidence.

I say were behind on the times.

Really? We've done more in the past ten years then anyone ever thought possible. Our advancement in the past hundred years has been astronomical(literally). And you have no evidence to say otherwise. Remember, what can be asserted with no evidence can be rejected with no evidence.

Remember, its described as a giant flood in genesis.

Oh I remember. I also remember that our geological records indicate that no such floods have happened in over a billion years, long before humans were ever around. Also, there isn't enough water on the planet to create a flood of that magnitude.

If God wanted to get rid of evidence, he would get rid of evidence.

Or there is no evidence because such a flood is impossible as there isn't enough water on the planet. You'd need about three times as much water as is on the Earth in order to flood it. Where's all that water go? And please don't say that god magicked it away.

Were talking 2012 (the movie) shit.

Oh, so you're talking about pseudoscience, not real life occurrences. Well, you should have said so sooner.

The poll shift theory according to Albert Einstein is what we have to thank this unseasonal weather for.

Well that and the various changes we've made to the planet, such as increasing it's albedo and pumping a ton of greenhouse gasses into the air. Oh, and changing the landscape of the planet could be having an effect too. In fact I'm inclined to think(and I could be wrong here, any geologists present can feel free to let me know) that any polar shift is likely to have a minimal effect on global weather patterns.

If a mass realignment of tectonic plates can happen,

Well then there's your starting point, prove that it's possible. Of course, this might be a problem as every single piece of evidence we have points in the other direction.

then it possibly happened before, maybe some time after the ice age.

Again, that's a lot of "ifs" that we have literally no reason to suspect.

There is evidence of Atlantis in ancient Egypt.

What evidence?

If Atlantis were proven true that would essentially prove tectonic realignment happened,

No, it wouldn't. Proving one theory does not automatically prove the other, that's not the way that science works.

further proving the account of Genesis.

Again, no. As I've already said, there simply isn't enough water for that. Even if you were to take all of the water that's locked up in ice(the poles and whatnot) that would only raise the sea level another...what...ten feet, at most. That's nowhere near a global flood.

Yup, the problem is that you don't know enough and apparently don't want to know enough.

Nice, attempting to turn my own witty remark against me. Of course that would only work if you had managed to expose ignorance in my posts as well as a reluctance on my part to change this. You've done neither.

In fact all you've done is display ignorance of some basic scientific facts and procedures. Nice try, but do remember that you're messing with a pro here, you're going to have to up your game if you want to beat me.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Remember, its described as a giant flood in genesis.

And genesis is wrong.

The poll shift theory according to Albert Einstein is what we have to thank this unseasonal weather for.

Really? Link please.

There is evidence of Atlantis in ancient Egypt.

No there isn't.

If Atlantis were proven true that would essentially prove tectonic realignment happened

How so?

Yup, the problem is that you don't know enough and apparently don't want to know enough.

And you know next to nothing and keep failing to realise this.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Irrelevant as my logic is solid. If you give an infant who doesn't know any better a loaded gun, is that not unethical if not downright evil? A god giving humans free will is the exact same thing.

now you are arguing that we should not have free will...

Red herring, fallacy. Try again.

nope..this is an attempt to justify your own opinion.
and who you listen to is VERY crucial to ones understanding of God..not invalid,not fallacy..

Irrelevant. Everything we do in this life is finite in both it's execution and it's impact. Hell is an infinite punishment. It's akin to locking up your child in the basement and torturing them forever because you caught them in a lie, the punishment does not fit the crime and is therefore unjust. Beyond that it's evil by any sane definition.

this assumes that hell is a punishment and not a consequence..it also says you are not willing to contemplate that religion has got it wrong.
your arguments are based on main stream religions argument, not even your own.

I would only have to prove it if I accepted the entire premise of a god, I don't. Therefore no burden of proof, this is yet another red herring.

yet you argue as if you know.if you did not know,then why argue against what i consider?
this is a case of the atheist telling the theist who/what God is..
you do not like what religion says about God,so why are you arguing when someone posits a different opinion?(that doesn't line up with what main stream religion says)
AND
you say you do not accept the entire premise of God..but yet you argue as if you KNOW..

That wasn't the argument though, the argument was over whether or not your god, if he exists, is evil. Logic fail on your part here, again.

so you are not willing to admit that he exists,but are willing to say that this nonexistent entity is Evil..
you have a long way to go before even being neutral in this matter.
your arguments on this issue are tainted with the opinions of main stream religion.

This has yet to be demonstrated and the numbers don't seem to bear it out.

i said 'some'. and as such this statement is completely inaccurate.

Well, if the numbers are correct then it appears that the majority of people are listening to some form of holy text with the most popular one being the bible. Seems to me that maybe we'd be better off if people started listening to their reason instead of their "good" book.

most christians listen to the pastor,not God..pastors are human and as such are just as susceptible to their own humanity.they want to be 'do as your told' (IE, why do you believe that? because my pastor said so..)

So far you've said nothing which refutes any of my arguments, though I applaud your attempts to punch holes in my logic. Better luck next time perhaps.

i have said plenty to give you other thoughts on who/what god is..you choose to argue with main stream religion, which means you are not willing to contemplate alternate ideas about who/what God is.(keep in mind, my goal is not to convince you i am right, but to convince you that religion does not hold the empirical answers as to who/what God is.)
test all things,hold on to what is good.
this 'all' includes what religion is teaching.

 

[Arioch]

@NM --

now you are arguing that we should not have free will...

If you want to get technical, there's no evidence that we actually do have free will. However that's not relevant to my point, and neither is your statement. My point is that the act of giving us free will while knowing what the outcome would be is an act of evil. All the rest of the crap you've been spouting is irrelevant at best.

nope..this is an attempt to justify your own opinion.
and who you listen to is VERY crucial to ones understanding of God..not invalid,not fallacy..

No, it actually is a red herring. I proposed the premise "if our eternal salvation hinges on our belief in god" followed by the clarifying statement "or the right god" and concluded "then the act of hiding his presence is evil". Your statement has literally no relation to my statement, therefore it is a red herring, a fallacy.

this assumes that hell is a punishment and not a consequence..

A punishment is a consequence, are you daft?

it also says you are not willing to contemplate that religion has got it wrong.

Wait, you're telling an almost rabidly anticlerical atheist that he's not willing to contemplate that religion has got it wrong? What are you smoking and where can I get some?

your arguments are based on main stream religions argument, not even your own.

The topic of this thread is christian belief, I was arguing on that premise. If you want to expand that to other beliefs then you should start your own thread. Staying on topic is not a fallacy, it's called "good debating skills". The ability to present and support an argument while remaining within the confines of the topic and avoiding logical fallacies is a skill not to be looked down on.

yet you argue as if you know.

No I don't, I argue as if I've considered the existence of god as a given for the purposes of this conversation. This is yet another of the skills you'll acquire if you apply yourself to the debate.

if you did not know,then why argue against what i consider?

I debate for the same reason that pretty much everyone on an internet debate forum does, because it's fun. Besides that, I don't need to "know" jack to poke holes in your arguments.

this is a case of the atheist telling the theist who/what God is..

No, this is a case of an atheist pointing out the logical conclusions of your stated beliefs. You can choose to ignore those if you want, but it will mean that your beliefs will always be hopelessly inconsistent.

you do not like what religion says about God,so why are you arguing when someone posits a different opinion?(that doesn't line up with what main stream religion says)

Because I can and because your arguments do not hold up logically. Half the time your conclusions do not follow from your premises, they're non sequiturs. The other half of the time your statements have no relevance to the topics being discussed, making them red herrings.

You might not have realized this yet, but I'm one of those people who thrives on conflict. Only by conflict can my ideas be tested and my grasp of logic pitted against others. It's fun to me.

AND
you say you do not accept the entire premise of God..but yet you argue as if you KNOW..

I don't but I have for the purposes of this discussion, hence I haven't constantly been asking for evidence that god exists. I have been arguing from the standpoint that a god exists and it is the one that is depicted in the bible. How is this disagreeable to you? Without granting that we could have no meaningful discussion at all as I would be stuck in a loop asking you for evidence while you don't have any.

so you are not willing to admit that he exists,but are willing to say that this nonexistent entity is Evil..

*Sigh*

You really don't know much about debate do you?

you have a long way to go before even being neutral in this matter.

Who claimed to be neutral? This is a debate, I've chosen a side, argued it, and supported it with evidence and critical thought. I'm still waiting for you to do the same, and it's quite obvious that you're far from neutral as well. Not that I have a problem with that, it's how debates work.

your arguments on this issue are tainted with the opinions of main stream religion.

Bullshit. Not one of my arguments has so much as a tiny logical hole in them. My feelings on the matter are irrelevant, all that matters is that I can support my arguments logically.

i said 'some'. and as such this statement is completely inaccurate.

And as I said, the numbers don't back that up. So far we've found absolutely no correlation between religious belief and ethical behavior, none at all. Well, that's not exactly true, we have found that christians are vastly over-represented in the prison population while the nonreligious are vastly underrepresented, but I doubt that correlation means much.

most christians listen to the pastor,not God..

How could they listen to god when god has demonstrably never actually spoken to anyone?

i have said plenty to give you other thoughts on who/what god is..

You've said nothing that I haven't heard and refuted a thousand times before. I think I said this in another thread, but I really do wish that you theists would come up with something new from time to time.

you choose to argue with main stream religion, which means you are not willing to contemplate alternate ideas about who/what God is.

I'm staying on topic, and you've said nothing that I haven't already considered. I know that you'd like to think that what you're saying is new to me and that I'll have a revelation and suddenly change my mind, but that's just not going to happen. I highly doubt if there is a single theist who can share beliefs that I haven't already encountered.

keep in mind, my goal is not to convince you i am right,

Well then maybe you're going about this the wrong way because it certainly looks like you're trying to convince me you're right. All of your tactics, however poor they may be, appear to be designed to prove yourself right. Not that this is a bad thing, this is how debates are supposed to work.

but to convince you that religion does not hold the empirical answers as to who/what God is.

Of course they don't, no one does which is why I reject theistic claims in the first place. And I think that you need to look up the definition of "empirical", because I don't think it means what you think it means.

test all things,hold on to what is good

Test all things and hold on to what is correct, regardless of how good we feel it is.

this 'all' includes what religion is teaching.

Religion has already failed the test by positing things which are either blatantly false or completely untestable. That which can be asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence.

 

[NMSquirrel]

My point is that the act of giving us free will while knowing what the outcome would be is an act of evil.

do you have kids?
(not irrelevant)
there comes a time when you got to let them make their own choices..make their own mistakes..it is not inherently Evil of the parent to give their kids the freedom to make their own choices knowing that their kids are gonna do bad things.

the premise "if our eternal salvation hinges on our belief in god" followed by the clarifying statement "or the right god" and concluded "then the act of hiding his presence is evil".

i don't agree with the first part..much less how you got to the last part from there.

A punishment is a consequence, are you daft?

so are insults a part of your debate skills?
usually i find the person who insulted guilty of it..
case in point..
a punishment is a consequence but a consequence is not necessarily a punishment..
you argue hell is a punishment for not believing in
God.
i argue hell is a consequence of not listening to God.(belief not required)
(its not your moms fault if she told you not to do that or you will get hurt, If you ignore her and do it anyway.)
I am arguing take responsibility for your own beliefs,don't believe just cause someone else told/threatened you to do.

Wait, you're telling an almost rabidly anticlerical atheist that he's not willing to contemplate that religion has got it wrong? What are you smoking and where can I get some?

i think Dyw gets the same stuff..
but seriously..standard debate arguments don't really work here..(not that i know of all arguments) serious consideration must be given to how you are stereotyping believers..

I debate for the same reason that pretty much everyone on an internet debate forum does, because it's fun. Besides that, I don't need to "know" jack to poke holes in your arguments.

but you do need to understand "jack" in order for me to give your arguments any validity.

No, this is a case of an atheist pointing out the logical conclusions of your stated beliefs.

did i ? (quote me)

You can choose to ignore those if you want, but it will mean that your beliefs will always be hopelessly inconsistent.

inconsistent with what? my own beliefs or christianities?
either way..never claimed my beliefs are consistent..
(show me inconsistancies in my own beliefs..do not assume i believe as all christians believe.IOW ask first)

Because I can and because your arguments do not hold up logically. Half the time your conclusions do not follow from your premises,

maybe because you haven't read enough about what i believe to see where i am coming from?

The other half of the time your statements have no relevance to the topics being discussed, making them red herrings.

just cause you don't understand what i am talking about does not mean i do not understand what i am talking about..

I don't but I have for the purposes of this discussion, hence I haven't constantly been asking for evidence that god exists.

good..i have other arguments that posits the fallicy of the 'prove it' argument..good not to get distracted with that..(search old posts or just ask)

I have been arguing from the standpoint that a god exists and it is the one that is depicted in the bible. How is this disagreeable to you?

because the way God is depicted in the bible is susceptible to the authors interpretation of the events that took place in the bible and of the intentions of the process of cannonization.
IOW the bible is not the final authority as to who/what God is.

Without granting that we could have no meaningful discussion

now you are starting to get it, define meanings, verify context,be sure you truly understand what it is i am trying to get understood..

You really don't know much about debate do you?

maybe..but i still like to argue..

Who claimed to be neutral? This is a debate, I've chosen a side, argued it,

who claimed this was a debate?
i thought we were arguing..

And as I said, the numbers don't back that up. So far we've found absolutely no correlation between religious belief and ethical behavior, none at all.

who is 'We'?
where did you get those numbers..
and my statement was based on personal experience,not any reports..(of which there can be numerous ways to interpret/refute such a report)

How could they listen to god when god has demonstrably never actually spoken to anyone?

that you know of..or believe..
this is a topic for another thread..
God can 'talk' to someone..the manifestation of such a thing is not measurable, and is dependent on subjective experiance..(unproveable)
because it is not provable does not mean it doesn't exist.

You've said nothing that I haven't heard and refuted a thousand times before. I think I said this in another thread, but I really do wish that you theists would come up with something new from time to time.

ouch.

I highly doubt if there is a single theist who can share beliefs that I haven't already encountered.

how old are you?
that doesn't mean i can't try..
(avoiding any qualifications you line up for: never underestimate humanities ability to avoid saying 'I don't know')

And I think that you need to look up the definition of "empirical", because I don't think it means what you think it means.

every time i think i do someone claims i don't..

Test all things and hold on to what is correct, regardless of how good we feel it is.

correct is relative to political influences and have little to do with truth.
just as i avoid the term 'right' for that quote..'Right' is subjective and relative.
so is 'good' but it is still the best word i have found for that quote.

Religion has already failed the test by positing things which are either blatantly false

this i can agree with..

or completely untestable. That which can be asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence.

what if that is the point?
maybe the errors in the bible were put there so we wouldn't think of the bible so literally..(never underestimate humanities ability to corrupt anything.)
AND
that doesn't support the concept of 'love'..
love can be asserted without evidence..

 

[Arioch]

@NM --

there comes a time when you got to let them make their own choices..make their own mistakes..it is not inherently Evil of the parent to give their kids the freedom to make their own choices knowing that their kids are gonna do bad things.

It is evil if the children are not competent to make their own decisions, and humanity demonstrably isn't competent to exert free will without fucking it up as evidenced from history. That's where your parallel fails and mine doesn't. I didn't say "children" in my example, I said "infants". Giving an infant the leeway to do whatever, whenever, when they are not competent to make such decisions is evil. Come on, you can do better than that.

i don't agree with the first part..much less how you got to the last part from there.

Well then apparently you don't agree with the bible. Regardless, my argument is still logically valid.

so are insults a part of your debate skills?

They are when I've run out of patience, and asking a question is not an insult.

a punishment is a consequence but a consequence is not necessarily a punishment..
you argue hell is a punishment for not believing in
God.

That's what the bible says.

i argue hell is a consequence of not listening to God.(belief not required)

And what do you have to support this argument? Oh right, nothing. Give me one good reason why I should accept your interpretation of things.

Besides, how the hell am I supposed to listen to a being that, so far as we can tell, has never spoken to anyone?

(its not your moms fault if she told you not to do that or you will get hurt, If you ignore her and do it anyway.)

Your analogy is faulty, god has never told me anything.

I am arguing take responsibility for your own beliefs,don't believe just cause someone else told/threatened you to do.

Oh, you mean exactly like I am doing, got it.

inconsistent with what?

Do you believe that god is perfect and good?

maybe because you haven't read enough about what i believe to see where i am coming from?

Irrelevant, your conclusions only rarely follow directly from your premises, meaning that there is usually no logical connection between your stated premise and your stated conclusion. I don't need to know what you actually believe to spot a non sequitur.

just cause you don't understand what i am talking about does not mean i do not understand what i am talking about..

Oh I've more than demonstrated an understanding of your arguments. I've done so by refuting them.

because the way God is depicted in the bible is susceptible to the authors interpretation of the events that took place in the bible and of the intentions of the process of cannonization.

I've read the apocrypha, those books that didn't quite make it into the bible. However that's not the topic at hand, and you've not given me any reason to trust your interpretation over the popular interpretation.

where did you get those numbers..

That's just it. There are no numbers showing a correlation between religiosity and moral behavior, if such a correlation existed then there would be evidence of it. As there isn't the assertions is spurious and to be rejected as such. This is, of course, barring the prison statistics I mentioned earlier.

and my statement was based on personal experience

Ah, I see. If that's the case then I'll just ignore your statements along that vein from now on.

that you know of..or believe..

That anyone, anywhere, has any evidence of.

God can 'talk' to someone..the manifestation of such a thing is not measurable, and is dependent on subjective experiance..(unproveable)
because it is not provable does not mean it doesn't exist.

That's true, for the most part, but the fact that the "god was talking to me" explanation is less parsimonious than the "you were having a hallucination" explanation means that it's far less likely to be true.

ouch.

Don't be surprised, that's just the way life is. It's to be expected when you debate someone on a topic that he's debated for close to a third of his life.

how old are you?

Old enough to have become a cynic. My age is irrelevant though. What is relevant is that it's been years since I've seen one original argument from a theist. The longer I wait the less hope I hold out that this will change.

that doesn't mean i can't try..

By all means do so. I want you to try, but just don't be surprised if you don't succeed.

correct is relative to political influences and have little to do with truth.

Not in science it isn't. In science correct means that it's the explanation that best reflects reality as we observe it. It's relative to new evidence, but that's about it.

Good, on the other hand is relative to so many things that the term can apply to just about anything that isn't outright harmful to "your" people(I'm speaking from a psychological perspective here).

just as i avoid the term 'right' for that quote..'Right' is subjective and relative.
so is 'good' but it is still the best word i have found for that quote.

How about "test everything and hold onto that which best reflects observed reality." I like that.

maybe the errors in the bible were put there so we wouldn't think of the bible so literally..(never underestimate humanities ability to corrupt anything.)

That's your take on it. I don't credit the authors, whoever they were, with that much foresight. Hell, they couldn't even get pi right and pi had been calculated out to six decimal places further than the bible's poor estimate(thank you Egypt) a good thousand years before any of the books had been written.

AND
that doesn't support the concept of 'love'..
love can be asserted without evidence..

You're going to tell me that if someone told you that they loved you but never once even showed it that you would just accept it? You're right that love can be asserted without evidence, but love can also be rejected without evidence as well. Hence my statement stands.

 

[NMSquirrel]

It is evil if the children are not competent to make their own decisions, and humanity demonstrably isn't competent to exert free will without fucking it up as evidenced from history. That's where your parallel fails and mine doesn't. I didn't say "children" in my example, I said "infants". Giving an infant the leeway to do whatever, whenever, when they are not competent to make such decisions is evil. Come on, you can do better than that.

i didn't say infant..my context was more of the older children..(17+)
(and you didn't state if you had kids)

And what do you have to support this argument? Oh right, nothing. Give me one good reason why I should accept your interpretation of things.

i have..you are more interested in 'winning' the debate than understanding anything.

Besides, how the hell am I supposed to listen to a being that, so far as we can tell, has never spoken to anyone?

this is a personal attitude and not based on believers testimonies as to the contrary..(you do not believe in this, so you discount any evidence to the contrary..BTW testimonies equal evidence..(not proof))
again..who is 'we'? are you claiming to speak for all atheist?

Your analogy is faulty, god has never told me anything.

did not say God told you.and i would argue he does.but you don't listen..

Oh, you mean exactly like I am doing, got it.

yes except you are not arguing to understand, you are arguing just to argue..

Do you believe that god is perfect and good?

If i were Gods peer,i would be in a better position to answer that..
(ignoring the argument that we are Gods peers..)
there is alot that he knows that we do not..yea i know..you don't buy that argument.you would rather humanize God and hold him to human standards..(not counting that human standards are highly debatable..)

Irrelevant, your conclusions only rarely follow directly from your premises, meaning that there is usually no logical connection between your stated premise and your stated conclusion.

show me..

I don't need to know what you actually believe to spot a non sequitur.

spoken out of ignorance..
"Non sequitur (pronounced /nɒnˈsɛkwɪtər/) is Latin for "it does not follow."
from wiki
it is not a conclusion..it is susceptible to lack of understanding..
IOW if you do not understand how i get from point a to point b, of course it will appear non-sequitur.

Oh I've more than demonstrated an understanding of your arguments. I've done so by refuting them.

you don't have to understand to dismiss(refute) them..
a little knowledge is a dangerous thing..(forgot who said that)

I've read the apocrypha, those books that didn't quite make it into the bible. However that's not the topic at hand, and you've not given me any reason to trust your interpretation over the popular interpretation.

not asking to trust..just consider..
and popular does not mean valid.

That's just it. There are no numbers showing a correlation between religiosity and moral behavior, if such a correlation existed then there would be evidence of it. As there isn't the assertions is spurious and to be rejected as such.

so then you are just pulling things out of your butt to argue with..
(you have no numbers to justify your statement that the numbers do not validate it)
which just shows that you are willing to lie to support your arguments..
which also shows you have no desire to understand.
which also validates my opinion that your arguments do not stand.

Ah, I see. If that's the case then I'll just ignore your statements along that vein from now on.

see above about ignoring evidence.

That anyone, anywhere, has any evidence of.

cept all the testimonies from believers..
but then again you do not believe that to be evidence..how convenient..

That's true, for the most part, but the fact that the "god was talking to me" explanation is less parsimonious than the "you were having a hallucination" explanation means that it's far less likely to be true.

how many have used the same argument to stifle the birth of the science field.(IE..you are delusional to believe the earth is round..)
not a valid argument..it is only a personal opinion and irresponsible at best.

Don't be surprised, that's just the way life is. It's to be expected when you debate someone on a topic that he's debated for close to a third of his life.

don't break your arm trying to pat yourself on the back..

Old enough to have become a cynic. My age is irrelevant though. What is relevant is that it's been years since I've seen one original argument from a theist. The longer I wait the less hope I hold out that this will change.

its only relevant if you are young (pry under 30, defiantly if you are under 20)

By all means do so. I want you to try, but just don't be surprised if you don't succeed.

you aren't seeking understanding..you are seeking justification..

How about "test everything and hold onto that which best reflects observed reality." I like that.

observed reality is not all there is to reality.

NOTE:
can we shorten this a bit..pick one or two points to argue instead of trying to discuss EVERY difference in our opinions.there will be lots of time to discuss other differences..

 

[Arioch]

@NM --

i didn't say infant..my context was more of the older children..(17+)
(and you didn't state if you had kids)

Then your comment wasn't relevant to the topic at hand, nor did it have any relevance to my arguments. Another red herring.

Whether or not I have kids is irrelevant to what your point is. And I didn't miss your point.

i have..you are more interested in 'winning' the debate than understanding anything.

Testimony isn't a good reason to believe anything, it's not evidence. And did you ever consider that maybe I already understand your arguments, I should considering I've used almost all of them myself.

.and i would argue he does.but you don't listen..

And you would base this argument on what, exactly? Oh that's right, nothing, you would just baldfaced assert it. Assertion by fiat is not a valid argument.

spoken out of ignorance..

Not really, I've already used and heard all of your arguments, how your beliefs relate to them is irrelevant to their validity. A non sequitur is a non sequitur, if your conclusion doesn't logically follow from your premise then understanding is irrelevant.

IOW if you do not understand how i get from point a to point b, of course it will appear non-sequitur.

That's my point. You don't go from point A to point b, you go from point A to point 8. Your conclusions can't be logically derived from your premises.

you don't have to understand to dismiss(refute) them..
a little knowledge is a dangerous thing..(forgot who said that)

You keep harping on about how I don't understand but you don't either show how I've misunderstood or attempted to clarify your arguments(which would have basically the same effect), you just keep saying the exact same thing over and over again using different words. But the fact remains that I've demonstrated an understanding by the way I've taken your arguments apart. How is this not clear to you by now?

not asking to trust..just consider..

If you're talking about testimony then you are asking me to trust. I have to trust that you actually experienced what you say you did and I have to trust that your interpretation is the correct one. That's an awful lot of trust that you ask of me without giving any justification.

and popular does not mean valid.

No, really? I'm so glad that you, a christian and member of the most popular religion in the world, told me, an atheist who is among one of the least liked and most hated groups in the world, that. I never would have been able to figure out that argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy without your brilliance to show me the way.

Wait, where did I make an argumentum ad populum? All I said was that you've given me no reason to take your interpretation over any other. None.

so then you are just pulling things out of your butt to argue with..

When did I say that there haven't been studies? There have been studies, but every one that wasn't plagued with poor controls and confirmation bias shows no correlation, none at all. That was, and always has been, my argument on the subject. Again, how was this not clear? Nobody else seems to have had a problem grasping that, or if they did they didn't say so.

which just shows that you are willing to lie to support your arguments..

Show where I've lied. There is no evidence that there is any correlation between religiosity and ethical behavior, as much as you might not want to accept that.

which also shows you have no desire to understand.

I don't need to try to understand what I already understand, you've not presented anything new.

which also validates my opinion that your arguments do not stand.

No it doesn't. Your premise is false so your conclusion is too.

see above about ignoring evidence.

You haven't presented any evidence and you've utterly failed to support your arguments logically. How am I ignoring anything?

cept all the testimonies from believers..

We've been over this before, testimony isn't evidence. Even if it were, you would then have to account for all of the contradictory testimony, something you can't do.

but then again you do not believe that to be evidence..how convenient..

Testimony isn't considered evidence of anything because anybody can say anything they want. That's not empirical, it's anecdote at best and anecdote can't be used to establish existence claims. Especially when it's among the least parsimonious explanation available.

how many have used the same argument to stifle the birth of the science field.(IE..you are delusional to believe the earth is round..)

None, but you only make this argument for one of two reasons. Either you don't understand the concept of parsimony(which would be a shame because you're on a science website) or you don't care and are being dishonest.

Parsimony is the concept of making as few assumptions as necessary to explain a phenomenon. The instant we got measurements which indicated a round Earth that became a necessary assumption. Hence why your argument and your example fails.

We don't need to assume that god is speaking to those who claim that he is, we already have an explanation which is more than capable of explaining that phenomenon, unless you're going to go on record saying that people who say that they talk to Jefferson or Washington are actually doing so...and I don't think that you could honestly do that. No, hallucination is by far the more powerful explanation.

not a valid argument..it is only a personal opinion and irresponsible at best.

Bullshit it's not a valid argument. What do you think happened to Aether theory? It wasn't necessary to explain the phenomenon we observed and there is literally no evidence of it so it was rejected. This is the way science works, if you want to post on a science site then you're going to have to understand that eventually.

its only relevant if you are young (pry under 30, defiantly if you are under 20)

Nope, it's irrelevant regardless of my actual age. The validity of an argument is independent from who made it, in other words, an argument is true or false regardless of the person making it. If Hitler came up with a working theory that showed that certain races really are inferior to others, it wouldn't matter that it was Hitler who came up with it. Likewise, if a six year old, brain damaged child came up with a unified theory of physics that actually works, it wouldn't matter how old he is, all that would matter is that the theory works.

I get that the whole "with age comes wisdom" thing is a hard social construct to break, and that in some cases it can be true, but it's far from a general rule of thumb. Especially in matters of logic or science.

you aren't seeking understanding..you are seeking justification..

I don't need any justification to reject your claims as you have no evidence to support them. You've presented no evidence to support your assertions so I reject, how is that not clear by now?

observed reality is not all there is to reality.

Unless you've got some evidence to back this up it will remain nothing more than your opinion and a spurious assertion. How do you know that there's "something else" out there. And before you try another red herring, you know full well that your statement was implying a supernatural component to reality.

can we shorten this a bit..pick one or two points to argue instead of trying to discuss EVERY difference in our opinions.there will be lots of time to discuss other differences..

Sorry, I aim for clarity and accuracy, not for brevity. In a debate such as this brevity must occasionally be sacrificed.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Sorry, I aim for clarity and accuracy, not for brevity. In a debate such as this brevity must occasionally be sacrificed.

typical anti-theist arguments..
ask for evidence, then dismiss anything that is said as not being evidence.

science and religion speak two different languages..
if you want to argue religion don't argue with science..
(vice versa also applies)

testimonies is evidence.
(not ALL testimonies, duh ..you can throw out the more bizarre ones)

you have not refuted anything i have said..you have only posited your opinion of the value of what i have said.(and lied at that.)

And as I said, the numbers don't back that up. So far we've found absolutely no correlation between religious belief and ethical behavior, none at all.

then:

That's just it. There are no numbers showing a correlation between religiosity and moral behavior,

which means you are a liar. by your own words.
and as such invalidates ANY points you have to make.
(specially your opinions as to the worth of your opponents points.)

 

[charles brough]

There is no evidence for a historical Jesus, and the guy described in the New Testament is obviously not hisorical. So, we're talking about a fictional character here who was created by some Jewish collaborators with Rome who offered an alternative to violent Galilean Messianism that would be friendly to the Roman occupiers. Most of the story was appropriated from the fables of the solar god of the Mystery Religions. Such nonsense should have no meaning in the modern world.

The Christian mythology does stem from other beliefs as you say. However, you probably also know there are other ways of explaining the rise of the now ancient faith. Also, that there certainly were Judaic-believing tribal people and some were named "Jesus." It seems to me that one of them was very likely executed by the Romans for sedition---perhaps because he tried to position himself as the "Jewish Massiah."

Why set up a Judaic-Roman conspiracy theory when it is not necessary and when the result was a faith the Romans did all they could to suppress?

And finally, even though it has been made nonsense by the advances of science, it is still the major factor dividing Islam and the West. It survives only because there is nothing adequate yet with which to replace it. If there were, it would have done so. It has something science and our secular beliefs as well as Asian Marxism lack. What we "should" be doing is finding out what that is and put it to good use building a scientific-substitute.

brough
http:civilization-overview.com

 

[Arioch]

@NM --

ask for evidence, then dismiss anything that is said as not being evidence.

All you've given me is your opinion which you've stated as fact. That is not evidence.

science and religion speak two different languages..
if you want to argue religion don't argue with science..

And yet you want me to give religion, or at least your specific theism, the same credence as science has. The thing you forget is that science has earned that credence by consistently proving itself correct. So far theism and religion have not done this, in fact in many things(some of which were vitally important) they've been proven to be hopelessly wrong. Science has earned what it has, religion and theism have not.

testimonies is evidence.
(not ALL testimonies, duh ..you can throw out the more bizarre ones)

Are you so blinded by your own prejudice that you can't even see that these two statements are mutually exclusive?

If testimonies are indeed evidence then all testimony is evidence, if you can throw out the more bizarre ones(though it might have slipped your notice that christianity is one of the bizarre ones) then you have to have criterion by which you judge those testimonies to not be evidence. In other words you need evidence to back up testimonies. If you can't see the logical disconnect between your two statements then there truly is no hope for you and this conversation is meaningless except to serve as an example to the fence sitters. It might do them good to see each and every one of your arguments eviscerated using logic and reason.

you have not refuted anything i have said..you have only posited your opinion of the value of what i have said.(and lied at that.)

I have shown that your arguments are either based on faulty logic or are completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, and are thus logical fallacies as well. If that's not a refutation then there's no such thing as a refutation.

And I didn't lie one bit. If you look carefully at the two statements that you quoted to show that I lied you'll realize that they say the exact same thing! One is saying that there are no numbers to show a correlation between religiosity and ethical behavior while the other is saying that the numbers don't show a correlation. There being no numbers to show a correlation is the numbers not showing a correlation. Come on, you should at least be able to keep up with that much. I know that this can't be that difficult for you.

which means you are a liar. by your own words.
and as such invalidates ANY points you have to make.

I've already covered the lying bit quite thoroughly so I'll leave that alone for now, but the next bit is about as illogical as you can get without bringing god into it. My character and personality have literally no impact on the validity of my arguments. None at all. This is merely a type of ad hominem, yet another fallacy to fly from your fingertips.

But by all means, keep producing such fallacious arguments. I'll keep exposing them for the pathetic lot that they are and you'll look the worse for it.