Right and wrong is determined by God

[phlogistician]

Phlogistician,

To an atheist, God does not exist, until there is satisfactory evidence.

No, belief in God does not exist until their is evidence. There is a difference, our POV does not make things spring into being!

Define God, that which you lack belief in.

He's 2" tall, has 59 penii, 22 of which are hairy, and the colours of the rainbow. The others are all infinitely long, and invisible.

I could keep describing God I don't believe in, but I doubt I would ever describe yours .

Last time we did this I asked you to define the attributes of your God, so we could discuss them, but you weaselled out. I suspect you will do the same, but I will ask again;

"Jan, please define the attributes of your God, so we can discuss how likely I findeach attribute, as it is futile me attempting to tell you about a lack of belief in something I have no concept of, other that what other people tell me."

I doubt it very much.

No, that's just your monotheistic arrogance showing through.

Belief in Ganesh, Kali, etc, is not a substitute for belief in God, they are worshiped as different aspects of God. I think you should look into it for yourself, as I'm sure you will understand what I am saying.

And Pan, Zeus, Loki, Jupiter, and all the other gods ever worshipped? Please, they are DISTINCT entities, even the bible recognises them, when God commands people to 'have no other gods'! You DARE to disagree with GOD telling you there are other gods? Does your arrogance know no bounds?

I believe 'gods' exist, and that they are a part of the Supreme Being.
It is something like a government; the leader of the government has different heads of department who work on his behalf.

Then you are making things up by yourself. I refer you to the paragraph above.

It's not as simple as that Phlogo.

I don't think you are that complicated, Jan. It seems plain to me.

 

[(Q)]

To claim that God is true is different from believing that God is true.

It's a fantasy if you believe when you know you can't claim it to be true. Yes, we know, Jan. Thanks for acknowledging your rationale.

 

[Jan Ardena]

phlogistician,

No, belief in God does not exist until their is evidence. There is a difference, our POV does not make things spring into being!

How would you be able to recognise "the evidence" to conclude that
God exists?

He's 2" tall, has 59 penii, 22 of which are hairy, and the colours of the rainbow. The others are all infinitely long, and invisible.
I could keep describing God I don't believe in, but I doubt I would ever describe yours .
Last time we did this I asked you to define the attributes of your God, so we could discuss them, but you weaselled out. I suspect you will do the same, but I will ask again;
"Jan, please define the attributes of your God, so we can discuss how likely I findeach attribute, as it is futile me attempting to tell you about a lack of belief in something I have no concept of, other that what other people tell me."

As you have deemed God "that which anybody says it is", God cannot ever exist for you, until you decide.

I gave you a basic dictionary definition of God, plus you can read any
scripture and draw a conclusion of the attributes of God. I'm okay with
those definitions.

No, that's just your monotheistic arrogance showing through.

I'm afraid you're quite wrong. There is a system, and all scriptoral documents
are linked. They only differ according to time, place, and circumstance.
Once all scriptures are embraced this can be understood.

jan.

 

[phlogistician]

Once all scriptures are embraced this can be understood.

jan.

Even the contradictory ones?

How does that work in your head, Jan, if scripture is does not agree with other scripture.

Btw, a 'dictionary definition' of God? That's too funny for words.

 

[Jan Ardena]

phlogistician,

Even the contradictory ones?
How does that work in your head, Jan, if scripture is does not agree with other scripture.

Scriptures may appear contradictory because they apply to time, place, and circumstance, but the essence is always one.

Btw, a 'dictionary definition' of God? That's too funny for words.

Why?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

phlogistician,

No, belief in God does not exist until their is evidence. There is a difference, our POV does not make things spring into being!

”
How would you be able to recognise "the evidence" to conclude that
God exists?

jan.

 

[phlogistician]

phlogistician,
Scriptures may appear contradictory because they apply to time, place, and circumstance, but the essence is always one.

What a load of apologetic bullshit.

Why?

jan.

Is the Dictionary the inspired word of God, Jan?

 

[Jan Ardena]

phlogistician,

What a load of apologetic bullshit.

So I take it that it hasn't occured to you, that it could be true?

Is the Dictionary the inspired word of God, Jan?

You asked for a definition, you got one, now take it to
the next stage.

No, belief in God does not exist until their is evidence. There is a difference, our POV does not make things spring into being!

How would you be able to recognise "the evidence" to conclude that
God exists?

jan.

 

[phlogistician]

phlogistician,
So I take it that it hasn't occured to you, that it could be true?

Hahahah, a bunch of disparate, contradictory scriptures, written centuries apart, translated, edited, discarded, borrowed, re-written to suit societal mores by flawed MORTALS on ONE PLANET OUT OF THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE manages to encapsulate the TRUTH about such lofty topics as the Supreme Being?

Well, that could is looking to have vanishingly small odds, and I reckon they won't pay out in this Universe, Jan.

You asked for a definition, you got one, now take it to
the next stage.

So man defines God, Jan? What is the next stage in examining our invention, please?

How would you be able to recognise "the evidence" to conclude that
God exists?

jan.

We would use the scientific method Jan. I would have thought that much is obvious. We collate, examine, measure, hypothesise, predict, and test.

What 'evidence' if any, are you alluding to, btw?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Hahahah, a bunch of disparate, contradictory scriptures, written centuries apart, translated, edited, discarded, borrowed, re-written to suit societal mores by flawed MORTALS on ONE PLANET OUT OF THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE manages to encapsulate the TRUTH about such lofty topics as the Supreme Being?

Well, that could is looking to have vanishingly small odds, and I reckon they won't pay out in this Universe, Jan.

Dude, please try and stay focused.
That is one scripture (i assume you are refering to the bible).
It obviously hasn't occured to you that scriptures do not contradict
themselves, only appearing to do so because of time, place, and circumstance.

So man defines God, Jan? What is the next stage in examining our invention, please?

wtf!
You asked me to define God, remember?

We would use the scientific method Jan. I would have thought that much is obvious. We collate, examine, measure, hypothesise, predict, and test.

Okay.
So how would you conclude that it was God?

What 'evidence' if any, are you alluding to, btw?

The evidence that would make you conclude "this is God".
If you don't believe God exists due to lack of evidence, and will not
accept anything other than (scientific) evidence, then it stands to reason
that you have some idea of what type of evidence would convince that God exists.
The othere alternative is "God does not exist", which begs the question; why say you don't believe God exists because there is no evidence.

jan.

 

[swarm]

Atheist means 'without theism', or simply 'not a theist', in the same way 'amoral' means 'without morals'.

It is, I feel, important to reemphasize that while "against" theism,"not" theism and "without" theism have significant overlap, they aren't complete synonyms. This results in an opportunity for theists to choose the incorrect nuance and side track the conversation into the definition doldrums.

To avoid this say what is actually the case instead of using "atheism" as a catch all term.

Just as an example, if you are the sort of atheist who rejects unsupported claims, say that. If you just go with the term "atheist" then the theist will red herring you with "oh you believe there is no god" because some atheists actually do make that claim even though you don't.

But if you go straight to your position you cut off that entire waste of time. "What evidence have you of this god claim?"

This at least forces them to have a second ploy.

 

[phlogistician]

Dude, please try and stay focused.
That is one scripture (i assume you are refering to the bible).

How naive are you Jan? ONE Scripture? What of the Dead Sea Scrollx, and the Apocyrpha? It's ONE scripture because it has been edited together into one tome from many original sources, and the extraneous material discarded.

It obviously hasn't occured to you that scriptures do not contradict
themselves, only appearing to do so because of time, place, and circumstance.

No Jan, that cop -out hasn't occurred to me. AS IT IS CLEAR THE SCRIPTURES ARE CONTRADICTORY. Stop apologisng for their flaws, and accept they are flawed. Show some discernment, eh?

wtf!
You asked me to define God, remember?

No, I think I asked you to tell me what attributes you think God has, so we can discuss each one. You abidcated to a dictionary, which was pretty lazy.

Okay.
So how would you conclude that it was God?

The evidence would lead us to that conclusion Jan, as no other explanation would fit the facts. First though, we need some evidence. Got any?

The evidence that would make you conclude "this is God".
If you don't believe God exists due to lack of evidence, and will not
accept anything other than (scientific) evidence, then it stands to reason
that you have some idea of what type of evidence would convince that God exists.

Clearly Jan you know very little about the scientific method. I guess that's why you cling to faery stories easily.

The othere alternative is "God does not exist", which begs the question; why say you don't believe God exists because there is no evidence.

jan.

How many times Jan? I simply don't believe, I don't make a firm statement that God does not exist. Get a grip.

 

[Jan Ardena]

phlogistician,

How naive are you Jan? ONE Scripture? What of the Dead Sea Scrollx, and the Apocyrpha? It's ONE scripture because it has been edited together into one tome from many original sources, and the extraneous material discarded.

Matters not.
They do not contradict each other, and where it may seem
contradictory, it seems so because of its appeal to time, place, and circumstance (TPC).

No Jan, that cop -out hasn't occurred to me. AS IT IS CLEAR THE SCRIPTURES ARE CONTRADICTORY. Stop apologisng for their flaws, and accept they are flawed. Show some discernment, eh?

I guess it's up to you to show these contradictions.

No, I think I asked you to tell me what attributes you think God has, so we can discuss each one. You abidcated to a dictionary, which was pretty lazy.

Are you telling me, there are no definition of Gods' attributes in the
definition I gave you?

The evidence would lead us to that conclusion Jan, as no other explanation would fit the facts. First though, we need some evidence.

With the attributes in the definition I gave you (no silly games please),
under what circumstances could such a being exist, that could give rise to such a conclusion?

Clearly Jan you know very little about the scientific method. I guess that's why you cling to faery stories easily.

This kind of rhetoric, so common amongst dominant atheists, is exactly the
reason why it is obvious that your default position is "I believe God does not exist".

How many times Jan? I simply don't believe, I don't make a firm statement that God does not exist. Get a grip.

You don't have to make a firm statement to be understood.
If your position is not one of "God does not exist", then it is one of denial.
You deny the existence of God, and you deny Gods' attributes, to the point where you cannot even discuss God or His attributes, without acting like a twonk.

I'm afraid the dominant atheist position is too simple, which is why attachments are added, to try and give the perception of a well thought out,
logical, rational, reasonable, and intelligent approach to the subject.



jan.

 

[phlogistician]

Matters not.
They do not contradict each other, and where it may seem
contradictory, it seems so because of its appeal to time, place, and circumstance (TPC).

Yes thay do, and your apologetics do not change the FACT they do.

I guess it's up to you to show these contradictions.

If you have actually read the bible, they should stick out like a sore thumb Jan, I don't need to point them out. But as you asked, here' s a quick one; How did Judas die?

Are you telling me, there are no definition of Gods' attributes in the
definition I gave you?

Jan, I asked YOU to give me the attibutes you think God has. Not cop out and give me a bland dictionary definition. Why are you so evasive on this point? I have asked you half a dozens times, and yet you still cannot do this. Why?

With the attributes in the definition I gave you (no silly games please),
under what circumstances could such a being exist, that could give rise to such a conclusion?

Why are YOU _asking_ me? It's up to the pro camp to provide such answers Jan. Clearly I don't think it's possible, so it's rather silly of you to even ask me that question.

This kind of rhetoric, so common amongst dominant atheists, is exactly the
reason why it is obvious that your default position is "I believe God does not exist".

That's putting words in my mouth Jan, and it's just plain dishonest. If you ignore what I have told you about my position, and have to rely on lies and straw men to make your argument, you are admitting defeat.

You don't have to make a firm statement to be understood.
If your position is not one of "God does not exist", then it is one of denial.
You deny the existence of God, and you deny Gods' attributes, to the point where you cannot even discuss God or His attributes, without acting like a twonk.

More lies. Why can't you accept that I simply don't believe? Why do you insist on making it more than it is?

I'm afraid the dominant atheist position is too simple, which is why attachments are added, to try and give the perception of a well thought out,
logical, rational, reasonable, and intelligent approach to the subject.



jan.

We were all born atheists Jan. You too, were one yourself, before someone filled your head with nonsense.

 

[swarm]

Are you telling me, there are no definition of Gods' attributes in the definition I gave you?

So when you personally met god, did she fit any of those definitions?

You have personally met god right?

 

[Jan Ardena]

phlogistician,

How did Judas die?

He was gutted.

Jan, I asked YOU to give me the attibutes you think God has. Not cop out and give me a bland dictionary definition.

They contain attributes, you cannot deny that.
Put this on to add colour to the blandness. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlAHZURxRjY

Why are you so evasive on this point? I have asked you half a dozens times, and yet you still cannot do this. Why?

I'm not avoiding anything, I have given you what you asked.
Why can't you accept the attributes in this definition.

Why are YOU _asking_ me? It's up to the pro camp to provide such answers Jan. Clearly I don't think it's possible, so it's rather silly of you to even ask me that question.

If it's not possible, how can you say you will believe God exists if there is
evidence, but not have any idea as to what would constitute evidence, or
know if it were God, or not, without having to accept the results on faith?

That's putting words in my mouth Jan, and it's just plain dishonest.

The "scientific metod" is a logical and rational step by step process in which scientists use to make conclusion about the world. They use observation, hyposthesis, and deduction to make these conclusions.
How is it possible, from your point of view, to find evidence of God?
If it is not possible, then for you God does not exist.
So why say you will believe God exists if evidence is found?

If you ignore what I have told you about my position, and have to rely on lies and straw men to make your argument, you are admitting defeat.

These are pointless accusations.

Why can't you accept that I simply don't believe? Why do you insist on making it more than it is?

Because something is amiss in alledged position, and, it is a long overdue subject matter, that atheists similar in thinking to yourself, cling to, acting as though you are the model of logic, rationalism, freethinkiing, and intelligence.

We were all born atheists Jan. You too, were one yourself, before someone filled your head with nonsense.

If theism is verbally articulating 'i believe in God' and atheism the verbal opposite (a new thread perhaps)?
I don't think so.
So I will have to disagree with you on that.

 

[Jan Ardena]

You have personally met god right?

No I haven't.
What makes you think I have?

jan.

 

[phlogistician]

He was gutted.

Or he hung himself, depending on which CONTRADICTORY account you read.

I'm not avoiding anything, I have given you what you asked.
Why can't you accept the attributes in this definition.

You are avoiding giving me your PERSONAL view, Jan.

I ask again, please list the attributes you think your God possesses.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Or he hung himself, depending on which CONTRADICTORY account you read.



You are avoiding giving me your PERSONAL view, Jan.

I ask again, please list the attributes you think your God possesses.

As it doesn't say 'he died' in matthew, we cannot be sure that he did die, or
that the term "hanged himself" is to be understood how we have come to understand it.

I don't have a personal view on the the definition, or attributes of God.
Why would I?

jan.

 

[phlogistician]

as it doesn't say 'he died' in matthew, we cannot be sure that he did die, or
that the term "hanged himself" is to be understood how we have come to understand it.

I don't have a personal view on the the definition, or attributes of god.
Why would i?

Jan.

cop out!