Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
nope but we can't get you militant antitheists off of and or away from Christian conversations though. or anyplace Christians gather on the net to just talk. there you are knocking and blowing down the doors by being the hall monitors of such sites.
I'm not surprised. It's the normal M.O of theist when they are backed into a corner with no ammo left. It's just what Jeffbase does when he gets mauled and has no comeback. You're no different to all the others. Anyway, don't get the idea that I'll stop responding to your posts will you. I'll still be behind you, exposing you ignorance.
I'm not surprised. It's the normal M.O of theist when they are backed into a corner with no ammo left. It's just what Jeffbase does when he gets mauled and has no comeback. You're no different to all the others. Anyway, don't get the idea that I'll stop responding to your posts will you. I'll still be behind you, exposing you ignorance.
At some point it just gets as pointless as trying to argue with a wall. I don't believe they can't answer, it's that you refuse to even consider anything but your preconceived ideas.
At some point it just gets as pointless as trying to argue with a wall. I don't believe they can't answer, it's that you refuse to even consider anything but your preconceived ideas.
The ideas are not so much preconceived but rather, they are well thought out and thoroughly examined.
I'm not surprised. It's the normal M.O of theist when they are backed into a corner with no ammo left. It's just what Jeffbase does when he gets mauled and has no comeback. You're no different to all the others. Anyway, don't get the idea that I'll stop responding to your posts will you. I'll still be behind you, exposing you ignorance.
Since I was offline, and thus able to read this (blocking only counts for when you're active), let's address that. I'm not out of arguments. I just have no taste for verbally abusive a**holes like you. It's usually better to agree to disagree, and let people believe what they want. But since you've got it in your head that this is some sort of victory prize for being a tremendous POS, yeahhhh no.
Over the years, I've talked about several reasons why theism.
1. Reasonable doubt. When in court, they talk about the burden of proof and reasonable doubt. Both the theist and the atheist have a burden of proof (one is saying they know God is real, the other that God doesn't exist). The agnostic has no such issue (which is why you all should be agnostics instead of militant atheists, but that wouldn't create drama). Along with burden of proof, though, only the theist has reasonable doubt. What I mean by this, is in a courtroom is that a person is innocent until proven guilty. In order to declare the believer "guilty" (their idea flawed) requires absolute certainty. If you have only reasonable doubt, this is not enough, because reasonable doubt is designed to protect the rights of others. You have to prove that at no place in the universe (or outside of ours) there exists such a thing as God. And not just the classical idea, but also modern theories such as animism and pantheism. You have to find a reason why such could not exist, or scour the entire universe (and even then, you cannot disprove the idea of a God who created then went to sleep or something). I on the other hand, must only prove the idea that there could be a God.
2. The parable of a watch. I find a watch in a forest. Naturally, I'm not going to say "that's amazing how that watch simply appeared, I am certain that nobody made it." No, because this isn't remotely logical. In order to create a watch, required some dude putting it together. And some other dude mining the materials, and some other dude shaping them into pieces for the watch. And some other dude giving birth to all these guys with the help of an equally awesome lady friend. The only thing that isn't causal in a causal universe is the cause of all things, which would by definition be a God. "Infinite Nothingness (Wuji) has no beginning, no beginning means no end." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuji_(philosophy) Only something eternal could have done something before there is a cause. That's a God.
3. "But but the universe did it, not God." Nope, still wrong. That falls under pantheism or panentheism. The belief that everything that is, is part of the body of God. The difference will be lost on you, but essentially even if you say that, I would agree with you.
4. Entropy and decay. The conservation of matter/energy. Logically, if you leave a bike outside, it will begin to rust. The same is true of human beings. I could go a few different topics with this but the keys here is that the universe from our study of science has a trend toward entropy and decay in the absence of a deity. There should only be a certain amount of matter, and none new created, so everything should be in a state of decline. But this is not what is happening here. Humans evolve, new life is born, people survive. I myself have tried to live without anyone else. It was barely possible. I ultimately realized most of my success was do to gifts from family of friends. If nobody acts on an object, it decays, as sure as a person falls apart when they stop trying with their own life.
5. Impossibility of spontaneous generation. Such things were disproven by early scientists, so when you're talking about life or the universe itself randomly springing into being, you're diving headfirst into bad science. See #2.
6. I haven't even exhausted any possible proofs that I could find or think up. This is not only because I can read proofs and/or testimonies written by other converts, including A Case For A Creator, but because I am trained in theology, and even if I weren't, "God will give you the words to say." The God that I believe in, shows every day new evidence for himself. Any arguments you get are likely from the internet, and from the looks of it, half-baked.
7. You know the book The Grand Design by Hawking? One of the things they were saying in that video I showed by Craig was that it was so terribly written, it was literally good for people learning to believe in God. For that matter, Hawking says you "don't need to invoke God" but creates a universe that doesn't work without it.
8. Oh yeah, and the anecdotal evidence from my own life. Every day, there is sufficient cause to prove that God may well be good or evil, but definitely exists. You may not feel that way, but as I say, I'm done with you. The people in my life prove God's love to me, so if you don't, you're not one of them.
Bottom line, right, you've "won". Enjoy that feeling for all of three seconds.
Last edited by bulmabriefs144; 02-09-2018 at 04:34 PM..
I on the other hand, must only prove the idea that there could be a God.
Does the same rule apply for when I want to claim anything I wish? In court I mean. But in general too.
I like to use the fairies at the bottom of my garden quip. Sure there could be fairies but we need to define what a fairy is first. A fairy is not a little cute female creature with wings. It's a human sized thing that takes on human form and kills people. And they don't have wings. They also don't exist which is why they were able to morph from beasts to be feared into cute little female creatures.
Quote:
Fairies of folklore were vicious, vindictive and cruel - embodying forces of nature and often appearing as monstrous figures rather than the winged pixie-like beings we associate the word with today.
Fairies of folklore were blamed for all manner of mischief and ills, ranging from petty vandalism and theft to outright murder and kidnap - they would frequently be blamed for causing livestock to grow sick or die, they would lead travellers astray at night or lure men to their doom near ponds and rivers: if sufficiently angered they would even kill.
So we need to define what we are claiming.
Like defining what god is. Just the fact that the definition of what we are claiming changes over time is proof that the claims are human constructs and not fact.
Thinking about it, the description of Yahweh, the ancient god of Israel, is no different to the description of ancient fairies. Yahweh could be described as being vicious, vindictive and cruel.
I just have no taste for verbally abusive a**holes like you. It's usually better to agree to disagree, and let people believe what they want. But since you've got it in your head that this is some sort of victory prize for being a tremendous POS, yeahhhh no.
Nah! Face it. You just have nothing left so, like Jeffbase40, your only option is to put your opponent on your ignore list. No sweat! As I said, it won't stop me responding to your ignorant and misinformed drivel.
Quote:
1. Reasonable doubt. When in court, they talk about the burden of proof and reasonable doubt. Both the theist and the atheist have a burden of proof (one is saying they know God is real, the other that God doesn't exist).
Excellent example of ignorance regarding what atheism is. I, and most atheists do not say that gods do not exist. We have no idea whether they exist or not. What we say (as you have been told a thousand times and yet you still come back with the same tedious, misinformed ignorance) is - due to the lack of verifiable evidence for the existence of gods, we see no reason to believe that they exist. Now I don't know how many times you have been told this but try to let it sink in to your brain for a day or two before reaching for your keyboard again and typing the same misinformed ignorance about what you THINK atheism is.
Quote:
The agnostic has no such issue (which is why you all should be agnostics instead of militant atheists, but that wouldn't create drama). Along with burden of proof, though, only the theist has reasonable doubt. What I mean by this, is in a courtroom is that a person is innocent until proven guilty. In order to declare the believer "guilty" (their idea flawed) requires absolute certainty. If you have only reasonable doubt, this is not enough, because reasonable doubt is designed to protect the rights of others.
More misinformed ignorance! You can be found guilty on the 'preponderance of evidence'. THAT is not 'certainty'. Nor is absolute certainty required. You can be found guilty 'beyond reasonable doubt' which means that the likelihood that you did it, outweighs the likelihood that you didn't. THAT is not absolute certainty.
Quote:
You have to prove that at no place in the universe (or outside of ours) there exists such a thing as God.
So does that mean that you have to prove that at no place in the universe (or outside of ours) none of the myriads of gods that people believe exist or have believed to have existed, are hiding behind some secret cloud - and as you can't do that, are you ready to concede that your god may not be the only god that might be hiding, somewhere in the universe and that your beliefs regarding your particular flavour god could be wrong and that you may well be worshipping the wrong god?
Quote:
And not just the classical idea, but also modern theories such as animism and pantheism. You have to find a reason why such could not exist, or scour the entire universe (and even then, you cannot disprove the idea of a God who created then went to sleep or something). I on the other hand, must only prove the idea that there could be a God.
So if I claim that undetectable, six headed elephants just might exist on the Moon but you can't find them - because they are undetectable - that is enough for you to accept that such things might exist? If so, do you believe in the possible existence of mermaids, goblins and pixies?
Quote:
2. The parable of a watch. I find a watch in a forest. Naturally, I'm not going to say "that's amazing how that watch simply appeared, I am certain that nobody made it." No, because this isn't remotely logical. In order to create a watch, required some dude putting it together. And some other dude mining the materials, and some other dude shaping them into pieces for the watch.
Oh dear! 'The Watchmaker Analogy'! How pathetically weak and ignorant! The reason we concede that someone made the watch is because we know that a watch does not occur naturally. In the same way we concede that a block of apartments has been made by someone - because blocks of apartments do not occur in nature. If you found a tree in your forest, would you apply the same analogy as you do to the watch? Of course not...because you know that trees occur naturally. Now go away and think about it and stop displaying your ignorance.
Quote:
3. "But but the universe did it, not God." Nope, still wrong. That falls under pantheism or panentheism.
No. It falls under 'Nature'.
Quote:
4. Entropy and decay. The conservation of matter/energy. Logically, if you leave a bike outside, it will begin to rust. The same is true of human beings. I could go a few different topics with this but the keys here is that the universe from our study of science has a trend toward entropy and decay in the absence of a deity.
I suggest you study this subject from somewhere other than your favourite bible apologist site because, yet again, you display staggering ignorance. When you find a reliable web-site, pay particular attention to what it says about 'open/closed systems'.
Quote:
5. Impossibility of spontaneous generation. Such things were disproven by early scientists, so when you're talking about life or the universe itself randomly springing into being, you're diving headfirst into bad science. See #2.
..and yet it isn't us that talks about life spontaneously springing into action. It's you. You are quick to point out that your god simply snapped his fingers and there was life. We on the other hand, are more than happy to concede that we have absolutely no idea where life came from or how it started. Now which to you seem more to be speaking about 'spontaneous' life?
Quote:
6. I haven't even exhausted any possible proofs that I could find or think up.
That would be because you don't have any. If there was any proof then your religious handlers wouldn't be demanding that you believe through 'faith' would they?
Quote:
This is not only because I can read proofs and/or testimonies written by other converts, including A Case For A Creator, but because I am trained in theology, and even if I weren't, "God will give you the words to say."
Do you believe all the testimonies written by Muslims, Hindus, etc in which they claim experiences with gods other than the one you believe in. Do you believe the testimonies of JWs, Mormons etc? Of course you don't. Yet you expect us to accept the insane raving of those who belong to your particular flavour of religion.
Quote:
The God that I believe in, shows every day new evidence for himself.
Apparently, so do hundreds of other god that are believed to exist by other religions. Funny that huh?
Quote:
7. You know the book The Grand Design by Hawking? One of the things they were saying in that video I showed by Craig was that it was so terribly written, it was literally good for people learning to believe in God.
Craig is the last person that should be talking about things being badly written. Craig, like all apologists, bases his whole argument on the gospels being true-when we know full well that they are not.
Quote:
8. Oh yeah, and the anecdotal evidence from my own life. Every day, there is sufficient cause to prove that God may well be good or evil, but definitely exists.
...and the anecdotal evidence from millions of Hindus prove that Ganesh exists...right?
Quote:
Bottom line, right, you've "won". Enjoy that feeling for all of three seconds.
Oh...I knew I'd won as soon as I started to read your posts. As Shirina proved, you have absolutely no idea about either science or history. When I read her responses to you and saw how she drilled your arse, I actually felt a bit sad for you. Your ignorance is an embarrassment to your cause.
You argue for a most complex being just existing. We have very good reasons to doubt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
2. The parable of a watch.
Snowflakes refutes this question begging and false dichotomy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
Only something eternal could have done something before there is a cause. That's a God.
Non sequitur and begging the question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
3. "But but the universe did it, not God." Nope, still wrong. That falls under pantheism or panentheism. The belief that everything that is, is part of the body of God. The difference will be lost on you, but essentially even if you say that, I would agree with you.
Straw man, false dichotomy and ad hom to boot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
4. Entropy and decay. The conservation of matter/energy. Logically, if you leave a bike outside, it will begin to rust. The same is true of human beings. I could go a few different topics with this but the keys here is that the universe from our study of science has a trend toward entropy and decay in the absence of a deity.
Lol, you've just argued for the absence of a deity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
There should only be a certain amount of matter, and none new created,
New matter can (and is) created while the total energy of our universe remains around zero.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
Humans evolve, new life is born, people survive.
Local entropy versus universal entropy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
5. Impossibility of spontaneous generation. Such things were disproven by early scientists, so when you're talking about life or the universe itself randomly springing into being, you're diving headfirst into bad science. See #2.
1) No one is arguing this other than science illiterate theists straw manning and question begging.
2) The science of abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
6. I haven't even exhausted any possible proofs that I could find or think up.
You haven't even started.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
7. You know the book The Grand Design by Hawking? One of the things they were saying in that video I showed by Craig was that it was so terribly written,
William Lane Craig? The guy who was routed by an actual cosmologist?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
8. Oh yeah, and the anecdotal evidence from my own life.
Other religions also have this. So they must be true as well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
