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.
So you are making a logical error, assuming that making case for errors in the Bible is evidence that God doesn’t exist. I had hoped you weren’t that dim.
I doubt you could make a better case for your worldview than TotN or Harry, and they didn’t do a very good job. You all have been at this for many years and a new Christian of only a couple years can give you all a run for your money? You might want to let that sink in a bit instead of rushing to stroke each other’s egos.
(BTW, did you see my previous comment to you was post #666? That’s twice that happened in the past few days. First with TotN and now with you. Weird.)
You are insinuating that Trans is dim? You gotta be kidding!
You think Harry and TotN Haven't made a good case? You gotta be kidding!!
You think you have given Trans, Harry and TotN a run for their money? Ok, I'll give you that one.
Sorry guys but she has given y'all a run around.
But don't you go getting all swollen headed now you hear Iwas! You might want to re-read your post and give it some serious thought.
Izza, that's what it is working for, if it doesn't almost have it already. Not just Religion, but Fundamentalist religion, too. You don't see this?
No, Trans, I'm afraid my worldview is a bit more complex than that but that could be because I try and identify other factors that may influence people and rarely, if ever, anthropomorphize religion. Regrettably, as Mensa had pointed it out, it's not a topic suitable for this forum.
So you are making a logical error, assuming that making case for errors in the Bible is evidence that God doesn’t exist. I had hoped you weren’t that dim.
I doubt you could make a better case for your worldview than TotN or Harry, and they didn’t do a very good job. You all have been at this for many years and a new Christian of only a couple years can give you all a run for your money? You might want to let that sink in a bit instead of rushing to stroke each other’s egos.
(BTW, did you see my previous comment to you was post #666? That’s twice that happened in the past few days. First with TotN and now with you. Weird.)
You are making very heavy weather of this. The position on atheism is that there is no valid reason to believe the god claim or the claims of Christianity. The non -specific creator aside (it's academic, anyway) the rationale is not to have to prove that the god of the Bible doesn't exist but the Bible is not convincing reason to suppose that it does.
We have been at this many years and the problem is that Christian apologists whether new or old cannot grasp that the onus is on them to prove their case. It is no credit to you that you can 'give us a run for our money' because it has all been avoiding any real discussion, banging away at any arguments you do feel have some mileage - like Cosmic origins, while pretty much ignoring the 'Which god?' question that it leads to, and playing cheap shots like atheists "rushing to stroke each other’s egos" which if we did so or even needed to, is nothing to do with the discussion.
Btw. the 'post no 666' is an old one and doesn't raise a smile anymore.
So “No” you’re not capable of making a solid case for atheism (i.e. no gods)? As much as you wish it would, criticizing Christianity is not a substitute for making a solid case for your own worldview.
You claim to be open minded, so we can presume you have evaluated other religions for us, and found Christianity more superior. Using that as our priors (information we have), we can then say the two horses in the race are Christianity and atheism. So if we can demonstrate the Christian god is most unlikely, then the winner is the other horse, atheism.
The only way to change the probability is to show atheism is less credible than Christianity. Unfortunately for you, you did the opposite.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
Are you making a logical error assuming that making case for errors in the Bible is proof that God doesn’t exist. I hope you are not that dim.
Are you making a logical error of moving the goal posts? Moving from the Bible God to a god? I think you are. Your Christian God is based on the Bible God, but it is not the Bible god. Theology has added extra arguments, extra properties. But if the Bible god is a fiction, then the later theology is just trying to polish a fiction.
So pointing out the history of (and the problems with) the Bible is just some of the arguments against the idea of God, not against a god. So other people are not dim because you choose to move the goal posts.
You are insinuating that Trans is dim? You gotta be kidding!
You think Harry and TotN Haven't made a good case? You gotta be kidding!!
You think you have given Trans, Harry and TotN a run for their money? Ok, I'll give you that one.
Sorry guys but she has given y'all a run around.
But don't you go getting all swollen headed now you hear Iwas! You might want to re-read your post and give it some serious thought.
It doesn't matter. These crafty theists think they are getting themselves something by ducking, diving and dancing while evading any serious discussion. But it...well I've been trying not to bring the subject up, but I watched a vid refuting the vociferous Flat earth internet propaganda. They look as though they have a ton of evidence, but it only takes one video to show that their arguments are nonsense.
Thus you can get the 'runaround' type of theist apologist who can look very convincing IF our side doesn't show up where they are doing it all wrong.
That's what we do and thus the fallacies, evasions and intellectual dishonesty, once it is shown up, works against them.That is to anyone who isn't already saddled with a mind welded shut by bias.
So you are making a logical error, assuming that making case for errors in the Bible is evidence that God doesn’t exist. I had hoped you weren’t that dim.
I hope you did not hurt yourself moving that goal post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
I doubt you could make a better case for your worldview than TotN or Harry, and they didn’t do a very good job.
Which is why you evade answering the many questions. Because you can not refute our arguments. Point 6a, for example, the question about how your god just knows everything.
And you are forgetting, YOU also made two cases for atheism. One where you showed you god was very improbable (point 6a explains this), and the other where you argued your god could NOT exist (argument 3 in the OP).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
You all have been at this for many years and a new Christian of only a couple years can give you all a run for your money?
No one paid you to run, you chose to do this yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
You might want to let that sink in a bit instead of rushing to stroke each other’s egos.
Irony is you stroking your own ego.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
(BTW, did you see my previous comment to you was post #666? That’s twice that happened in the past few days. First with TotN and now with you. Weird.)
So you are making a logical error, assuming that making case for errors in the Bible is evidence that God doesn’t exist. I had hoped you weren’t that dim.
I doubt you could make a better case for your worldview than TotN or Harry, and they didn’t do a very good job. You all have been at this for many years and a new Christian of only a couple years can give you all a run for your money? You might want to let that sink in a bit instead of rushing to stroke each other’s egos.
(BTW, did you see my previous comment to you was post #666? That’s twice that happened in the past few days. First with TotN and now with you. Weird.)
I think there is a name for this error called arguing from ignorance.
Here is the reality--We have had a Bible sitting on our bookshelf for years. Not once did my daughter look at it and say, "There's the proof." Instead, she asked me.
Ah, yes. The kids do tend to go to the adults for Pronouncements. If there was a logic and critical thinking class they might have the mental equipment to work it out for themselves by High School. But not before then. I have myself been approached as an Authority as to whether Santa was real. I managed to squeal: "No" before collapsing under a heap of logical caveats.
But Even rejecting the Bible is done for sensible and even rational but not technically logical reasons:
Common sense says 'Miracles don't happen, therefore we can dismiss the Gospels as full of unbelievable miracles.This is even a Rational argument because Rationalism says that there is no reason to believe miracles so there is no reason to believe the miracles in the Gospels.
But on fact I think the logic fails If we take the gospels as a claim on their own terms without dismissing them at the outset. Jesus being a one -off divinity could of course do what nobody else can. If miracles happened all the time, there's be nothing special about Jesus. This the reason to disbelieve the miracles cannot logically be based on 'Miracles don't (normally) happen'. This is why I have seen the contradictions in the Bible as the only real way of showing the gospels untrustworthy. It's rather how banging mutually destructive religions together doesn't disprove a god and isn't intended to, but it Does discredit the religions as man -made inventions - unless just One of them can be proven credible.
So what I'm getting at is that even when kids grow up, and even if they did have a critical - thinking course as part of the curriculum, they still wouldn't do a redaction - criticism study of the gospels. I know, because I can only think of one other atheist who Might have done it.
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.
One where you showed you god was very improbable (point 6a explains this), and the other where you argued your god could NOT exist (argument 3 in the OP).
is that even when kids grow up, and even if they did have a critical - thinking course as part of the curriculum, they still wouldn't do a redaction - criticism study of the gospels. I know, because I can only think of one other atheist who Might have done it.