Getting The Facts Straight

Author: Mandrakel

Posts

Total: 45
Topic's author
#1
Mandrakel
Mandrakel's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 144
0
2
2
Mandrakel's avatar
Mandrakel
0
2
2
The debate over religion has always been contentious, which is understandable since there is always one side in particular that will not look at the facts and what is logical and reasonable. Following are a few reasoned, logical facts that we should consider:


Creation:
Unless you have been living on another planet for the past 100 years you would know that any notion of life having been created has been completely been kiboshed owing to the irrefutable and overwhelming evidence that life evolved through natural selection.

Nobody can prove God doesn't exist:
A completely absurd proposition to infer that this gives even an ounce of viability or credibility to the existence of God.

We don't yet have the technology to prove God:
Probably the most hollow and deceptive delaying tactic used by theists and will, of course, be used forever and a day. We can assume however that since theists know we don't yet have the technology, they must know what technology is required and are frantically working hard to develop it.

You have to believe/have faith:
The good old warm and fuzzy, we're special and you don't understand excuse. Belief and faith do not make god exist and are merely euphemisms for delusion.

We have always believed in God so there must be some truth in it:
"We" haven't always believed such nonsense; only the superstitious, naive and gullible have ever fallen for the fallacy. Others who say they believe, use religion as a tool to gain power and influence others.

It doesn't hurt to believe just in case God is real:
I'm sure that if there is a God that is all-powerful, omnipotent and knowing, he would see straight through that sort of false front.

Something must have given us a soul and consciousness:
There are no such things as souls or consciousnesses except as metaphors to describe certain characteristics of brain functions.


#2
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Mandrakel
Are you me?
#3
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mandrakel
  • You have to believe/have faith:

     Ask them why?

    Something must have given us a soul and consciousness:

    Ask them why?


    It doesn't hurt to believe just in case God is real:

    Tell them it does, can and has.


    We don't yet have the technology to prove God:

    Ask them,  why do we need it or why haven't we got it?




#4
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Mandrakel
I would agree with your conclusion, I am an atheist and an anti-theist; however, the theodicies you've presented aren't quite representative of the stronger arguments for god's existence. They are very common with your average theists, and I have no doubt that the theists here might defend some of these, but these are... certainly underwhelming.

For example, I've commonly heard arguments that god was the one to jump-start evolution, or that they caused the big bang - you are probably more accustomed to hearing traditional Abrahamic arguments though. Not that I find the aforementioned theodicy convincing, but it would be intellectually dishonest to pretend that your representations are the strongest arguments for god. 
Topic's author
#5
Mandrakel
Mandrakel's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 144
0
2
2
Mandrakel's avatar
Mandrakel
0
2
2
-->
@Theweakeredge
but it would be intellectually dishonest to pretend that your representations are the strongest arguments for god. 
I would say that it would be intellectually dishonest to suppose that my arguments and  "theodicies" have anything to do with being arguments for God; they are totally anti-God. Unless you have inadvertently gotten tangled up in double negatives I suggest that you read the OP again. 
Topic's author
#6
Mandrakel
Mandrakel's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 144
0
2
2
Mandrakel's avatar
Mandrakel
0
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
Are you me?
Oh, so you have taken my advice and extended your word count by 200%.

The only thing you need to work on now is your (lack of) intellect.

Topic's author
#7
Mandrakel
Mandrakel's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 144
0
2
2
Mandrakel's avatar
Mandrakel
0
2
2
-->
@Stephen
Ask them,  why do we need it or why haven't we got it
By "them" I presume that you mean theists.
I have found from experience that to ask questions of theists to explain their nutty ideals is fraught with trepidation. The answer will invariably be completely non-sensical or not even addressing the question. That's why I prefer to slap the facts down in front of them. 
Yes, of course, they will put on a brave front, jump up and down and get nasty but when they get behind closed doors they will start sobbing. Eventually I will wear the buggers down.
#8
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Mandrakel
There speaks a person of intellect I assume.


Everything that you suggest above, I have suggested a thousand times before...And a thousand others have also suggested the same.

Nothing new Mr Intellect.

And I'm certain that the opposing responses, will also be nothing new or devastatingly intellectual.


#9
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Mandrakel
You are presenting supposed "assertions" that theists make - these are essentially theodicies, especially the latter half - for example: "We have always believed in God so there must be some truth in it" These are arguments for god - whether you want to realize it or not.
Topic's author
#10
Mandrakel
Mandrakel's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 144
0
2
2
Mandrakel's avatar
Mandrakel
0
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
And I'm certain that the opposing responses, will also be nothing new or devastatingly intellectual.
Really full of verve and optimism aren't we?

In this day and age one cannot be complacent lest the meek get to inherit the earth.

Notice how I said: "Following are a few reasoned, logical facts that we should consider:" See, I don't make suggestions, I actually come right out and say it. There should be no holding back when dealing with a bunch of deluded nitwits.
#11
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mandrakel


We don't yet have the technology to prove God:

Ask them,  why do we need it or why haven't we got it


By "them" I presume that you mean theists.
I do  mean theist.  And I say so because if they indeed have said that " We don't yet have the technology to prove God:"  I  would want to know why they think technology is needed these  days when it apparently was never needed in the past, when god would just drop in and destroy something or kill someone when ever he felt like it. If they insist I would also want to know why we don't  have the technology for the exact same reason. But I will admit, I have never heard this clap-trap before, it is an entirely new excuse to me  for theists not being able to prove there is a god.


I have found from experience that to ask questions of theists to explain their nutty ideals is fraught with trepidation.

I  don't find that. I usually find them to be so cock-sure of themselves... to begin with, until it dawns on them that the one asking theological questions  happens to know more about their own subject that they do themselves.  That is when they turn nasty and start being sarcastic and playing the victim. 


The answer will invariably be completely non-sensical or not even addressing the question.

That's par for the course. I quite enjoy it. 



That's why I prefer to slap the facts down in front of them.

 That one doesn't affect them in the slightest either. They will even deny  what is actually written in their own scriptures to the point of bare faced lying. They will redefine words and sometimes whole verses to mean what they want them to mean and they will rewrite scripture in the hope they you are too lazy to check for yourself. And they will often put words into the mouths of biblical characters including the mouth of Jesus and hope you are too stupid to notice.

Then there is the "context"argument and the Greek argument <<< one of my favourites that is.  And another few  of my favourites is the - I have qualifications, I am a Pastor, I am a Chaplain. I teach religious studies to universities.  As if somehow this qualifies them and their argument to be above yours.  I have found that most of these desperate claims turn out to be lies in the hope that one will bend to their perceived "authority". 

Yes, of course, they will put on a brave front,

Yep. To the point where they will make themselves look the fools and liars that they inevitably are.


jump up and down and get nasty


Yep. Had that many times. But then plead victimisation when the compliments are returned and paid in kind.


but when they get behind closed doors they will start sobbing.

 I have a sneak feeling this may be the case for a few. 


Eventually I will wear the buggers down.

I doubt it. They have a  god on their side, remember.  whereas you and I  only have common sense and an ability to read, scrutinise and question scriptures for ourselves.

Topic's author
#12
Mandrakel
Mandrakel's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 144
0
2
2
Mandrakel's avatar
Mandrakel
0
2
2
-->
@Stephen
We don't yet have the technology to prove God
This excuse I have come across more than once, in fact in church. Yes, I had to go through all that stuff with the wife thinking that religion is the greatest thing since sliced bread and it will do the kids good. At least I listened to the sermons even though my head was always cocked to one side.

Anyway, this little adage slipped out one day and the congregation loved it. It supposedly gives a way out for theists having to explain why nobody has ever proved God's existence. And of course, this one doesn't grow old....you just keep moving the goal posts each time. In 500 years time when we have AI people and clones and transmoglifiable transportation, it will still come out...."Ah yes um, but we still don't have the technology to prove God."
#13
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
You don't need religion. You don't have to have religion. You don't have to practice religion. You are the one posting in a religion forum. If you are that annoyed consider why you continue to expose yourself to theists since you make no conversations or alterations to anyone by posting here. 
#14
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Mandrakel
Seems you should be addressing the issues with your Fed, state and local political representatives to make the change you want to see in the world. Taking to theists isn't going to do it. 
#15
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Mandrakel
Creation
Why must we assume that it was either creation, or evolution, as if they are different coins of the realm. I believe creation was a definitive process, but that God did not retire after sis days [though I don't buy that it was accomplished in six 24-hour periods, mainly because there was no day/night distinctions until the third "day", according to the Genetic record,  but in six, indistinct periods of time that may have varied in their duration "day"-to-day] and go fishing. No, no retirement. Creation continues to this day in the guise of evolution. Therefore, I do not see creation and evolution as separate coins, but as a single coin, and not even that one side is creation, and the other, evolution, but that both are on both sides.

Nobody can prove God doesn't exist:
Nor can anyone prove to another that God exists. That discovery is had individually. The experience can be shared, but the convincing thereof is a personal experience, not collective.

euphemisms for delusion.
Doesn't help to deny anything, due to the above re: proof of God. There was a time we were firm in the belief that the universe orbited Earth. Therefore, belief is not faith, nor the converse. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. How can one, therefore, prove to another what faith has demonstrated as evidence to him? This is an individual's journey, and delusion is the construct of people unwilling to take that journey. In other words, argue for your limitations; they're yours.

We have always ...
And that mirror is the fault of most who deny...
Again, "we" do not collectively acquire the knowledge of God, and our place in his universe. By individual faith, which must exist before the miracle of knowledge, for if knowledge is sought without the individual sacrifice of effort to obtain that knowledge, the miracle is explained away by the simple contention that "we have always..." just as you have demonstrated.

You speak of God as omnipotent, etc. What says that just because he is omni... and add your trailing suffixes, that he must always act as such? Do you use all the power you possess all the time, or do you use just sufficient for the task? Loaded question, and you may ponder the answer.
#16
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
Are you me?

Yep I see the resemblance...stubborn, pig-headed, fixated on one ideology, arrogant, generic, boring yep you and Willows (oops I mean Mandral) are pretty much the same. Now we have yet another dipshyt, controlling and obsessed moron taking over all religious discussions that could have potential but never will because of a handful of doofuses that have decided picking on religion and religious people justifies their stupid idea that it will somehow prove the non-existence of God lol. Have fun reading all of Willows (oops I mean Mandrals) crap material for the next 6 months while he swamps the board like an obsessed fool while I sit back and watch you all make yourselves look like pathetic airheads until some intelligent folks show up in the future. I know that's a pipe dream but hey, it's better than engaging a board full of anti-God freaks! adios suckers!




#17
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@EtrnlVw
I don't know why they do it. The materialist's obsession with topics such as the paranormal, metaphysics, and especially religion. EVERY board I've ever been to has a group of HIGHLY INTELLIGENT, perhaps GENIUS, MORALLY SUPERIOR atheists. I really don't understand why. It could just be a sadistic streak in those particular materialists. But it really makes no sense. It isn't logical. Why spend a large portion of your time, as these obviously do, harassing a group of people that they disagree with. I don't see this in other, similar situations.

I hate sports, but don't go to sports forums to harass sports fans. 

I hate country music but I don't spend time daily on country music boards making fun of Reba McEntire.

I actually avoid the things I dislike, for obvious reasons. 

The funny part is they haven't found my Yoga forums yet. I don't think they realize that Yoga is a religious practice and literally means"to yoke, or union with God". OOps, I've said too much. 


#18
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@Mandrakel
I didn't see any facts in your post.
Topic's author
#19
Mandrakel
Mandrakel's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 144
0
2
2
Mandrakel's avatar
Mandrakel
0
2
2
-->
@janesix
I didn't see any facts in your post.
You'll notice that there are seven facts that I tabled in the OP and each has a heading in bolded italics.
I did a considerable amount of objective research before confirming each of the facts so you will find that each one is 100% correct.
Topic's author
#20
Mandrakel
Mandrakel's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 144
0
2
2
Mandrakel's avatar
Mandrakel
0
2
2
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Seems you should be addressing the issues with your Fed, state and local political representatives to make the change you want to see in the world. Taking to theists isn't going to do it. 
I do make representations and am actively involved in local interest and lobby groups.
It is unclear as to what you mean by "the issues" and indeed it is questionable as to what your post has to do with the OP.

Topic's author
#21
Mandrakel
Mandrakel's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 144
0
2
2
Mandrakel's avatar
Mandrakel
0
2
2
-->
@fauxlaw
Why must we assume that it was either creation, or evolution, as if they are different coins of the realm.
I don't know and I also don't know who "we" are. 

Nor can anyone prove to another that God exists. That discovery is had individually. The experience can be shared, but the convincing thereof is a personal experience, not collective.
You have effectively made no statement whatsoever here or, as is the common terminology: "And your point being?" Usually, when someone uses cryptical terms such as "had individually" and "personal experience", we are dealing with a state of delusion on behalf of the writer.


There was a time we were firm in the belief that the universe orbited Earth. 
Quite right and you would not be called a loony in those times for making such a statement. Nowadays of course, you would be committed to the appropriate institution for uttering such nonsense.
Similarly, nowadays we have a plethora of solid information and irrefutable evidence that confirms evolution and anyone uttering otherwise is either a preacher (lying) or a candidate for psychological treatment.

Again, "we" do not collectively acquire the knowledge of God, and our place in his universe. By individual faith, which must exist before the miracle of knowledge, for if knowledge is sought without the individual sacrifice of effort to obtain that knowledge, the miracle is explained away by the simple contention that "we have always..." just as you have demonstrated.

And again, you are making a cop-out here. All religious institutions collectively praise and speak to God. When you mention "individual faith" you are in effect stating that you are unique (elitist) but in reality nothing more than self-centered to the point of delusion.

You speak of God as omnipotent, etc. What says that just because he is omni... and add your trailing suffixes, that he must always act as such? Do you use all the power you possess all the time, or do you use just sufficient for the task? Loaded question, and you may ponder the answer.
I have never claimed that God is omnipotent and even if I do infer such it is irrelevant since I would be talking hypothetically since there is no such thing as God.
Topic's author
#22
Mandrakel
Mandrakel's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 144
0
2
2
Mandrakel's avatar
Mandrakel
0
2
2
-->
@EtrnlVw
Now we have yet another dipshyt, controlling and obsessed moron taking over all religious discussions 
I take it then that you share an opposing view to that of others.
Topic's author
#23
Mandrakel
Mandrakel's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 144
0
2
2
Mandrakel's avatar
Mandrakel
0
2
2
-->
@janesix
It isn't logical. Why spend a large portion of your time, as these obviously do, harassing a group of people that they disagree with. I don't see this in other, similar situations.
Maybe you could do a bit of research and discover that, for centuries, religious zealots have been forcing their ugly agendas of doom and gloom and bizarre practices on society and continue to do so. Until the very last one of them withers away and perishes never to be seen again, you will find decent, responsible, law-abiding people such as me vehemently opposing their unsavory ways which they are intent on converting others to.
Intelligently (with reason and evidence) exposing the ills of those who habitually harass is hardly called harassment, is it? I call it defending the rights and sanity of free society.

#24
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@EtrnlVw
Yep I see the resemblance.

Me and you..... We're like peas in a pod.
#25
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
. If you are that annoyed consider why you continue to expose yourself to theists since you make no conversations or alterations to anyone by posting here. 

Expose myself?  How? Annoyed? How?

you make no conversations or alterations to anyone by posting here. 

I have no intention of doing either to anyone. I don't care if there is a god or not. I don't care that you or anyone has a faith or a belief.  I simply scrutinise and question that which theists have a faith and belief IN.  Just like you are questioning my non belief and why I am here posting on a RELGION forum..



You don't have to have religion.

Well many theists will give you an argument their , Witch. They believe atheism is also a religion. What say you Witch?

 Besides, I believe much about the bible. Minus the "wonders and miracles" of course.

Do you believe in the miracles and wonders said to have been performed by a man god Jesus, Witch?




#26
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@janesix
Miss factual.....It must be all those Chakras.
#27
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Mandrakel
Perhaps it takes a deluded nitwit to know one.

If you think you're going to make a difference.


Nonetheless.

GOD principle sound......But, floaty about bloke of the Arabian tales, that's another story.
#28
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mandrakel
@ EtrnlVw, wrote:   "of a handful of doofuses that have decided picking on religion and religious people justifies "

That will be the victimhood that I mentioned earlier at post #11  They turn to the victimhood complaint when they have no answers or you have  made them look bible ignorant.



Topic's author
#29
Mandrakel
Mandrakel's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 144
0
2
2
Mandrakel's avatar
Mandrakel
0
2
2
-->
@Stephen
@ EtrnlVw, wrote:   "of a handful of doofuses that have decided picking on religion and religious people justifies "

That will be the victimhood that I mentioned earlier at post #11  They turn to the victimhood complaint when they have no answers or you have  made them look bible ignorant.
Religious airheads have had their way for far too long by shoving their absurd beliefs down people's throats and taking advantage of the weak, gullible, naive and impressionable. It is not so much as giving them their own medicine but talking to them in a language that they understand only too well. 

They dish it out and I give it back....with interest.
#30
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mandrakel
They dish it out

They do when they are made to look stupidly bible ignorant and stuck for answers.  And  they do get rude and nasty  with accusations  and insults such as : 

dipshyt,....... controlling and obsessed moron........  doofuses.........  stupid ......... obsessed fool............ you all make yourselves look like pathetic...........................  anti-God freaks! .... suckers!#16  EtrnlVw




and I give it back....with interest.

Yes, I do too, now and again but only rarely. I have returned the compliments but have found that this  is when the victimhood comes in.

I prefer to highlight the ambiguous half stories in the bible for what they really are and then watch the apologist attempt to explain away the contradictions and anomalies and  sometimes vile verses  that make up these scriptures.    Such as Lot telling the townsmen they can have his young virgin daughters to do what they like with them, Genesis 19:1-21.   Only a Witch would be comfortable with such stories about a man that the bible calls "righteous".2 Peter 2:7    Yet is all I that get is referred to as the:

dipshyt,....... controlling and obsessed moron........  doofuses.........  stupid ......... obsessed fool............  pathetic...........................  anti-God freaks! .... suckers!#16  EtrnlVw

But it keeps a smile on my face.