-->
@Tarik
Um... your post directly before it?
Proving god is a lie
Posts
Total:
223
-->
@fauxlaw
Because I'm not talking about biological perfection, I'm talking about the concept of an ego - the psychological one referring to the drive that all things with consciousness have - if the god we're talking about has a mind, it applies.
-->
@Theweakeredge
So am I. Ego can be corrupted, or it can be pushed away, too. Most of our battles are fought within the confines of our own minds.
-->
@Theweakeredge
I didn’t say anything about power.
-->
@Tarik
That was my answer to gods being morally inconsistent.
-->
@fauxlaw
It can be pushed away sure, but it gets harder and harder to do that the more power you have, so having power over creation? With no other beings to check them? Instant recipe for corruption.
-->
@Theweakeredge
That was my answer to gods being morally inconsistent.
Then why not believe in a consistent God?
-->
@Tarik
I have yet to see evidence of any god, much less a morally consistent one
-->
@Theweakeredge
I agree that premises need to be valid and sound. My initial point is that given the premises are correct, then the conclusion is 100% correct.
That is my point. It has always been my point. I simply applied this logic to the alleged definition of the biblical god.
If you have read my posts - in a different topic that this alleged definition of god is a strawman definition.
And incidentally this is what most proponents on this thread have actually argued. Which means that atheists and non-theists like myself need to try and find a better definition of god to dispute, rather than pushing the same old strawman argument, which I have also argued belittles the atheist position.
-->
@Timid8967
Which means that atheists and non-theists like myself need to try and find a better definition of god to dispute, rather than pushing the same old strawman argument, which I have also argued belittles the atheist position.
What better definition of God would you propose atheists use?
-->
@Castin
Now that is a great question. How about we ask the Christians for their definition of god? Perhaps a new thread might help.
Of course, this is going to be helpful because if they cannot come up with a definition - then they don't have a definition or measure to falsify our definition.
If they do define one - then it will put them into a situation that they need to defend.
At least then we can dispose of the strawman one.
-->
@Timid8967
My point is that you have no "proof" for any particular understanding of god, and that the best kind of "proof" is empirical evidence.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Ok. I accept that is your opinion.
-->
@Timid8967
cool - if that's your response to being asked for evidence, that's good to know
-->
@Timid8967
What definition of God are you referring to as the "strawman one"? Omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent? That one?
-->
@Castin
Yep.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Not sure what you were referring to.
which post in particular?
-->
@Timid8967
So the strawman definition of God is the one you yourself used in the OP. Why use what you consider to be a strawman?
-->
@Timid8967
Of course, this is going to be helpful because if they cannot come up with a definition - then they don't have a definition or measure to falsify our definition.
Wow, as if all Christians think as a solid block. Good luck demonstrating that one.
Considering how divided a mind you present, is it possible there is variation among Christians?
Proof is not convincing someone that what you say is true. It is not providing empirical evidence. It is providing a rational scientific proof.
-->
@Castin
To make a point.
-->
@fauxlaw
I am not a christian, so cannot speak as to how they think.
same as non-theists or atheists. Everyone is different. yet, surely there must be some basic agreed terms that christians agree with - for instance - the WCC has a statement of faith that all churches have to agree to before they can have a seat at the table. And there are 1000s of churches on it.
-->
@Theweakeredge
I have yet to see evidence of any god, much less a morally consistent one
There’s nothing much less then nothing.
-->
@Timid8967
I am not a christian, so cannot speak as to how they think.
Yet, you have presupposed to do exactly that by your suggestion. Words mean things. Their careful use is advised.
-->
@Timid8967
Stop trying to find a conspiracy behind every comment you come across.
Do you mean pointing out that you say one thing ,and then completely change and state the opposite, and then you deny it? No that is not conspiracy.
That is simply showing you for what you are and your intentions. No that is not conspiracy.
I am a non-theist who has consistently reflected this on this forum.
Yet, you tell us that it is "we" and "us" that should bare the burden of proof, then deny saying it and then say completely the opposite.
I called you out and you did not like it. Get over it.
You called me on nothing to my knowledge princess. I exposed you and your intentions particularly the intention behind this thread. YOUR thread.
I do think that non-theists and atheists give too much airtime to theists.
So here you are again, telling "us" & "we" in a veiled fashion that "we" and "us" shouldn't be giving the scriptures, Jesus or god the time of day. This is simply you telling us & "we" that you would like us" and "we" to stop discussing the bible & Jesus & god .
I do think that theists hold the B. of P.
Then what is it that "we" & "us" atheists and "non theists" should be "taking back"?
Or have to forgotten you said that too? The last three words of your pepe talk here>> #20 " Let's take it back " .
What did we have, or lose, or give away in the first place to have to " take it back"?
YET - I also think that if atheists and non-theists continue to hold to this ridiculous standard that we are going to continue to go around and around in circles.
[A] Well you may think that . But let me state the bleedin' obvious to you. There are those that believe and those that don't. And this may well be one of the many reasons that theological arguments do end up circular. And sometimes people will agree to disagree.
EVERY forum in this world - does that. WHY?
See [A] above
because despite the fact that athiests and non-theists hold the truth in relation to reality - they want to continue to do the dumb thing and say- it is theist who needs to prove it.
Well I can only speak for myself. I don't even care if or not there is a god or not. I simply highlight and question the ambiguous half stories in the scriptures. As for my own belief about these scriptures, I have said many times that I cannot prove a single thing I say or believe about them. All of my questions are raised because of the scripture. All of my opinions, theories and ideas spring from the scriptures themselves. You see, wrongly or rightly, I can think for myself.
The theist runs around the atheist.
The theist will do that at every given chance and particularly if he believes the atheist is BIBLE ignorant. This enables the theists to make shite up as he goes if he is relying on the total bible ignorance of the atheist. That has been happening for millennia, Pastors and Priests have been dictating their version of what they say the gospels, and Jesus and god are telling us and means.
But they don't like being challenged on their version or interpretations , yet here YOU are, telling "us & "we" that we shouldn't be discussing this subject at all by giving it "air time". WHY!!!!???
So call me a fraud
You are a fraud. You don't want "us " or "we" or ME giving these scriptures "air time" because the real "us's " and the real "we's" show how unreliable and ambiguous and at times silly the scriptures are.
AND WHILE YOU tell us that you want the bible burned,#8 mock the resurrection #101 tell us that you don't even believe the bible#18 TELL ME PERSONALLY that you "wish" that what I had to say on the subject was "more agreeable with the bible"#25!?????
So yes, that shows for me that you are a fraud.
and this little prep talk to atheists and "non theists" didn't go missed by me either. It clearly shows your intentions. You haven't even tried to explain to "us" & "we" why it that YOU believe that it is "us" & "we" atheists and non theists should even consider baring the burden of proof?
Timid8967 wrote:Let us stop playing their games - and prove that god is a nonsense.......But by suggesting that the theist has to make the first move - and that they have the burden of proof, we give up our natural place in things. Let's take it back.
Every reader that is interested should take a good look at your prep talk above.#20 for in my opinion, your true objective was exposed.
And I will keep highlighting and "giving air" to these anomalous and ambiguous scriptures.
-->
@Stephen
What a deluded little person you are. I have no agendas. I have nothing to gain.
I am a non-theist. This means i don't believe in a god or gods or anything supernatural. I just want the truth to be heard. And YOU - want to hide the truth behind subterfuge and innuendo.
I say the atheist's truth is better than hiding behind a lie. You want to hide behind a lie. Well I am one of those who have been let down by your kind of behaviour and talk and wont put up with it anymore.
Your generation is DEAD. Or dying at least.
Us, in the new - have new ways of dealing with these things.
-->
@fauxlaw
I don't know what you mean. Please explain.
-->
@Timid8967
What a deluded little person you are. I have no agendas. I have nothing to gain..............................#20 " Let's take it back "
What have we to "take back" and why?
. I just want the truth to be heard.
Which in your own opinion, is what?
And YOU - want to hide the truth behind subterfuge and innuendo.
What is it that you believe that I am hiding?
I say the atheist's truth is better than hiding behind a lie.
Which is what according to you?
You want to hide behind a lie.
What lie would that be?
Well I am one of those who have been let down by your kind of behaviour and talk and wont put up with it anymore.
Instead of telling me what you believe and think about me why don't you start putting your version of "the truth" to us and start answering questions raised by your own comments?
Your generation is DEAD. Or dying at least.
Can you explain that? You appear very annoyed because I have shown you to be a contradictory individual that doesn't seem to know which side of the fence he actually sits .
Us, in the new - have new ways of dealing with these things.
Good! Then deal with them and stop your whining. Start with the "new us" answering those few questions raised by your own comments, here>
WHILE YOU tell us that you want the bible burned,#8 mock the resurrection #101 tell us that you don't even believe the bible#18 TELL ME PERSONALLY that you "wish" that what I had to say on the subject was "more agreeable with the bible"#25! WHY???
Timid8967 wrote:Let us stop playing their games - and prove that god is a nonsense.......But by suggesting that the theist has to make the first move - and that they have the burden of proof, we give up our natural place in things. Let's take it back.
-->
@Tarik
So what do you say to those who believe in a God not depicted in The Bible?Any examples?
I see. So you are referring to Pagans, Muslims and Jews.
And do they call there gods "all loving"? And do they, as you have done, ask " Why does God have to prevent every evil thing from ever happening to prove He is all loving?"#2
-->
@Tarik
So... you gonna present evidence for a least a morally consistent being? At all?
-->
@Stephen
And do they, as you have done, ask " Why does God have to prevent every evil thing from ever happening to prove He is all loving?"#2
Whether or not they asked the same question I asked is irrelevant, fact of the matter is discovering contradictions in The Bible makes no difference in their regard.