Proving god is a lie

Author: Timid8967

Posts

Total: 223
#151
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,624
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Timid8967
If and when I want to talk about what I believe is a matter for me.


 It is but you seem to be telling the "us" and the "we"  what it is the "we" &  "us"  aught to be doing.

Why do we  the atheist have to "take the bull by the horns"?  Why have we  "to be more proactive"? And why do YOU believe that is  we have to shoulder the burden of proof, when you categorically state that it is the theist that has the burden of proof #20 Timid8967

So why do you feel you have to "rationalise your non belief in god? 



 I don't believe in god and I certainly don't believe I owe you any explanation over and above what I have already given.

But you are speaking for others here aren't you? HERE>>>> 
" We give a three pronged approach - to try and imitate some kind of rationale for why we reject god". .  #20 Timid8967
Why do you say that? 


Stop harassing me.

 Stop being silly and hysterical. 


 Talk about the subject.

 I am. I am responding to exactly to what YOI have said ON THE SUBJECT!  it is you that are refusing to clarify your statements and comments? 



Don't ask me to have to repeat myself. I won't. 

I won't do that. But YOU still haven't cleared anything of your own comments and statements have you? 

Such as here;
We need to start being proactive. We need to take the bull by the horns. We need to give ourselves the b.o.p. to prove that God exists. Why? Because we have the truth.  #20 Timid8967

 That is YOU clear as day telling us the atheist and the non theist the "we" should take the burden of proof on our shoulders.
WHY ?  what "truth". 


We need to be smarter - we need to take back control - we need to walk first - speak first - take on the presumptions - and write the rules ourselves. #20 Timid8967

 What control do you think "we" have lost to have to take  it back?  And what rules are you talking about?

 If you do not wish to be questioned stop making comments that  warrant a inquisitive and probing a response. 

 You can't just tell to people what they and "we" and "us"  should be doing without explaining why.

 Why should we shoulder the burden of proof when you clearly accept that it is for the atheist to prove the existence of god? 


here>>
Let me be clear. Theists have the burden of proof. I cannot recall ever saying otherwise.............#61

It is for this and a few more reasons  why I am calling out both you and this thread for the bullshite it is. 

You are simply trying to get away with saying the atheists do have the burden of proof.

The BOP subject has been discussed on the forum many times and it always boils down the  theist insisting that it it for the atheist to prove god does not exist. 

ONE GOOD EXAMPLE>>>>

"What would be helpful in the discussion is this. For an atheist to produce any evidence that GOD does not exist".  #1

Would you like more of those examples? 

You have simply approached the subject in  sly way and you are trying to play us all for complete and utter twats.
#152
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,083
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Timid8967
GODS are not lies.

GODS are assumptive creation hypotheses derived from ignorance, and maintained by tradition.

Nothing to prove.

As an atheist, non-theist, realist,  rhubarb crumble and custardist....I accept the GOD principle  for what it is.......The fundamental reality of rhubarb and existence.


Topic's author
#153
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen
Do you have any conception of how dangerous religion is and in particular christianity? 

You seem to think it is just a game.  The  average atheist or non-theist thinks that religion is nothing and based on nothing and that it will erode over time. 

History shows otherwise. History shows how dangerous it is. 

We are standing in a unique time in history where we can cut the cancer out if we take the right strategies.  You  are  giving them airtime. You are giving them hope. You are giving them oxygen.  Yes, I have raised this topic, so I am guilty as well.  Yes, I have responded to others - so yes I am guilty as well.  And perhaps I should stop. 

But I do take the view that the ends justifies the means -  I don't have to be consistent.  Marx is correct.  Religion is one of those institutions which cause inequality and ought to be stamped out. 

This is why non-religious need to take the bull by the horns - for our children, for our principles, for our future survival.  Who are the groups most likely to be anti-vaxxers? Who are the groups most likely to deny climate change? Who are the groups who are most likely to start a war over religious views? Who are most likely to defund public schools? Who are most likely to hate and spread hate? This is why we need to think outside the box. 

Yet it seems you are comfortable - doing whatever it is that you are doing.  
#154
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,624
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Timid8967


We are standing in a unique time in history where we can cut the cancer out if we take the right strategies.  You  are  giving them airtime.

 And that is why you came onto a forum that is purposely created to discuss religion and have  resurrected over thirty - 30! - threads all discussing religion. I see. So that is not giving it " oxygen" and air time, is it?  Do you see what a complete and utter fkn hypocrite your are.


  But you didn't stop there did you,? NO.  YOU  decided that YOU wouldn't be giving  religion and Christians "oxygen" at all by  created your own thread about the atheist and the "non theists" baring the burden of proof  as to if or not  god exists.  I see , " no airtime and oxygen " to be gained from you then. 



You are giving them hope. You are giving them oxygen.

NOPE! And that is only your opinion.

I don't believe for one single second that a single one of my threads has given "hope nor oxygen" to anyone at all.   You see ALL of my threads concerning religion oppose totally the accepted story of the Christ and the bible and in no way promote it.  


 Yes, I have raised this topic, so I am guilty as well. 


Yet here you are,  lecturing me me on what I should or shouldn't be doing and decrying what I do as "giving oxygen" to the bible and Christianity. Don't make me fkn laugh. You are an out `n`out hypocrite!


Yes, I have responded to others - so yes I am guilty as well.  And perhaps I should stop. 

Perhaps?  No what you should do in your position and because of your concern over "giving oxygen" to the bible and Christians, is simply stop!  But that call is all your own princess.



But I do take the view that the ends justifies the means -  I don't have to be consistent.

 You are attempting to excuse yourself for all the inconsistences  in your own varying and contradictory comments and statements that I am highlighting and that I will continue to highlight. 


This is why non-religious need to take the bull by the horns - for our children, for our principles, for our future survival.

 Eradicate religion?  So that is your goal is it?  Good luck.  


Yet it seems you are comfortable - doing whatever it is that you are doing.  

 That will be dismantling the accepted story of the Christ as handed down to us by the pastors and the priests of the world that haven't a clue about it themselves but simply pass it on and make a lucrative living from repeating and regurgitating what they have been taught to repeat and regurgitate.  You should be supporting me   for the reason that I have taken the "bull by the horns" and because I am and have been "proactive". 



you are comfortable - doing whatever it is that you are doing.

 So you don't even know what it is that I  am doing but tell me that I shouldn't be giving religion, the bible, god and Jesus  "oxygen and airtime".   Don't make me laugh.


What will be the theme of your next thread in this forum  created to discuss religion?  Or won't you be bothering at all now?  I mean you wouldn't want to give religion and Jesus anymore "oxygen and airtime" while lecturing others about the wrongs of doing so, now would you? 



#155
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Timid8967
This is why non-religious need to take the bull by the horns - for our children, for our principles, for our future survival.
After theists what group will you obliterate next to make you happy?
#156
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,621
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Timid8967
Well stated.  A Theist, a knife-wielding man shouted “Allahu Akbar (God is Greatest)” and then beheaded a middle-school teacher on a street in Paris in 2020. That same year, an Atheist promoted Humanism.
#157
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Is there a link for the study or stats showing atheists have never killed anyone ever? 
#158
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,624
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@FLRW
Well stated.  A Theist, a knife-wielding man shouted “Allahu Akbar (God is Greatest)” and then beheaded a middle-school teacher on a street in Paris in 2020. That same year, an Atheist promoted Humanism.


Well said.

I couldn't agree more which is why I could never understand why  he was stupid enough to state this as fact>>>

Do you have any conception of how dangerous religion is and in particular Christianity? #153

No mention of Islam that is terrorising the globe as we write. He seems overly desperate to me to want to distance himself from Christianity.
#159
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,621
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Stephen

Stephen,

My comment was an approval of what Timid8967 said. You are an intelligent person and I value our friendship. You have to recognize that he is on the same page as we are.
The Proud Boys and other far-right groups raise millions via a Christian funding site. A data breach from Christian crowdfunding site GiveSendGo has revealed that millions of dollars have been raised on the site for far-right causes and groups, many of whom are banned from raising funds on other platforms.


#160
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,977
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Is there a link for the study or stats showing atheists have never killed anyone ever? 
You’ll find next to zero results showing atheists killing anyone due to atheism (The lack of belief in god(s)
Atheism doesn’t have a whole ideology/culture underpinning it.

You might as well be asking for studies or stats showing ice cream eaters never killing anyone.




#161
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Reece101
So every theist who has killed someone did it for God and atheist kill for fun. Again, link?
#162
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,359
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Reece101

"When church leaders demanded freedom of religion under the constitution, the Communists responded with terror. They murdered the metropolitan of Kiev and executed twenty-eight bishops and 6,775 priests. Despite mass demonstrations in support of the church, repression cowed most ecclesiastical leaders into submission"
#163
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,621
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
There has never been a mass organized killing by atheists. The Soviet Union and China substituted worship of divine beings for worship of their dictators, and therefore do not count as atheist. They also didn’t kill even half as many of their own people as is popularly claimed.
Religious people, on the other hand, have been murdering each other and atheists for at least the last 10,000 years, probably longer but we don’t have records going back further. Christianity alone between the crusades, holocaust, conquest of the Americas and genocide of native Americans, the religious wars following the Protestant Reformation, and numerous other conflicts, has killed around 2 billion people in the last 1500 years. Catholics and Protestants didn’t stop killing each other until the Irish Troubles ended in 1999.
All religion is based on lies and has the potential for extreme violence. Humanity would be better off without it.
#164
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@FLRW
There has never been a mass organized killing by atheists. The Soviet Union and China substituted worship of divine beings for worship of their dictators, and therefore do not count as atheist.
If that makes you feel better about lying . 
#165
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,977
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
So every theist who has killed someone did it for God and atheist kill for fun. Again, link?
No not every theist. But is it far more likely that abrahamic theists do it due to their theism oppose to atheists doing it because of atheism? I think yes.
I understand why you feel the need to be hyperbolic. 
#166
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,977
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Lemming
Atheism isn’t Stalinism, Maoism, etc. Conservatives can be atheists too and I’m sure they murder a lot. 

#167
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,359
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Reece101
By your logic, theism is not The Spanish Inquisition, The Crusades, ect.

I 'think.
#168
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,977
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Lemming
They used religious doctrine to carry out and perpetuate atrocities. It’s impossible to do it with atheism. 
#169
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,359
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Reece101
How do you define doctrine?
#170
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Reece101
If your going to bring up murder in a conversation about theism expect someone to take offense to being called a murderer when they are not one. 
#171
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,621
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Reece101
Yes, in the early American colonies, religion was a tool that settlers used to promote a lifestyle that was the opposite of that of the Native Americans. Clergymen depicted Native Americans as infidels who lived savage lifestyles primarily because of their lack of protestant religion. This was not the case, but it was successful in driving settlers towards religion as they came to fear the unknown and the dangers that lay ahead of them on the frontier. Several newspapers even went as far to assert that people settling the new frontier should only live with members of the same religion as they might become corrupted by the savages if they did not. 
A death toll of  100 million figure has been documented by the authors D.E. Stannard, author of American Holocaust, D.E. Stannard has said, "The destruction of the Indians of the Americas was, far and away, the most massive act of genocide in the history of the world." . And apparently it didn't take long for the Europeans to get this genocide started.
Topic's author
#172
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
After theists what group will you obliterate next to make you happy?
Probably fascists. 
Topic's author
#173
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Is there a link for the study or stats showing atheists have never killed anyone ever? 
Although your questions seems to have merit, it is based on a logical fallacy. 

Christians and people of religion have causes that they do things towards. Atheists or non-theists are not a collective group with similar ideologies or causes.  Not in the main anyway. Sometimes you do see a whole of non-theists gather together and use their similar views to change the world - which might well include "getting rid of religion". Yet these are not the non-theists in the main - just the extreme and out end persons who have ACTUALLY thought about their position. 

Sometimes religious groups suggest that Communism is atheism.  And although there is a sprinkling of truth to this - because it is a self confessed atheistic political theory - it is not a consensus of atheists. And communists did not kill in the name of atheism but in the name of communism. IT also killed lots of atheists not just religious people.  
Topic's author
#174
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen
No mention of Islam that is terrorising the globe as we write. He seems overly desperate to me to want to distance himself from Christianity.
I used the term religion - this is a general term. I then used particularly referring to one of the religions.  Christianity. 

I keep asking myself - why does this Stephen keep analyzing every word and sentence I make?  Stephen, just FYI, I am not the messiah. My words, like everyone else on this forum, are words that are meant to ask, answer, and attempt to produce discussion. I am flattered you make so much of my words, but surely, such a person of your skills has much better things to be doing.   
#175
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@FLRW
"The destruction of the Indians of the Americas was, far and away, the most massive act of genocide in the history of the world." 
And by that, you are willing to indict the rest of us, all of us, though we had naught to do with those heinous actions? What makes you different than us? That you acknowledge history? So do I; but I am willing to forgive and move on, hoping my actions can contribute to correcting the sins of the past. You? You think correction is achieved by indictment of your fellow travelers in time?
#176
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Timid8967
Be happy Stephen is at least in a constant mode of padding your stats, while, in my case, at least, I cannot provide that service, by his choice, to him. "@Stephen" spelled out by me in response does not count as a mention. Apparently, that fact has escaped him, because he still seems willing to beat me, too. Every beating another mention... Since I feel nothing, I'm happy for the mention.
#177
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Timid8967
And sometimes they kill other theist it doesn't make it any less theistic murder according to you people so let's just apply the same thing right across the board for everybody how about we do that.
#178
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,359
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Timid8967
I 'really fail to see the difference between a group of people with an atheist ideology that commits murder based upon their ideology,
And a group of people with a theistic ideology that commit murder based upon their ideology.

"Throughout the history of the Soviet Union (1917–1991), there were periods when Soviet authorities brutally suppressed and persecuted various forms of Christianity to different extents depending on State interests.[1] Soviet Marxist-Leninist policy consistently advocated the control, suppression, and ultimately, the elimination of religious beliefs, and it actively encouraged the propagation of Marxist-Leninist atheism in the Soviet Union.[2] However, most religions were never officially outlawed.[1]
The state advocated the destruction of religion, and to achieve this goal, it officially denounced religious beliefs as superstitious and backward.[3][4] The Communist Party destroyed churches, synagogues,[5] and mosques, ridiculed, harassed, incarcerated and executed religious leaders, flooded the schools and media with anti-religious teachings, and it introduced a belief system called "scientific atheism," with its own rituals, promises and proselytizers.[6][7] According to some sources, the total number of Christian victims under the Soviet regime has been estimated to range around 12 to 20 million.[8][9] And at least 106,300 Russian clergymen were executed during the Great Purge.[10] Religious beliefs and practices persisted among the majority of the population,[11] not only in the domestic and private spheres but also in the scattered public spaces which were allowed to exist by a state that recognized its failure to eradicate religion and the political dangers of an unrelenting culture war.[12][13]"

You say not all atheists are such, well fine, but why do you claim all theists are 'such?
It's not as though religion is some type of hive mind with one will, one mind.

I'm pretty sure it's 'obvious to most people, that Communism can occur in theism or atheism, it's a political and economic system based upon the public ownership of the means of production. 'Not a religious system. And includes a number of different variations.
Though it has occurred frequently in recent history in a number of atheistic regimes.

Stephen keeps analyzing every word and sentence you make, because he likes badgering people, insulting them, and hurling vitriol upon those who disagree with him.
Is 'my interpretation, which 'could be wrong.
#179
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,359
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Reece101
They used religious doctrine to carry out and perpetuate atrocities. It’s impossible to do it with atheism. -  Reece101
How do you define doctrine? - Lemming

Hm, no answer, but I'm still bothered by the conversation,

"The government of the Soviet Union followed an unofficial policy of state atheism, aiming to gradually eliminate religious belief within its borders.[1][2] While it never officially made religion illegal, the state nevertheless made great efforts to reduce the prevalence of religious belief within society. To this end, at various times in its history it engaged in anti-religious persecutions of varying intensity and methodology. Believers were never officially attacked for being believers, but they were officially attacked for real or perceived political opposition to the state and to its policies.[3] These attacks, however, in the broader ideological context were ultimately meant to serve the ultimate goal of eliminating religion, and the perceived political opposition acted as a legal pretext to carry this out.[4] Thus, although the Soviet Union was officially a secular state and guaranteed freedom of religion in its constitutions, in practice believers suffered discrimination and were widely attacked for promoting religion.[3]
As part of its anti-religious campaigns, the Soviet state enacted a significant body of legislation that regulated and curtailed religious practices. This, along with many secret instructions that were not published, formed the legal basis for the Soviet state's anti-religious stance.[citation needed] Laws were designed in order to hurt and hamper religious activities, and the state often vigilantly watched religious believers for their breaking of these laws to justify arresting them. In some places, volunteer neighbourhood committees, called "public commissions for control over observance on the laws about religious cults", watched their religious neighbours and reported violations of the law to the appropriate authorities.[5] The state sought to control religious bodies through such laws with the intention of making those bodies disappear.[2] Often such laws incorporated many ambiguities that allowed for the state to abuse them in order to persecute believers."

Seems to me they used atheistic doctrine to carry out and perpetuate atrocities. It’s impossible to do it with religion
(Sarcasm)
#180
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,977
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Lemming
Hm, no answer, but I'm still bothered by the conversation,
It looks like it.

Seems to me they used atheistic doctrine to carry out and perpetuate atrocities. It’s impossible to do it with religion
(Sarcasm)
We’re talking about atheism, not atheism+. Atheism doesn’t have doctrine.