Arguments regarding God

Author: Benjamin

Posts

Total: 210
#31
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Timid8967
Stop talking in circles - - your questions spring from a paranoia that I am someone else. 

 No, You must have missed what I clearly pointed out to you . See above post #29>.

"You must understand that my questions spring from what you say and have said, and not what I have said".

And who said I was annoyed? 

Oh that is good to know your not then.  


You really are just amusing the rest of us with your "off track" nonsense.  

That is good to hear. I have more amusing "off track" stuff to talk about too.



And whatever I say or think or change my mind is my business - not yours.

 Correct. But I am simply asking for clarity between what your old self has said in the very recent past and what it is now that your new self is saying and will be saying now and in the future.




I am prepared to learn and change and adapt as new information comes to hand.

 You hadn't change in the first place, and any fool could see right through you. 



You on the other hand - could never possibly change or learn anything new - you are unteachable 

 And what is it that you wish me to learn and be taught?   The bible for instance,  that you say should be put to the flame? I already know these scriptures inside out sunshine. But I wouldn't have if you had got your  way , now would I?  Or have you forgotten this already>>

Ithink the best place for the bible is on a burning pile of books #8
Timid8967


why don't you start answering the questions of the string topic  -

 I am doing just that? And you don't like it. what  you simply don't understand that you cannot just change your mind on some of the vile comments and anti religious stance that you have taken without explanation. AND  Unless and until you do explain, then your old self comments will stand and keep coming back to haunt your new self. 


The argument is about god - not about whether I am a fraud or not.  

It is about god and it is about arguments for and against god. I have simply asked you questions concerning your comments about god that you say are against his existence and wondered why you didn't mention  "pedophiles and evolution" in your OWN thread on the very same subject.  Here.>>>>>
 "Proving god is a lie"  author dimtim  https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6079-proving-god-is-a-lieNot a single mention !?



If you ask questions that are relevant then we will have a happy relationship, otherwise I AM NOT INTERESTED. 

 Of course your not. Your annoyed and kicking your self for things said past that painted yourself into a corner. 

Listen dimtim;  my questions put to you are completely relevant to this thread, weather you like them or not. They concern exactly  the same subject matter and are on point with the subject matter.






#32
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen
It is about god and it is about arguments for and against god. I have simply asked you questions concerning your comments about god that you say are against his existence and wondered why you didn't mention  "pedophiles and evolution" in your OWN thread on the very same subject.  Here.>>>>>
 "Proving god is a lie"  author dimtim  https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6079-proving-god-is-a-lieNot a single mention !?
Stephen, that topic and this topic are perhaps close in relation to topics - yet they don't have the same focus or scope.  

This one is asking for arguments for and against god. 

That one was directed towards encouraging atheists to stop using arguments that christians don't actually use.  Given that was the case, there was no need for me to use any arguments that were either for or against god.  it was to plant the idea that producing a strawman understanding of god was actually counterintuitive to proving god false. 

Hopefully this answers the one partially relevant question you raised in that post. 
#33
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Timid8967
It is about god and it is about arguments for and against god. I have simply asked you questions concerning your comments about god that you say are against his existence and wondered why you didn't mention  "pedophiles and evolution" in your OWN thread on the very same subject.  Here.>>>>>
 "Proving god is a lie"  author dimtim  https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6079-proving-god-is-a-lieNot a single mention !?
Stephen, that topic and this topic are perhaps close in relation to topics - yet they don't have the same focus or scope. 


 Opinion. And  mine is that they are almost  identical. They both concern the existence or the non existence of god. Like it or not.

This one is asking for arguments for and against god. 


Yes and his existence .  You have given your own thoughts and finished by saying;

" For me - it my subjective position that evolution proves god is a myth"#11 <<<< that,  sunshine is YOU saying god does not exist.. so you see, YOU are talking existence of god and now pretending that you are not.

That one was directed towards encouraging atheists to stop using arguments that christians don't actually use. 

 Nope. You make it clear the the "us" & the "we" should carry the burden of proving that god does not exist.  Do you see those words,? They are the same in this thread as they are in your own thread.   So stop your bullshite.


Given that was the case, there was no need for me to use any arguments that were either for or against god. 

 But you clearly say the "we" and "us"  should take the " bull by the horns"  and prove god does not exist instead of demanding the theist prove god does exist.

That was your clear message and the title of your thread "Proving god is a lie"  . You put the burden on we and us to "prove god is a lie"and this thread is almost identical.


it was to plant the idea that producing a strawman understanding of god was actually counterintuitive to proving god false. 

 OK. and that burden was put on "us" & "we" to prove god DOES NOT EXIST> And put on us and we by YOU! 



#34
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen
It is about god and it is about arguments for and against god. I have simply asked you questions concerning your comments about god that you say are against his existence and wondered why you didn't mention  "pedophiles and evolution" in your OWN thread on the very same subject.  Here.>>>>>
 "Proving god is a lie"  author dimtim  https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6079-proving-god-is-a-lieNot a single mention !?
Stephen, that topic and this topic are perhaps close in relation to topics - yet they don't have the same focus or scope. 


 Opinion. And  mine is that they are almost  identical. They both concern the existence or the non existence of god. Like it or not.

This one is asking for arguments for and against god. 


Yes and his existence .  You have given your own thoughts and finished by saying;

" For me - it my subjective position that evolution proves god is a myth"#11 <<<< that,  sunshine is YOU saying god does not exist.. so you see, YOU are talking existence of god and now pretending that you are not.

That one was directed towards encouraging atheists to stop using arguments that christians don't actually use. 

 Nope. You make it clear the the "us" & the "we" should carry the burden of proving that god does not exist.  Do you see those words,? They are the same in this thread as they are in your own thread.   So stop your bullshite.


Given that was the case, there was no need for me to use any arguments that were either for or against god. 

 But you clearly say the "we" and "us"  should take the " bull by the horns"  and prove god does not exist instead of demanding the theist prove god does exist.

That was your clear message and the title of your thread "Proving god is a lie"  . You put the burden on we and us to "prove god is a lie"and this thread is almost identical.


it was to plant the idea that producing a strawman understanding of god was actually counterintuitive to proving god false. 

 OK. and that burden was put on "us" & "we" to prove god DOES NOT EXIST> And put on us and we by YOU! 
You are entitled to your opinion and I am to mine. Given that I started the other topic, it goes without saying what I was attempting to do. I have explained that already.  This topic is about existence - although I did not use that exact word here - it is the substance of what I said. That is not backpedaling. That is clarification for you, since anyone else would understand that is what I meant. 

In relation to my topic which I started, it was clearly as I indicated above.  Of course, for those who were so wrapped up in their own pre-conceived understanding of god, it would be too difficult not to respond as you have.  It is not my fault that your prejudices led you up the garden path. But now that you have been enlightened - perhaps we can move forward. 

I really have no idea what you are getting at it with "we" and "us".  My point is that "we" = non-theists and atheists and the same with us.   My contention above in that other thread is that it is dumb to use a strawman argument to disprove god.  If that is the best that "we" have, and for many unfortunately it seems to be all we have, then atheism and non-theism needs to step up if we wish to be part of the discussion. 

The issue for you seems to be that this attitude of mine is anti everything you tend to hold. You so it seems wants the theist to answer all your questions - but you do not want to put yourself under the microscope.  And given your lack of insight into most things, I can understand why you might want to avoid this like corona virus. I prefer not to be a coward.  

I do believe that the non-theist ought to grab the bull by the horn.  Nothing you have said has made me want to change my view on this.  In fact what you say - confirms my position. 

What does amuse me however is that you find my views as a non-theist so distasteful.  It seems strange given that non-theists and atheists are said to have nothing in common except their non-belief.  Surely that ought to include the doctrine of the burden of proof?   I certainly accept that non-theists such as myself have nothing in common with the old guard like yourself.  Yet, in this new generation, we are starting to recognize that unless we put forward a positive assertion of ourselves, then we will become as irrelevant as your generation. 

"You cannot beat something with nothing."  is an old slogan by a former president.  The older atheists did not agree with this and are dying out.  The newer generation of thinking non-theists see the truth in this statement and have decided to do something about it. 
#35
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Timid8967
I really have no idea what you are getting at it with "we" and "us". 

Of course you do. It was you that was spouting to the "we & and the "us" (the atheist and the non theist) how we should go about proving god does exists or  not exist. and take the burden of proof off the atheist and bare the burden ourselves on the shoulders of the atheist and non theist.
And for you to deny that these were your own terms and phrases is simply mind boggling! Stop trying to deny your own inconsistencies and comments.
#20Timid8967We 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.  

Let us stop playing their games - and prove that god is a nonsense. until we can do so honestly and without resorting to weak and pathetic games like most non-theists tend to do - because of our perceived intelligence, then the same old results will continue to keep happening. This is why we find it difficult. We give in to their mind games - we do so because of our belief we are smarter - yet - this foolishness results in what? How many people do you know switch from religion to atheism? Some - but there are much more going the other way. 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. 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. 

Does your old self still stand by that^^^^^^ statement . And what is it the "we have to take back"?





My point is that "we" = non-theists and atheists and the same with us.   My contention above in that other thread is that it is dumb to use a strawman argument to disprove god. 

Yes, but what ever argument one uses YOU are still insisting that  it is for  the "we" and the" us" the atheist and the non theist that must to carry the burden of proving god exists or doesn't exist! when it isn't.  And you haven't even attempted to "prove"anything at all yourself. 

To YOU, it is proof enough that there are paedophile priests and there is evolution" that convinces YOU that there is no god #8
  Now is all you have to do is produce something more solid than paedophile priests that god does not exist.  This is your baby so let us see YOU "take the bull by the horns" and YOU to lead the way with your "new generation of non theists".


What does amuse me however is that you find my views as a non-theist so distasteful.

Well burning the holy book of the Christians is distasteful, isn't it. Or don't you think so?

I notice you said no such thing about the Quran. You see apart from disagreeing with your plans to eradicate religion or at least burn the holy book of the Christian I just don't think them workable . So its not so much that I find your  holy scriptures burning views distasteful, but downright ignorant and stupid to the point of retardation.


  It seems strange given that non-theists and atheists are said to have nothing in common except their non-belief.  Surely that ought to include the doctrine of the burden of proof? 

  Yes and I have found that the "we" and the "us" that being the -non-theists and atheists-  believe  that the burden of proof lays with he that makes the claim.
I have never met a single atheists that believes that he has the burden of proving god does not exist,   this is clearly a christian belief. I have said, the bible makes all the claims Christians believe the bible is the true word of god. And what's more I have NEVER come across an atheist the believes he has to justify his non belief of god, like you do? Need I say anymore?


 I certainly accept that non-theists such as myself have nothing in common with the old guard like yourself.


 What ever does that mean? And I believe the bible minus the so called "miracles".  You don't believe the bible at all and wish to see it put to the flame. Is this "the new guards" way of dealing with a religion that you say is the most "dangerous in particular"? 



  Yet, in this new generation, we are starting to recognize that unless we put forward a positive assertion of ourselves, then we will become as irrelevant as your generation. 

Yes I understand and will accept that maybe your stance. But you haven't produced or presented a single thing in the way of a solution's to counter Christianity, the holy scriptures or the "myth of Jesus" . So what is it? are you now pretending that you didn't say this>>

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.  

"we"  AGAIN !  What truth is it you believe "we" have? 



"You cannot beat something with nothing."  is an old slogan by a former president.  The older atheists did not agree with this and are dying out.

How do you know what "old atheist think"?  It was only days  ago that you were telling us " how Christians think"  and then did a complete 180 telling us you wouldn't know what Christians think because you are not Christian!  You are just full of shite. Here>>

Timid8967 wrote: Iam not a christian, so cannot speak as to how they think.  #111
But it seems that YOU WERE quite ready and able to speak on "how Christians think" elsewhere:  

Timid8967 wrote:
The Christians I have met seem to think that suffering is necessary for them to grow in faith or in character. #143

Timid8967 wrote: Most Christians would not see god in such a shallow dimensional manner. #11

Timid8967 wrote:If they [Christians] agreed with that definition - then they really have little understanding of their god.#47

Timid8967 wrote:  If Christians think they are being persecuted without good reason, they tend to get all passionate about their Jesus.  #47

Timid8967 wrote: I have never met a theist who believes just in a three prong god. Most Christians I know reject the three prong approach.   #143



The newer generation of thinking non-theists see the truth in this statement and have decided to do something about it.

 Yes, and so far you have come up with burning the " quiteconfusing and  contradictory" bible. #186 .
How many have you burned so far?
And what is your next step in your quest to eradicate the Christianity that you find to me the most dangerous religion in particular?

 



#36
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen
Gee, another entire post with nothing necessary to respond too.  

Are you actually able to stick to the topic.  Some people want to do that.  


#37
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Timid8967
Gee, another entire post with nothing necessary to respond too.  

 Then why ever did you? 

Are you actually able to stick to the topic.  Some people want to do that.

  
 I am . You,  the "new you" are just pretending that your own  maiden topic created just 9 days ago isn't anything at all resembling this topic with the same theme .

Here you are :  "Proving god is a lie"  author dimtim  https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6079-proving-god-is-a-lie


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.  ..........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. Let's take it back. 

 I notice again that you have avoided that extremely important question that I put to you. What is it that "we" have to "take back". And what "truth" are you referring to?   This "taking back" and "your truth" are all part of your game plane , for the eradication of Christianity,I take it. 


What does amuse me however is that you find my views as a non-theist so distasteful.

Well burning the holy book of the Christians is distasteful, isn't it. Or don't you think so?  And why does that amuse you? 



The newer generation of thinking non-theists see the truth in this statement and have decided to do something about it.


 Yes, and so far you have come up with burning the " quite confusing and  contradictory" bible. #186 .
How many have you burned so far?


Doyou have any conception of how dangerous religion is and inparticular christianity?  #153

And what is your next step in your quest to eradicate the Christianity that you find to be the most dangerous religion in particular?







#38
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen
Boring, 

465 days later

#39
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Benjamin
What are the 2 best arguments for and against God? This is a question of subjective opinion, and I am curious to hear your thoughts whoever you are.
For God.
1. All religions say God is great.

Against God.
2.  But disagree on which God.
#40
Elliott
Elliott's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 407
2
2
6
Elliott's avatar
Elliott
2
2
6
Arguments against God, how about this one.
 
God wants us to believe in him so he should have provided strong evidence for his existence. We have no strong evidence for his existence, therefore God doesn’t exist
#41
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Elliott
Arguments against God, how about this one.
 
God wants us to believe in him so he should have provided strong evidence for his existence. We have no strong evidence for his existence, therefore God doesn’t exist
The Bible teaches us God put all the knowledge in a tree and ordered Adam not to seek it.

But Eve disobeyed and ate the forbidden fruit from that tree and even gave some to Adam.

That is why we have a mixed impression of God. Some from the tree of knowledge and some from what God wanted us to believe apart from the tree.

Science follows the tree of knowledge. But we totally ignore the fact God was there in the garden with Adam and Eve which should have provided strong evidence for his existence.
#42
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
The posts in this thread in particular are why atheists are so hated. They literally have no concept of what theists think, how they feel and after years of posting in this forum and talking to theists they still don't.
#43
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
Polytheist-Witch: The posts in this thread in particular are why atheists are so hated. They literally have no concept of what theists think, how they feel and after years of posting in this forum and talking to theists they still don't.

The OP is simply asking  “Arguments regarding God.” Both for and against from whoever.

Benjamin: What are the 2 best arguments for and against God? This is a question of subjective opinion, and I am curious to hear your thoughts whoever you are.
#44
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Elliott
We have no strong evidence for his existence

And you know this how?
#45
Elliott
Elliott's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 407
2
2
6
Elliott's avatar
Elliott
2
2
6
-->
@Tarik
And you know this how?
The argument doesn’t state that such evidence doesn’t exist, only that we don’t have access to it and as far as I am aware no such evidence is available.
#46
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
There is no evidence for any god. Best argument for, I've had a personal experience. The best argument against, I haven't had a personal experience.
#47
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
Polytheist-Witch: There is no evidence for any god. Best argument for, I've had a personal experience. The best argument against, I haven't had a personal experience.
Given you are a witch your experience is very limited to past burning of Witches. Fortunately you haven't had a personal experience or you wouldn’t be here

#48
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Elliott
as far as I am aware no such evidence is available.
Are you aware of morality?

#49
Elliott
Elliott's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 407
2
2
6
Elliott's avatar
Elliott
2
2
6
-->
@Tarik
Are you aware of morality?
Yes.
#50
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Tarik
-->@Elliott
as far as I am aware no such evidence is available.

Are you aware of morality?
The Bible portrays God as a genocidal lunatic. I am sure there is some evidence of morality to justify his genocidal behaviour.

#51
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,076
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
@Tarik

Morality.

Yes, it's a concept that tends to vary considerably.
#52
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
--> @Tarik
-->@Elliott
as far as I am aware no such evidence is available.

Are you aware of morality?
The Bible portrays God as a genocidal lunatic. I am sure there is some evidence of morality to justify his genocidal behaviour.

Morality.

Yes, it's a concept that tends to vary considerably.
Does that account for Gods unpredictable behaviour?
#53
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Elliott
Yes.
Then how do you justify the existence of morality without God?
#54
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Shila
The Bible portrays God as a genocidal lunatic. I am sure there is some evidence of morality to justify his genocidal behaviour.
The Bible can be interpreted in many different ways, nonetheless there are some people that would classify themself as religious but don’t believe in the God depicted in The Bible.
#55
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Tarik
The Bible portrays God as a genocidal lunatic. I am sure there is some evidence of morality to justify his genocidal behaviour.
The Bible can be interpreted in many different ways, nonetheless there are some people that would classify themself as religious but don’t believe in the God depicted in The Bible.
The worlds 3 major religions are based on the God of Abraham. So Islam, Christianity and Judaism believe their God is a genocidal lunatic.

The other religions are nuclear powered  countries prepared to deal with this genocidal God and it’s believers. 

We should have arguments regarding God and religions
#56
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Shila
Islam, Christianity and Judaism believe their God is a genocidal lunatic.
They believe that or you believe that?

The other religions are nuclear powered  countries prepared to deal with this genocidal God and it’s believers.
A lot of bold claims here, care to support any of them?
#57
Elliott
Elliott's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 407
2
2
6
Elliott's avatar
Elliott
2
2
6
-->
@Tarik
Then how do you justify the existence of morality without God?
Morality was selected by evolution in order to promote cooperation and smooth social interactions. We evolved as a tribal species with feelings of empathy for the members within our group, we would seek to protect each other and share any food acquired.  Also by cooperating we could hunt large animals and defend ourselves against heavily armed predators. In terms of evolution all this helped to maximise our fitness to survive as it placed us at the top of the food chain, which in terms of survival is about as good as it gets.
#58
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Elliott
cooperation and smooth social interactions
How do you justify the value of those concepts without God?
#59
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Tarik
Islam, Christianity and Judaism believe their God is a genocidal lunatic.

They believe that or you believe that?
The other religions are nuclear powered  countries prepared to deal with this genocidal God and it’s believers.

A lot of bold claims here, care to support any of them?
For starters here is a list of nuclear powered countries prepared to deal with a  genocidal God and it’s believers.

India, China, N Korea, 
#60
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Shila
For starters here is a list of nuclear powered countries prepared to deal with a  genocidal God and it’s believers.

India, China, N Korea, 

And you know this how?