If you're picking your religion then you haven't been called by any particular god and therefore you probably aren't really dedicated to your religion. You just go through the motions or do what you think is socially acceptable. That's why people can have a moral standard that completely conflicts with their religion.
Atheism and humanism are completely contradictory
Posts
Total:
1,052
Polytheist-Witch: If you're picking your religion then you haven't been called by any particular god and therefore you probably aren't really dedicated to your religion. You just go through the motions or do what you think is socially acceptable. That's why people can have a moral standard that completely conflicts with their religion.
That is why you have to be objective about the religion you choose.
You don't choose your religion. If you have you've done it wrong.
Polytheist-Witch: You don't choose your religion. If you have you've done it wrong.
But you said religion can have a moral standard that completely conflicts with the people they pick.
That's why people can have a moral standard that completely conflicts with their religion.
That is why you have to be objective about the religion you choose.
@ witch
They're just here to vent their hatred of theistd on people they don't know so they don't lose all their family and friends.
Polytheist-Witch wrote: I'm here to basically take a shit and walk away. #140
Have you run out of woods to take a shit in Witch?
-->
@Double_R
If you read my post, I said, asserts belief in God,And if you read the exchange your post was written in response to, you would know that this conversation has nothing to do with “asserting belief in God”. It’s about morality and for the most part God has been assumed for the sake of argument.Context matters in communication. Take note of it and these conversations will go a lot better.But as you know, I'll be glad to formally debate your incoherent and illogical claim that faith in God carries the burden of proof.I would debate this claim if I had ever made it and/or believe it. I don’t and never have. You are having a whole conversation in your head.
Illogical, incohernt, and dishonest, the Double R triple play, how many points is that in your game?
-->
@Stephen
@ witchThey're just here to vent their hatred of theistd on people they don't know so they don't lose all their family and friends.Polytheist-Witch wrote: I'm here to basically take a shit and walk away. #140Have you run out of woods to take a shit in Witch?
Burnt at the stake might be one reason witches avoid wooded areas.
-->
@Double_R
If, as you claim, asserting God is not a truth statement, it's a subjectrive choice, then why do you throw a tantum and start screaming demands for burden of proof anytime someone asserts belief in God.The latter is a factual claim and therefore one which, if you believe in basic principals of logic, shoulder a burden of proof
And the very next post you never said that LOL
But as you know, I'll be glad to formally debate your incoherent and illogical claim that faith in God carries the burden of proof.I would debate this claim if I had ever made it and/or believe it. I don’t and never have. You are having a whole conversation in your head.
I'm sure everybody here fell for that dishonest BS, good job kiddie.
-->
@Double_R
Asserting God as the standard for morality, not asserting God as an existent being. If you read the exchange first you would know that.The latter is a factual claim and therefore one which, if you believe in basic principals of logic, shoulder a burden of proof. Clearly you don’t, which is why you pretend it’s a game.
Morality transcends basic human instincts. That alone is evidence the source comes from a higher being we define as God.
To put the burden of proof on the believer that God is an existent being is to ignore the fact morality exist outside of human instincts and its source is the evidence of God.
As absolutely horrible as American atheists are, the ones in the UK are way, way worse. They encounter less theists but are even more angry at theists and full of way more hate than the American ones go figure on that.
Polytheist-Witch: As absolutely horrible as American atheists are, the ones in the UK are way, way worse. They encounter less theists but are even more angry at theists and full of way more hate than the American ones go figure on that.
The British Monarchy made the Brits less dependent on a higher being. They had their Queen.
But America broke away from Commonwealth and grew dependent on a Theistic existence. Just having a president visit the Queen occasionally created the animosity.
-->
@Shila
Different religions offer different rewards. So it is up to the individual to consider these objective rewards and match it with their objective needs before they pick a religion.
reward seeking is NOT moral
-->
@Shila
So why are you still arguing with Sidewalker?On the subway with very little service. Not really anything else to do.So You are having a whole conversation in your head.
What’s funny is that while I was responding to you I was also wondering whether you think you are worth anyone’s time and attention more so than Sidewalker. Here you show why you are not.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
If you're picking your religion then you haven't been called by any particular god and therefore you probably aren't really dedicated to your religion. You just go through the motions or do what you think is socially acceptable. That's why people can have a moral standard that completely conflicts with their religion.
well stated
-->
@Sidewalker
If, as you claim, asserting God is not a truth statement, it's a subjectrive choice, then why do you throw a tantum and start screaming demands for burden of proof anytime someone asserts belief in God.The latter is a factual claim and therefore one which, if you believe in basic principals of logic, shoulder a burden of proofAnd the very next post you never said that LOL
Calling me dishonest while selectively editing our conversation to take my words out of context. WOW.
Let’s take a look at what I actually said and the part you strategically left out:
Post 736:
If, as you claim, asserting God is not a truth statement, it's a subjectrive choice, then why do you throw a tantum and start screaming demands for burden of proof anytime someone asserts belief in God.Rules of your illogical BOP game?Asserting God as the standard for morality, not asserting God as an existent being. If you read the exchange first you would know that.The latter is a factual claim and therefore one which, if you believe in basic principals of logic, shoulder a burden of proof.
I listed two different assertions, one about morality and the other about god being existent. I then stated “the latter” was a factual claim. I was talking about the latter of my listed options, not the latter of what you said.
This is English 101.
And in my last response I also explained that this is why context matters in conversation. I didn’t catch that you were talking about asserting nothing more than a statement of one’s own beliefs because that has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation you were chiming in on and frankly is a stupid thing to talk about on a debate site. No one here cares what you believe if you are not willing to assert and defend it.
It is no wonder you believe the silly things you do, especially when it comes to understanding those you disagree with. You do not pay attention to what others say and you disregard any part of the discussion that doesn’t suit your agenda.
-->
@Double_R
If, as you claim, asserting God is not a truth statement, it's a subjectrive choice, then why do you throw a tantum and start screaming demands for burden of proof anytime someone asserts belief in God.The latter is a factual claim and therefore one which, if you believe in basic principals of logic, shoulder a burden of proofAnd the very next post you never said that LOLCalling me dishonest while selectively editing our conversation to take my words out of context. WOW.Let’s take a look at what I actually said and the part you strategically left out:Post 736:If, as you claim, asserting God is not a truth statement, it's a subjectrive choice, then why do you throw a tantum and start screaming demands for burden of proof anytime someone asserts belief in God.Rules of your illogical BOP game?Asserting God as the standard for morality, not asserting God as an existent being. If you read the exchange first you would know that.The latter is a factual claim and therefore one which, if you believe in basic principals of logic, shoulder a burden of proof.I listed two different assertions, one about morality and the other about god being existent. I then stated “the latter” was a factual claim. I was talking about the latter of my listed options, not the latter of what you said.This is English 101.And in my last response I also explained that this is why context matters in conversation. I didn’t catch that you were talking about asserting nothing more than a statement of one’s own beliefs because that has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation you were chiming in on and frankly is a stupid thing to talk about on a debate site. No one here cares what you believe if you are not willing to assert and defend it.It is no wonder you believe the silly things you do, especially when it comes to understanding those you disagree with. You do not pay attention to what others say and you disregard any part of the discussion that doesn’t suit your agenda.
This is the exchange you are being dishonest about:
If, as you claim, asserting God is not a truth statement, it's a subjectrive choice, then why do you throw a tantum and start screaming demands for burden of proof anytime someone asserts belief in God.The latter is a factual claim and therefore one which, if you believe in basic principals of logic, shoulder a burden of proof
Of course you backpeddled in subsequent posts, that's Double R Dishonesty 101.
You know damn well I can go find a half dozen more instances where you asserted that Faith in God shoulders a burden of proof just in conversations with me. It's a primary axiom of your faith, and it's why you made up your pretend definition of atheist, you claim atheism isn't a belief so it doesn't have the BOP, only people who have faith in God carry the BOP, you are astoundingly dishonest.
I'm not going to bother to go find all the times you've asserted that to me because you will just do what you always do, make up definitions, obfuscate, and lie....unless you want to formally debate it that is, if you have the unmitigated gall to bald face lie about it in a formal debate, then I'll go find all of the times you've whined and cried about it to me.
Don't worry, after you lose the debate you can always fall back on your "Trumpy routine" on losing debates and claim the vote wasn't fair.
OK, now it's time for you to say I'm not worth your time and attention, so, GO.
-->
@Double_R
--> @ShilaSo why are you still arguing with Sidewalker?On the subway with very little service. Not really anything else to do.So You are having a whole conversation in your head.What’s funny is that while I was responding to you I was also wondering whether you think you are worth anyone’s time and attention more so than Sidewalker. Here you show why you are not.
Still having that conversation in your head!!
-->
@Sidewalker
This is the exchange you are being dishonest about:If, as you claim, asserting God is not a truth statement, it's a subjectrive choice, then why do you throw a tantum and start screaming demands for burden of proof anytime someone asserts belief in God.The latter is a factual claim and therefore one which, if you believe in basic principals of logic, shoulder a burden of proof
WTF?
That exchange didn’t happen. I just posted the full exchange and showed how the parts of it you conveniently left out were crucial to understanding what I was talking about.
You know damn well I can go find a half dozen more instances where you asserted that Faith in God shoulders a burden of proof just in conversations with me. It's a primary axiom of your faith, and it's why you made up your pretend definition of atheist, you claim atheism isn't a belief so it doesn't have the BOP, only people who have faith in God carry the BOP, you are astoundingly dishonest.
Says the guy selectively editing our exchanges and then re-posting them even after being shown how blatantly dishonest they were.
I’ve never asserted mere faith as shouldering a burden of proof, I’ve even recently commented on this forum that faith alone does not carry a burden of proof. Three problem here is not that I'm dishonest, it's that you do not read what others write with any intention of understanding it.
unless you want to formally debate it that is, if you have the unmitigated gall to bald face lie about it in a formal debate, then I'll go find all of the times you've whined and cried about it to me.
Why would I debate you about a position you made up to strawman me? Find something you disagree with that I actually believe in and I would love to.
-->
@Double_R
--> @SidewalkerThis is the exchange you are being dishonest about:If, as you claim, asserting God is not a truth statement, it's a subjectrive choice, then why do you throw a tantum and start screaming demands for burden of proof anytime someone asserts belief in God.The latter is a factual claim and therefore one which, if you believe in basic principals of logic, shoulder a burden of proofWTF?That exchange didn’t happen. I just posted the full exchange and showed how the parts of it you conveniently left out were crucial to understanding what I was talking about.
See your post#736
--> @Sidewalker
If, as you claim, asserting God is not a truth statement, it's a subjectrive choice, then why do you throw a tantum and start screaming demands for burden of proof anytime someone asserts belief in God.Rules of your illogical BOP game?
Your reply Double_R below:
Asserting God as the standard for morality, not asserting God as an existent being. If you read the exchange first you would know that.
The latter is a factual claim and therefore one which, if you believe in basic principals of logic, shoulder a burden of proof. Clearly you don’t, which is why you pretend it’s a game.
Why do you keep lying even after you are exposed?
-->
@Shila
My god dude. Learn. To. Read.
"Asserting God as the standard for morality"
This was the former - a clarification of what Tarik and I was actually discussing.
"not ..."
This is the negation, as in what follows the "not" is something Tarik and I were not discussing.
"asserting God as an existent being"
This is the thing Tarik and I were not discussing. It also came second in that sentence, making it "the latter".
So when I said the latter was a factual claim which shoulders a burden of proof, I am very clearly saying that asserting God as an existent being carries with it, a burden of proof.
-->
@Double_R
--> @ShilaMy god dude. Learn. To. Read."Asserting God as the standard for morality"This was the former - a clarification of what Tarik and I was actually discussing."not ..."This is the negation, as in what follows the "not" is something Tarik and I were not discussing."asserting God as an existent being"This is the thing Tarik and I were not discussing. It also came second in that sentence, making it "the latter".So when I said the latter was a factual claim which shoulders a burden of proof, I am very clearly saying that asserting God as an existent being carries with it, a burden of proof.
Now you are admitting they were all part of your exchanges with Tarik.
So why were you denying they were to Sidewalker?
-->
@Double_R
Says the guy selectively editing our exchanges and then re-posting them even after being shown how blatantly dishonest they were.
Yep. All the same traits of the Reverend Tardesecret.
WTF?That exchange didn’t happen. I just posted the full exchange and showed how the parts of it you conveniently left out were crucial to understanding what I was talking about
Yep. All the same traits of the Reverend Tardesecret.
-->
@Stephen
--> @Double_RSays the guy selectively editing our exchanges and then re-posting them even after being shown how blatantly dishonest they were.Yep. All the same traits of the Reverend Tardesecret.WTF?That exchange didn’t happen. I just posted the full exchange and showed how the parts of it you conveniently left out were crucial to understanding what I was talking aboutYep. All the same traits of the Reverend Tardesecret.
That is why he goes by the title Double_R. Which is a pseudonym for Double Reverend.
And Shila is Sheila, Aussie for female. So you're one of the atheist Australians that use to post here. No matter what your post style people still tend to use slang and phrases from where they live. Thought you were from the UK but now I got it. We had several that used to post here you could be any one of them but it doesn't really matter everybody knows you're freaking troll and that you're just a mask account.
-->
@Shila
Now you are admitting they were all part of your exchanges with Tarik.So why were you denying they were to Sidewalker?
Admitting? No, I'm educating you as to what was actually said and the context it was said in. That's kind of important to understand before you accuse someone of being dishonest.
-->
@Double_R
-->@ShilaNow you are admitting they were all part of your exchanges with Tarik.So why were you denying they were to Sidewalker?Admitting? No, I'm educating you as to what was actually said and the context it was said in. That's kind of important to understand before you accuse someone of being dishonest.
From your post#736.
Asserting God as the standard for morality, not asserting God as an existent being. If you read the exchange first you would know that.
The latter is a factual claim and therefore one which, if you believe in basic principals of logic, shoulder a burden of proof. Clearly you don’t, which is why you pretend it’s a game.
-->
@Shila
Yes, we know. Why do you keep posting this? I already explained to you, literally sentence by sentence, what this means and how it shows that your and Sidewalker's claims about what I said are full of shit.
-->
@Double_R
--> @ShilaYes, we know. Why do you keep posting this? I already explained to you, literally sentence by sentence, what this means and how it shows that your and Sidewalker's claims about what I said are full of shit
Finally you are dealing with what you posted.
-->
@Shila
--> @SidewalkerThis is the exchange you are being dishonest about:If, as you claim, asserting God is not a truth statement, it's a subjectrive choice, then why do you throw a tantum and start screaming demands for burden of proof anytime someone asserts belief in God.The latter is a factual claim and therefore one which, if you believe in basic principals of logic, shoulder a burden of proofWTF?That exchange didn’t happen. I just posted the full exchange and showed how the parts of it you conveniently left out were crucial to understanding what I was talking about.See your post#736--> @SidewalkerIf, as you claim, asserting God is not a truth statement, it's a subjectrive choice, then why do you throw a tantum and start screaming demands for burden of proof anytime someone asserts belief in God.Rules of your illogical BOP game?Your reply Double_R below:Asserting God as the standard for morality, not asserting God as an existent being. If you read the exchange first you would know that.The latter is a factual claim and therefore one which, if you believe in basic principals of logic, shoulder a burden of proof. Clearly you don’t, which is why you pretend it’s a game.Why do you keep lying even after you are exposed?
He's like Trump, when he's caught lying he doubles down and the lies just get bigger.
-->
@Sidewalker
He's like Trump, when he's caught lying he doubles down and the lies just get bigger.
Is that how he inflates his manhood?