Kiwi in IE wrote: » Who cares Zombrex? One of the first things taught to you as a health professional wanting to practice in mental health is not to argue with delusion.
Kiwi in IE wrote: » Awaiting delete of previous post and infraction/banning!
Weathering wrote: » If you believe in god fine,if you don't fine. Just leave it at that,point scoring is pointless. Simple as that
Worztron wrote: » Why would an all powerful supreme being create humans capable of reason and then demand that they act in a manner contrary to their creation?
J C wrote: » He didn't ... He Created us with reason ... and He expects us to use it ... and will hold us to account, if we don't.
Kiwi in IE wrote: » But it is by using reason that we realise there is no proof of 'his' existence!
J C wrote: » How so?
Kiwi in IE wrote: » Because there is no evidence. It cannot be proved. It cannot be proved that gods do not exist either, so this is where reason comes into it. There is no irrefutable evidence to suggest that god or gods exist, only subjective second hand stories written several thousand years ago when people's interpretations of reality were worlds away from the knowledge we have today due to scientific discovery. Therefore due to both lack of any evidence and probable motive for the human 'invention' of such a 'being', I am unable to believe in the existence of gods.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » Fantastic post. And this is the reason why I am now an alincolnist. Show me the evidence lincolnists! (P.S. capitalising the l only reinforces the myth)
Kiwi in IE wrote: » And I did not capitalise because I am referring to all gods that have been worshiped by various religions throughout history, not just the one Christians worship.
robp wrote: » Doubts are universal but Christians would argue that ultimately reason will take one towards Christianity. I can think of plenty of decent ethical atheists but I can think of very few who are fully aware of the arguments and who are fully honest about their implications. All thought processes are subject to biases, prejudices and misinformation. I encounter even fewer who acknowledge this and consider how it might enable their atheism. You yourself fall into this trap in post #6549.
robp wrote: » When referring to God in the singular a capital case applies. In all the monotheistic systems there is only one God and using lower case makes no sense whatsoever. That is a misrepresentation. 90% of the rules and teaching of pretty much all mainstream monotheistic religions relate to virtues valued in secular ethics. Greed, stealing or selfishness are very much part of our make up as a species. Does that mean we should be complacent about them? Doubts are universal but Christians would argue that ultimately reason will take one towards Christianity. I can think of plenty of decent ethical atheists but I can think of very few who are fully aware of the arguments and who are fully honest about their implications. All thought processes are subject to biases, prejudices and misinformation. I encounter even fewer who acknowledge this and consider how it might enable their atheism. You yourself fall into this trap in post #6549.
Kiwi in IE wrote: » I would not consider it due to prejudice, misinformation or bias that one does not believe something that cannot be proven to exist.
marienbad wrote: » Maybe those atheists should be sent back to the re-education camps, no ?
Zombrex wrote: » Oh, never mind, this is one of those stupid "We have as much evidence for Jesus as insert historical person X" things. My mistake
Fanny Cradock wrote: » Well that would make it 3 mistakes in a row. This is in fact a page step up to apply freethinking and rational skepticism "toward the myth of Abraham Lincoln's existence and the stories attributed to him". It has nothing to do with the historicity of Jesus.
robp wrote: » The irony is that very line is typically repeated by the same people who insist there is no absolute truth that we know of. Maybe they should show a little respect, if not to Christians then at least to the English language.
marienbad wrote: » Why ? Christians have a poor record in that respect even to this day, and as for the English language - it can take care of itself wouldn't you say.
Zombrex wrote: » If you Google for "Did Lincoln exist" you get back a whole host of Christian apologetic websites that have latched on to this idea that comparing the denial of Jesus (both historical and supernatural version) with denying Abraham Lincoln existed is apparently making some sound point about the hypocrisy of New Atheists. For example -http://www.reasonsforgod.org/2013/03/did-abraham-lincoln-exist/http://blog.eternalvigilance.me/2013/03/did-abe-lincoln-really-exist/http://benstanhope.blogspot.ie/2013/03/top-10-quotes-from-did-abe-lincoln.htmlhttp://www.acts17.net/2013/03/did-abraham-lincoln-exist.htmlhttp://www.thepoachedegg.net/the-poached-egg/2013/03/weekend-apologetics-hit-and-misc-did-abraham-lincoln-exist.htmlhttp://thereforegodexists.com/2013/04/did-abraham-lincoln-exist/ While reading these websites the phrase "spectacularly missing the point" kept popping into my head, thought that might just be me ...
robp wrote: » When referring to God in the singular a capital case applies. In all the monotheistic systems there is only one God and using lower case makes no sense whatsoever. .
Fanny Cradock wrote: » And not one of those links mentions its stated aim as "We have as much evidence for Jesus as insert historical person X". Now if you want to add to your original statement (as you have already done) then fine. But I'm not clairvoyant and I can't be expected to argue against things you haven't yet written.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » My advice to you is to put "you are missing the point" into your signature. Given how often you accuse people of this it will save you valuable time and also extend the life of your keyboard.
robp wrote: » Moving the goal posts. Nice.
Jernal wrote: » When you refer to a god as a personal entity e.g God of the bible or Yahweh, a capital case applies. Just like it does when you refer to someone by their name. If you a referring to a non specific deity you use a lower case i.e. "There is no god." Instead of the incorrect "There is no God." Hopefully this will convey the point. "I don't think God exists but I do think there is a god that does." /pedant
There is no irrefutable evidence to suggest that god or gods exist
marienbad wrote: » You will have to explain that ?
Zombrex wrote: » The point they are trying to make is a pretty bad one, but then since I'm not assuming you agree with their point I'm not asking you to engage with anything.
marienbad wrote: » Excuse me robp ! a bit more than that is being discussed- you said ''maybe they should show a little respect ..... '' And I asked you why and I am still waiting on your reply. That you seem to think you have a duty to police English language usage is of little concern to me . So I ask you again why should respect be shown ? Everything else is fair game so why not religion ?.
robp wrote: » Since when is everything else fair game? I think your conflating disagreement with respect eg I disagree with smoking but I respect their practice.
