Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

More of your ad hominem I guess, especially given the failures in definition were yours not mine. However the reality is that my definition of what I mean by god has been very clear and you have simply ignored it.

Sorry, no, I really do have to point out that your understanding of-ism is far too limited and wildly inaccurate because of this.
Your asserting that your definition of anything in the light of this carries no weight.

Safehands

Festus wrote: »

Where is my reality illogical? Are you claiming that my reality is illogical?

Ok I’ll answer that. Here is a posting you made:
I have gone through the exercise of questioning the existence of God and can find no evidence to support the hypothesis that God does not exist. Therefore God exists. That is not logical and it seems to be the basis for all your beliefs.
I could make a similar statement about Fairies, Leprechauns and Unicorns. There is no evidence that they don’t or didn’t exist, does that mean therefore that they do or did? Illogical reasoning.

Festus wrote: »

If the burden of proof lies with whoever is making the claim can you prove your claim that my reality is illogical?

You seem to ask for proof in a huge amount of replies, yet you are a little inconsistent.
When asked for proof you replied: No offense and excuse the sweeping generalization but why should I deliberately expose myself to ridicule on this thread? And as I said to you before it is evidence, and it is evidence that satisfies me, not proof. That's a strange statement from someone who so often asks for proof to defend his own position.

For example: When querying a quote, you said:Where did I say that is my evidence or are you being presumptive or even omniscient. If the latter perhaps you can prove to me that is my evidence.

Or: Other apologists may give you a better run for your money but for me as the proof of the existence of God beyond all reasonable doubt is not possible, and neither is the proof of the non existence of God, the exercise while interesting up to a point, is ultimately futile. If proof doesn't matter to you why do you ask for it so often from the people who present a sensible argument against the existence of God.

Festus wrote:

The claim that God exists is not a claim that I make, it is the claim that God makes. I think you are directing your requests for evidence at the wrong person.

Nope. I am not aware of a divine being coming to me and saying "I exist". I am aware only of people such as yourself who are making the claim, and claiming to make the claim via proxy. You and people like you are the only beings I can discuss this issue with. What you're doing there is yet again another sign of your complete unwillingness to actually debate the topic at hand.
If someone tells me dragons exist, I would not accept for a second if he told me to go and take it up with the dragons. Burden of proof is on you.

What if there really are men living on the moon who dress like Quakers and live to be nearly 1000 years old only we can't find them because they live on the other side of the moon, does that not mean lazygal is right and you are wrong?

Given everything we understand about biology, physics and chemistry, we can safely and confidently rule this possibility out. Humans need oxygen to breathe. There is no oxygen on the moon (it doesn't have an atmosphere to contain the oxygen). There are no organic materials on the moon that could be used as food. We have also mapped the moon fully, although of course, no-one has yet set foot on the far side of the moon.
Of course, this doesn't rule out the possibility of life forms living underground that are completely unlike any form of life we recognize, but then again, they couldn't exactly be called "men who dress like Quakers" now could they?
What you did there is as erroneous as asking someone who's rolling a six-sided die "How do you know you'll never roll a 7? You could". You're completely ignoring the possibilities (a six sided die with the numbers 1 through 6 can NEVER roll a 7, we can observe and confirm a 7 is not there before we roll), just like with your moon men (every bit of evidence we have, which is a lot, rules out any possibility of humans living on the moon)

I would suggest that he is wrong about the moon and hence any other testimony of his carries a risk.

Okay, so Smith was wrong about the moon and hence his credibility with you has suffered. Okay good. That's how I roll too. However, why is it you don't apply this to the bible? There are plenty of false statements in the bible. O.T has things like bird's blood curing leprosy for example, and the stories about genesis and Moses. We know for a fact those things are false. So how come you're applying skepticism to Smith, but not to christianity? That is the logical fallacy of special pleading there, which you have confirmed before when you said that belief in the christian god is the default position for you.

I take it you cannot be more specific then, or can find only differences and no contradictions.

Why is there more than one history book for any given historical event? Surely one would suffice?
When more than one record exists for a historical even how do we discern which records aretrue and which are false?

Yes, there are contradictions, and the fact they exist massively undermine christian theology. For example, I'm pretty you yourself have in the past said that Jesus was the culmination of prophecy (or a similar phrase). Among those so called prophecies was one saying he would be a descendant of David. However, since when did Jewish law and prophecies accept a step-son? How can Jesus be called a descendant of David, when the parent that is claimed to be a descendant (Joseph) is not actually his biological father, according to the story? It'd be like me being adopted into the British royal family and thus legally becoming a possible successor to the crown (not sure if this would be allowed), but biologically, I'm not related to them. Paul says in Romans 1:3 https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Romans%201:3

the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh

If you accept the premise that Mary was a virgin, then no, Paul either spoke false here (and thus this should for you undermine his credibility, just like what happened with Smith) or Jesus cannot be the fulfillment of the "descendant of David" prophecy.
(Speaking of Joseph, there's two different genealogies for him in Matthew and Luke. You can't have two accounts, call them both true, and then just ignore their conflicts)

Safehands wrote: »

Ok I’ll answer that. Here is a posting you made:
I have gone through the exercise of questioning the existence of God and can find no evidence to support the hypothesis that God does not exist. Therefore God exists. That is not logical and it seems to be the basis for all your beliefs.

If I said "therefore God probably exists in the absence on any evidence to the contrary" would that also be illogical in your opinion.

Neither atheism in its current form nor agnosticism make any claim to the non existence of God therefore it is reasonable to believe that God exists.

Safehands wrote: »

I could make a similar statement about Fairies, Leprechauns and Unicorns. There is no evidence that they don’t or didn’t exist, does that mean therefore that they do or did? Illogical reasoning.

You could and your kind frequently do but there is no direct comparison between God and mythological creatures. All mythological creatures have limitations imposed on them by humans. God does not. Is it logical to compare apples with oranges?

Safehands wrote: »

You seem to ask for proof in a huge amount of replies, yet you are a little inconsistent.
When asked for proof you replied: No offense and excuse the sweeping generalization but why should I deliberately expose myself to ridicule on this thread? And as I said to you before it is evidence, and it is evidence that satisfies me, not proof. That's a strange statement from someone who so often asks for proof to defend his own position.

I have my position which I will defend from attack. Asking me for proof is not an attack. So my response is not strange especially given that all your kind are capable of is dismissing whatever evidence is presented to you using strawmen, fallacious argument and irreverent mockery

Safehands wrote: »

For example: When querying a quote, you said:Where did I say that is my evidence or are you being presumptive or even omniscient. If the latter perhaps you can prove to me that is my evidence.

Best response to someone twisting my words or inventing a position for me.

Safehands wrote: »

Or: Other apologists may give you a better run for your money but for me as the proof of the existence of God beyond all reasonable doubt is not possible, and neither is the proof of the non existence of God, the exercise while interesting up to a point, is ultimately futile. If proof doesn't matter to you why do you ask for it so often from the people who present a sensible argument against the existence of God.

Simple - there is no sensible argument against the existence of God.

UCDVet

This thread is some of the funniest stuff I've read in a long time. On the one hand, I've enjoyed it. On the other hand, it's hard for be to believe that people actually believe the the things they've posted here.

UCDVet wrote: »

This thread is some of the funniest stuff I've read in a long time. On the one hand, I've enjoyed it. On the other hand, it's hard for be to believe that people actually believe the the things they've posted here.

I agree

Can you imagine someone believing that alcoholism is a belief in alcohol

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Burden of proof is on you.

That's nothing more than cowardice. I am not here to convert you. If you are here to convert me have the courage of your convictions state your case.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Given everything we understand about biology, physics and chemistry, we can safely and confidently rule this possibility out. Humans need oxygen to breathe. There is no oxygen on the moon (it doesn't have an atmosphere to contain the oxygen). There are no organic materials on the moon that could be used as food. We have also mapped the moon fully, although of course, no-one has yet set foot on the far side of the moon.
Of course, this doesn't rule out the possibility of life forms living underground that are completely unlike any form of life we recognize, but then again, they couldn't exactly be called "men who dress like Quakers" now could they?
What you did there is as erroneous as asking someone who's rolling a six-sided die "How do you know you'll never roll a 7? You could". You're completely ignoring the possibilities (a six sided die with the numbers 1 through 6 can NEVER roll a 7, we can observe and confirm a 7 is not there before we roll), just like with your moon men (every bit of evidence we have, which is a lot, rules out any possibility of humans living on the moon)

Do try to keep up. I was showing another posting the illogicality of using a "what if " argument.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Okay, so Smith was wrong about the moon and hence his credibility with you has suffered. Okay good. That's how I roll too. However, why is it you don't apply this to the bible? There are plenty of false statements in the bible. O.T has things like bird's blood curing leprosy for example, and the stories about genesis and Moses. We know for a fact those things are false. So how come you're applying skepticism to Smith, but not to christianity? That is the logical fallacy of special pleading there, which you have confirmed before when you said that belief in the christian god is the default position for you.

Forgive me for not believing you when you tell me what you think the Bible says. You will need to me more specific if you want to use the Bible for your attack.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Yes, there are contradictions, and the fact they exist massively undermine christian theology. For example, I'm pretty you yourself have in the past said that Jesus was the culmination of prophecy (or a similar phrase). Among those so called prophecies was one saying he would be a descendant of David. However, since when did Jewish law and prophecies accept a step-son? How can Jesus be called a descendant of David, when the parent that is claimed to be a descendant (Joseph) is not actually his biological father, according to the story? It'd be like me being adopted into the British royal family and thus legally becoming a possible successor to the crown (not sure if this would be allowed), but biologically, I'm not related to them. Paul says in Romans 1:3 https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Romans%201:3

If you accept the premise that Mary was a virgin, then no, Paul either spoke false here (and thus this should for you undermine his credibility, just like what happened with Smith) or Jesus cannot be the fulfillment of the "descendant of David" prophecy.
(Speaking of Joseph, there's two different genealogies for him in Matthew and Luke. You can't have two accounts, call them both true, and then just ignore their conflicts)

The genealogy of Jesus Christ in Matthew 1 states...."The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." (Matthew 1:1) The genealogy establishes the linage of Jesus through His step father Joseph. Luke 3:23-38 is Jesus' linage through Mary his mother. Luke states in verse 23 ..."And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli." The differences in the two genealogies is that Matthew 1 is Joseph's linage and Luke 3 is Mary's. In Matthew 1:16 Jacob is said to be the father of Joseph the husband of Mary. It does not say that Joseph begat Jesus, but only that Joseph was Mary's husband, and Mary gave birth to Jesus.
Luke's records, "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli" (Luke 3:23) Therefore the verse is indicating that Joseph was Jesus' step son, and that this genealogy is not of Joseph, which clearly if a genealogy of Jesus, would mean this is Mary's linage. Therefore, Jesus was a descendant of Mary, who was a descendant of David and of the Tribe of Judah.

a question asked by some who do not believe in the Virgin Birth, and who want to claim that Jesus was the biological son of Joseph. The answer to both is the same. Christ is of the line of David through His foster father Joseph. The lack of physical connection between the two does not change the reality that Jesus Christ is St. Joseph's son--by adoption, yes, but that is enough to make Him of the line of David.
St. Matthew's Gospel testifies to this. He traces Christ's descent from King David through St. Joseph, yet St. Matthew also declares that St. Mary was a virgin, who conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit. Since St. Matthew saw no contradiction, neither should we.
More interesting is the fact that at least two passages of Scripture (Romans 1:3 and 2 Timothy 2:8) refer to Christ as being "of the seed of David," which implies direct physical descent, rather than adoption. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes that most of the Fathers of the Church interpreted this to mean that St. Mary herself was descended from King David, even though no such genealogy is included in the Scriptures. In this tradition, St. Mary and St. Joseph are distant cousins, and both are physically descended from King David. Thus Christ is "of the seed of David" from his mother Mary, and "of the line of David" through his foster father Joseph.

sources for the above

http://bible-truth.org/FAQ-Contradictions.html
http://catholicism.about.com/b/2008/01/04/reader-question-how-is-christ-the-son-of-david.htm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If however YOU have substantiation for the existence of a god, then I am all ears to hear your definition of what you mean by god.... as that is the one that is relevant, not mine.

Have you tried using Google to find a definition of God that would fit with your framing of my understanding of God?

A clue here - I'm a pre-denominational Christian, a.k.a. a Catholic.

I have reasons for not providing you with a link or a copy of any text from a link. I believe if you want to learn the best way to learn is to do your own research and not have someone spoon feed you. Some do need spoon feeding and I do occasionally spoon feed , if only to prove there is no benefit to it.
You also qualified your request with an "If" statement which gives me the choice as to whether or not I should comply.
Think of it as a game of poker. If you say to me "If you have pocket aces, bet accordingly" how should I bet?

FESTUS wrote:

Simple - there is no sensible argument against the existence of God.

We're showing holes and errors in the argument for the positive claim that God exists. Whenever we do such things, we can then have a justified reasonable position to say "I am not convinced God exists".

I'm a pre-denominational Christian, a.k.a. a Catholic.

Here's the problem - most people when they hear the term Catholic, think of Roman Catholicism, i.e. someone who accepts the authority of the Pope and the cardinals. When you said you were a catholic in the past, that is what people thought you meant, and since you never bothered outlining what you mean by catholic, the false belief stuck. This is just like when others here demand you say what you think and believe about God. Atheists like myself could find, discuss and defeat ten thousand different definitions for God...only for you to go "Nope, that's not my belief, not my position".
In the interests of saving time and effort, (and in the interest of actually HAVING a discussion) tell us what YOU believe. I am talking to you. In this discussion, I am not talking to some other theist on some other board.

I believe if you want to learn the best way to learn is to do your own research

So do I, but in a debate, you NEVER say "My position is X, now you guys go out and do the research".

interpreted this to mean that St. Mary herself was descended from King David, even though no such genealogy is included in the Scriptures.

In other words, they made it completely up with no justification for the claim, simply so as to say "Ya know what, it fits!"

Neither atheism in its current form nor agnosticism make any claim to the non existence of God therefore it is reasonable to believe that God exists.

Simple substitution of terms shows how stupid that was - neither atheism or agnosticism make any claims to purple flying three headed dinosaurs floating above New York, therefore it is reasonable to believe that said creatures exist.

I could take the time to say "I know there is no God" or "I believe there is no God", but doubtlessly you will then say "What proof have you?"...which would be you demanding proof for other people's positions, but NEVER giving evidence for your own i.e. the rules that I accept for being in a debate somehow do not apply to you.

Have you tried using Google to find a definition of God that would fit with your framing of my understanding of God?

I looked up pre-denominational catholics, however what if I were to find their definition of God, attack it, only for you to say "No...that's not my position"? You're not willing to give what it is you believe, simply so your position can't be attacked.
In other words, you're not debating.

state your case.

You want me to state my case, but have so far resisted any and all requests from others to do the same?
Fine, this is my official position on the matter.
"I do not believe there is a god or gods. I have no positive knowledge pointing towards their existence. Any and all god claims that I have examined (whether from direct communication with others, or through published literature from various religions), I have found numerous errors, mistakes, gaps in knowledge, logical fallacies or appeals to emotion. Thus, any attempt on my part to have a belief in a god (not that one is even able to 'attempt' belief) would have no justification, and would be purely whim".
There, my position. What about you? It's taken this long just for you to say that you are catholic and what exactly you mean by catholic!

Safehands

Festus wrote: »

If I said "therefore God probably exists in the absence on any evidence to the contrary" would that also be illogical in your opinion.

Of course it would. It is a ridiculous, nonsensical statement, completely devoid of any logic. It baffles me that you can't see that.

Festus wrote: »

Neither atheism in its current form nor agnosticism make any claim to the non existence of God therefore it is reasonable to believe that God exists.

No it is not!

Festus wrote: »

there is no direct comparison between God and mythological creatures. All mythological creatures have limitations imposed on them by humans. God does not. Is it logical to compare apples with oranges?

It depends what you are trying to compare, it could be logical in many circumstances. The point is that there is no evidence that fairies, leprechauns or unicorns do not exist (a stupid argument I know), so by your logic that means they do. Again, logic is left out of the equation. So, Festus my friend, can you prove these creatures don't exist?

Festus wrote: »

there is no sensible argument against the existence of God.

This is a little different and in my opinion, quite a reasonable statement.
There are many who have and will continue, to argue the points. If you argue from the point of view of logic, then logically, he does not exist.
If you argue from the point of view of science, then you would need to look at the evidence FOR his existence and tease out and examine that evidence. So far, I believe that would have the same result as the logical exploration; he does not exist.
If you argue from the point of view of religion, the argument will continue to be circular because all the evidence you need is in the Holy Books. Those writings supersede logic, science and history in the minds of religious people. So no matter what evidence is produced, it will be ignored. And if cast iron proof is produced against the possibility of God having created the universe, "look, here is the way this event happened, here is the scientific proof that what is in the Bible is not possible" religious people will simply launch the nuclear option: With God all things are possible. It is impossible to argue with that type of mindset.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

We're showing holes and errors in the argument for the positive claim that God exists. Whenever we do such things, we can then have a justified reasonable position to say "I am not convinced God exists".

It is not justified or reasonable because you cannot know all the evidence or all the arguments and therefore cannot debunk all the evidence. What does it say about your position if all you are prepared to do is poke holes? It's a bit like telling an arcitect "that building is no good because all I have to do is knock out that part there and our building collapses"
Why would I contract a demolitions expert to construct a building?

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Here's the problem - most people when they hear the term Catholic, think of Roman Catholicism, i.e. someone who accepts the authority of the Pope and the cardinals. When you said you were a catholic in the past, that is what people thought you meant, and since you never bothered outlining what you mean by catholic, the false belief stuck. This is just like when others here demand you say what you think and believe about God. Atheists like myself could find, discuss and defeat ten thousand different definitions for God...only for you to go "Nope, that's not my belief, not my position".
In the interests of saving time and effort, (and in the interest of actually HAVING a discussion) tell us what YOU believe. I am talking to you. In this discussion, I am not talking to some other theist on some other board.

I could take the time to say "I know there is no God" or "I believe there is no God", but doubtlessly you will then say "What proof have you?"...which would be you demanding proof for other people's positions, but NEVER giving evidence for your own i.e. the rules that I accept for being in a debate somehow do not apply to you.

No - here's the problem. You are directing words to me on this "Forum". I post on other threads here, the Christianity Forum where the fact that I am a Catholic is obvious. It is not my fault that you have poor investigative skills.

You want to poke holes in our argument. We want to show you the holes in yours.
We have God and we know what His offer is. You seek to destroy faith and offer nothing in return other than eternal death.
Between God's promise of eternal life and your promise of nothing there is nothing to debate.
I am happy with what I believe. If I ask you or your cohort for proof of what it is you believe it is because I see no evidence to support what you believe. I do see you changing your definition of how you categorize yourselves to avoid sharing the burden of proof and the evidence for this is how you describe atheism now compared to how atheism was described when it was first invented. Your position is constantly changing.
Our position is not. We believe in the same things we believed 2000 years ago. If I ever tell you "that is not my position" it is because you have presented an incorrect interpretation of what you think our position is.

I am not here to present evidence for you to poke holes in. What benefit is that to me?
Nor am I here to present evidence to convert you. What benefit is that to you if you do not want to find God?
If you want to find God you will find the evidence if you look for it. I am not going to force God upon you.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

So do I, but in a debate, you NEVER say "My position is X, now you guys go out and do the research".

Perhaps in a physical face to face debate but that is not what a discussion board is. Consider this an open book exam.
The fact that you cannot even go to another thread on the Christianity forum to find out who you are dealing with never mind use an internet search engine speaks volumes.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

In other words, they made it completely up with no justification for the claim, simply so as to say "Ya know what, it fits!"

see what I mean about spoon feeding.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Simple substitution of terms shows how stupid that was - neither atheism or agnosticism make any claims to purple flying three headed dinosaurs floating above New York, therefore it is reasonable to believe that said creatures exist.

Thank you for showing that you cannot even do simple substitution. If you could then you would know that what you should have posted is
" neither atheism or agnosticism make any claims to the non-existence of purple flying three headed dinosaurs floating above New York, therefore it is reasonable to believe that said creatures exist. "

Do you see that happened there? You left a relevant word out. It's the equivalent of dribbling after being spoon fed. Not everything makes it in.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

I looked up pre-denominational catholics,

another reason why spoon feeding doesn't work. I never said I was a pre-denominational Catholic. Hence I suspect whatever you found by looking up "pre-denominational catholic" was useless. That is if you did look it up. So I must suspect that you did not or you would have realized your error and re-read my original words again to confirm.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

however what if I were to find their definition of God, attack it, only for you to say "No...that's not my position"? You're not willing to give what it is you believe, simply so your position can't be attacked.
In other words, you're not debating.

That's debatable.

Or is it debatism - the belief in debate to the the exclusion of all other forms of discourse.

My spell checker wanted to change "debatism" to defeatism. made me laugh,

out load, too! Evidence of God? For some perhaps, maybe not for others.

What I am doing is discussing because this is a discussion board. I don't think you are qualified to say whether or not I am debating primarily because you are not a mod. If you do not like my discussion style, and Lord knows some if not all of the Mods don't either, you are more than welcome to report me. I have asked you do to this before when you quite clearly suggested that my style irritated you.
On at least one occasion you clearly stated that you wanted to converse with me no longer. I took you at your word and to make navigation of this thread easier for me I added you to my ignore list. I then find through your poor use of the editor that you are responding to my replies to other posters. I guess you must have changed your mind. I am not going to call you a liar because of this because that is your perogative of course but it makes it a little disingenuous for you to go around throwing accusations at me. Exactly when did you start conversing with me again? I have to ask because you are still on my ignore list so I don't see everything you post.
I suppose I could take you off my ignore list but for the moment I lack the belief that there is any merit to reading everything you post.

Safehands wrote: »

Of course it would. It is a ridiculous, nonsensical statement, completely devoid of any logic. It baffles me that you can't see that.

Please explain.

Festus wrote: »

Neither atheism in its current form nor agnosticism make any claim to the non existence of God therefore it is reasonable to believe that God exists.

Safehands wrote: »

No it is not!

Are you saying it is not reasonable to believe that God exists, and if not why not?

Safehands wrote: »

It depends what you are trying to compare, it could be logical in many circumstances. The point is that there is no evidence that fairies, leprechauns or unicorns do not exist (a stupid argument I know), so by your logic that means they do. Again, logic is left out of the equation. So, Festus my friend, can you prove these creatures don't exist?

To what end? Some people do believe they exist and they are happy with that. Why should I be the one to upset them. Are they doing any harm and if so what harm?

Safehands wrote: »

This is a little different and in my opinion, quite a reasonable statement.
There are many who have and will continue, to argue the points. If you argue from the point of view of logic, then logically, he does not exist.

There is at least one contrary argument that I have posted a link to previously.

However if you want to debate your argument from logic that God does not exist perhaps you could post it, or a link to wherever you found that argument here.

Safehands wrote: »

If you argue from the point of view of science, then you would need to look at the evidence FOR his existence and tease out and examine that evidence. So far, I believe that would have the same result as the logical exploration; he does not exist.

That is your belief, a statement from faith.

Safehands wrote: »

If you argue from the point of view of religion, the argument will continue to be circular because all the evidence you need is in the Holy Books. Those writings supersede logic, science and history in the minds of religious people.

Not true and implies you are claiming omniscience.

Safehands wrote: »

So no matter what evidence is produced, it will be ignored.

Not true, again implies you are claiming omniscience. The evidence when examined can be found wanting.

Safehands wrote: »

And if cast iron proof is produced against the possibility of God having created the universe, "look, here is the way this event happened, here is the scientific proof that what is in the Bible is not possible" religious people will simply launch the nuclear option: With God all things are possible. It is impossible to argue with that type of mindset.

Fallacy of the future argument that also relies on omniscience to presuppose the future response.

If you believe it is impossible to argue with those whom you believe to have that type of mindset why do you persist in doing so. Are you trying to prove the possibility of what you believe to be impossible.

Commendable I'm sure, but is it not a bit futile based on what you believe about that type of mindset?

Are you saying it is not reasonable to believe that God exists, and if not why not?

If one is told "Claim X is true" and each and every time that they hear that claim, it is either justified with weak or false evidence (or not justified with evidence at all), then that person has a reasonable justification to say "I don't believe that claim".

RikuoAmero wrote: »

If one is told "Claim X is true" and each and every time that they hear that claim, it is either justified with weak or false evidence (or not justified with evidence at all), then that person has a reasonable justification to say "I don't believe that claim".

What you say is true. I am sure Safehands will thank you for doing his thinking for him.

But it is a strawman as you are introducing blind faith which is not applicable in any discussion on the existence of God. You are also claiming that the evidence is weak or false, or non existent - a claim no doubt you are prepared to defend.

However, can you explain to me how me how someone saying "I believe something is true" is a claim that "something is true" that should be publicly defended by presenting evidence to you?

Given the season are you planning to go around to all the children who believe in Santa and ask them to show you their proof and evidence or are you just going to tell them that given the lack of substantiated evidence there is no reason for them to believe that he really exists and that all the Santas they see are really just ordinary men dressed up to fool them?

It's up to you if you want to ruin Christmas for the children but if you want to ruin life for Christians you better have a bloody good reason.

Festus wrote: »

What you say is true.

However, can you explain to me how me how someone saying "I believe something is true" is a claim that "something is true" that should be publicly defended by presenting evidence to you?

Given the season are you planning to go around to all the children who believe in Santa and ask them to show you their proof and evidence or are you just going to tell them that given the lack of substantiated evidence there is no reason for them to believe that he really exists and that all the Santas they see are really just ordinary men dressed up to fool them?

It's up to you if you want to ruin Christmas for the children but if you want to ruin life for Christians you better have a bloody good reason.

There's no no.such thing as Santa. Parents knows this and children generally come to realise this themselves. In fact it's a great teaching lesson for children in not believing everything an adult tells them as fact and thinking through the logic of the claims made about a mystical figure. Many parents find children naturally see through myths about God in the same way as they do about Santa. How is telling a Christian I don't see logically how a supreme being could have made the world and could watch over me and only do certified things if certain incantations were recited in certain settings like confession ruin anyone's life? Surely faith is stronger than that? And I my life wasn't ruined when I realised the truth about Santa and the God I was told was as real as Santa. In fact, layers of guilt fell away and it was a great relief.

Festus wrote: »

What you say is true.

But it is a strawman as you are introducing blind faith which is not applicable in any discussion on the existence of God.

However, can you explain to me how me how someone saying "I believe something is true" is a claim that "something is true" that should be publicly defended by presenting evidence to you?

Given the season are you planning to go around to all the children who believe in Santa and ask them to show you their proof and evidence or are you just going to tell them that given the lack of substantiated evidence there is no reason for them to believe that he really exists and that all the Santas they see are really just ordinary men dressed up to fool them?

It's up to you if you want to ruin Christmas for the children but if you want to ruin life for Christians you better have a bloody good reason.

That is just hilarious. Yes, I want to ruin christmas for everybody. I want to go to EACH and EVERY child in the world, slap them in the face and say "Santa doesn't exist". I want to burn down their christmas trees, smash their presents and forbid them, at gunpoint, from ever celebrating the holiday again.

In case you can't tell, that was sarcasm. What you did there is a fallacious tactic. You introduced an extreme course of action, essentially accuse me of it (you were very careful not to literally accuse me, but what you did write is as good as an accusation), all in an attempt to link my position on the topic of this thread with that course of action (linking a non-belief in the god claim with going around and deliberately telling children Santa isn't real).

As for me supposedly introducing blind faith...I call bull****. Especially since YOU'RE the one saying it. The guy who refuses EACH and EVERY time to give evidence. I don't think you have any evidence to justify your beliefs. Until you show them, I default to the position "This guy isn't providing evidence, therefore I take his position to be one of blind faith".

RikuoAmero wrote: »

That is just hilarious. Yes, I want to ruin christmas for everybody. I want to go to EACH and EVERY child in the world, slap them in the face and say "Santa doesn't exist". I want to burn down their christmas trees, smash their presents and forbid them, at gunpoint, from ever celebrating the holiday again.

In case you can't tell, that was sarcasm. What you did there is a fallacious tactic. You introduced an extreme course of action, essentially accuse me of it (you were very careful not to literally accuse me, but what you did write is as good as an accusation), all in an attempt to link my position on the topic of this thread with that course of action (linking a non-belief in the god claim with going around and deliberately telling children Santa isn't real).

I made no accusation. I asked you to confirm or deny a possible plan of action on your part.

From your response I take it that that it puts paid to the introduction of Santa, leprechauns, tooth fairys, fly teapots and spaghetti monsters as they are fallacious tactics.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

As for me supposedly introducing blind faith...I call bull****. Especially since YOU'RE the one saying it. The guy who refuses EACH and EVERY time to give evidence. I don't think you have any evidence to justify your beliefs. Until you show them, I default to the position "This guy isn't providing evidence, therefore I take his position to be one of blind faith".

I have said it before, the evidence is everywhere for those who have eyes to see it. The only belief system that requires blind faith is the belief that God does not exist.

lazygal wrote: »

There's no no.such thing as Santa.

Really :eek::eek::eek:

Thanks for ruining my Christmas!

lazygal wrote: »

Parents knows this and children generally come to realise this themselves. In fact it's a great teaching lesson for children in not believing everything an adult tells them as fact and thinking through the logic of the claims made about a mystical figure. Many parents find children naturally see through myths about God in the same way as they do about Santa.

What kind of households does this happen in? It would be interesting to see the raw data on this so any bias can be determined.

lazygal wrote: »

How is telling a Christian I don't see logically how a supreme being could have made the world and could watch over me and only do certified things if certain incantations were recited in certain settings like confession ruin anyone's life?

which incantations?

lazygal wrote: »

Surely faith is stronger than that? And I my life wasn't ruined when I realised the truth about Santa and the God I was told was as real as Santa. In fact, layers of guilt fell away and it was a great relief.

What is the truth about God?

Festus wrote: »

Really :eek::eek::eek:

Thanks for ruining my Christmas!

What kind of households does this happen in? It would be interesting to see the raw data on this so any bias can be determined.

which incantations?

What is the truth about God?

I don't want to ruin your life.

lazygal wrote: »

I don't want to ruin your life.

Why? did the truth, or what you believe to be the truth about God, ruin yours?

Festus wrote: »

Why? did the truth, or what you believe to be the truth about God, ruin yours?

Not a jot. But you said the lives of Christians would be ruined and as you're pre denomination or.whatever you're having yourself as a Christmas present I won't ruin your life. I also like you don't feel the need to share any evidence whatsoever.
*insert season's greetings emoticon here*

lazygal wrote: »

Not a jot. But you said the lives of Christians would be ruined and as you're pre denomination or.whatever you're having yourself as a Christmas present I won't ruin your life. I also like you don't feel the need to share any evidence whatsoever.
*insert season's greetings emoticon here*

The only way to ruin life for a Christian is to prove that God does not exist.
Your evidence or lack of it doesn't really matter as it's not that I believe you have no evidence whatsoever it's that I believe you are incapable. I'm not making any claim so there is no onus on you to present any evidence.
If you believe there is no God that is your faith.
Given we are about to celebrate the birth of Christ are seasons greetings not a bit disingenuous on your part?

Festus wrote: »

The only way to ruin life for a Christian is to prove that God does not exist. I believe you are incapable.

And if someone was capable of it? Would your life be ruined? Mine certainly wasn't, as a former Christian, when I realised God made about as much sense as Santa as a concept.

lazygal wrote: »

And if someone was capable of it? Would your life be ruined? Mine certainly wasn't, as a former Christian, when I realised God made about as much sense as Santa as a concept.

I do not believe that anyone is capable of it and certain not until someone makes the claim that God does not exist. Given the cowardice and tunnel vision of the atheistic worldview I am not expecting anyone to make such a claim so neither am I expecting my life to be ruined.

Festus wrote: »

I do not believe that anyone is capable of it and certain not until someone makes the claim that God does not exist. Given the cowardice and tunnel vision of the atheistic worldview I am not expecting anyone to make such a claim so neither am I expecting my life to be ruined.

What cowardice and tunnel vision? Is happening to believe you've stumbled onto the one true God out of the thousands of deities people believe in tunnel vision?

shaz90ish

For those who do not believe in God, ask god to earnestly reveal Himself to you and this should be from your heart. for the bible says: Seek ye first the kingdom of God and all these things shall be added unto you. Peace

shaz90ish wrote: »

For those who do not believe in God, ask god to earnestly reveal Himself to you and this should be from your heart. for the bible says: Seek ye first the kingdom of God and all these things shall be added unto you. Peace

But he never does reveal himself. If he did, it'd be a lot easier for everyone.

shaz90ish wrote: »

For those who do not believe in God, ask god to earnestly reveal Himself to you and this should be from your heart. for the bible says: Seek ye first the kingdom of God and all these things shall be added unto you. Peace

Been there, done that, nothing happened. Don't bother replying with anything along the lines of "Well, of course you didn't believe/didn't believe hard enough".

shaz90ish

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Been there, done that, nothing happened. Don't bother replying with anything along the lines of "Well, of course you didn't believe/didn't believe hard enough".

Well, he revealed himself to me