Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

TheLurker · 13-03-2015 04:34PM

orubiru wrote: »

I'm not sure it's a valid question here as anything that Jesus could do to convince me, well, Horus could also do that thing. So could Zeus. Or Thor.

The question is if these mythological figures can all convince you and they can all bring something convincing to the table. How can you tell which one is most real, or genuine or most convincing?

I know that being raised in a Catholic country means you might not even know to much about other Gods or other figures from history and by the time you are old enough to learn you might be leaning heavily one way or another.

I think you hit the nail on the head. Studies into religious distribution have shown than in the vast majority of cases people take up the religion most dominant in the region they live or are born.

Or to put it another way religious folk more often than not don't examine the different religions, they just default to the culture one they have the most contact with or is popular in their society.

There are exceptions of course (particularly when missionary forces are at play), but as a general rule this holds true over large population samples.

Cen taurus · 13-03-2015 04:44PM

orubiru wrote: »

I'm not sure it's a valid question here as anything that Jesus could do to convince me, well, Horus could also do that thing. So could Zeus. Or Thor.

The question is if these mythological figures can all convince you and they can all bring something convincing to the table. How can you tell which one is most real, or genuine or most convincing?

You're back to conflating myth again with the historicoty of Jesus, no serous scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus, and I'm not aware of any scholars that proposes Zues or Thor or Horus as anything other than myths.

orubiru wrote: »

I know that being raised in a Catholic country means you might not even know to much about other Gods or other figures from history and by the time you are old enough to learn you might be leaning heavily one way or another.

That would be a thinking error, and a false assumption.
I had a very normal Irish upbringing, and yet I heard of them all from a young age, I had a paticular intrest in Egyptian history as a child.

Cen taurus · 13-03-2015 04:47PM

TheLurker wrote: »

God?

I knew you would do this, I'm sorry I wasted my time. :mad:

Yep, you really are when you peddle any false claims about Christianity, that are based on any of the following : false assumptions, false premises, strawmen, misrepresentations, or any fallacies.

Got any that aren't ?

orubiru · 13-03-2015 05:02PM

Cen taurus wrote: »

You're back to conflating myth again with the historicoty of Jesus, no serous scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus, and I'm not aware of any scholars that proposes Zues or Thor or Horus as anything other than myths.

What about Joseph Smith then? As far as I know no scholars are denying the historicity of Joseph Smith.

Some 15 million people follow Mormonism. So, how were you able to choose between Mormonism and Catholicism?

TheLurker · 13-03-2015 05:03PM

Cen taurus wrote: »

Yep, you really are when you peddle any false claims about Christianity, that are based on any of the following : false assumptions, false premises, strawmen, misrepresentations, or any fallacies.

Name ONE. Name a single false claim, explain why it is false and what false assumption, premise, strawman, misrepresentation or fallacy I used.

But of course you won't. You never do.

You will claim you already did and then not be able to find the post where you did so.
You will claim I haven't supported my argument, and then ignore any support I give.
You will claim I'm using a fallacy and then refuse to point out where or explain how it is a fallacy.

This seems to be how you think debating works. Again I'm sorry I assumed you were genuinely asking questions for clarification or debate, rather than just wasting everyone's time.

Cen taurus · 13-03-2015 05:10PM

Cen taurus wrote: »

You've made a claim about Zeus and Christianity, are you going to back it up with anything ?

If someone uses false premises and logical fallacy in a claim or argument against theism, or christianity, and If they don't know what ad hominmen, or non sequitur means in terms of logical fallacies, then they should really look up such basic terms before constucting their arguments.

If you reformulate your argument, and have a go at removing the fallacies or false premises already identifed for you, I'll take a look at it again, and I'll even help you reformulate it so that it doesn't contain any fallacies or false premises I can identify, if I can think of a way of doing so.

It's good advice to check the premises of your argument, and check it against any of the lists of common fallacies are out there before you post it, that way you'll save yourself a lot of time and make a better argument.

TheLurker wrote: »

Name ONE. Name a single false claim, explain why it is false and what false assumption, premise, strawman, misrepresentation or fallacy I used.

But of course you won't. You never do.

You will claim you already did and then not be able to find the post where you did so.
You will claim I haven't supported my argument, and then ignore any support I give.
You will claim I'm using a fallacy and then refuse to point out where or explain how it is a fallacy.

This seems to be how you think debating works. Again I'm sorry I assumed you were genuinely asking questions for clarification or debate, rather than just wasting everyone's time.

I just did with your Zeus claim. All posts are available using the search function.

As for your other claim, I'll repost this again for you :

Cen taurus wrote: »

If someone uses false premises and logical fallacy in a claim or argument against theism, or christianity, and If they don't know what ad hominmen, or non sequitur means in terms of logical fallacies, then they should really look up such basic terms before constucting their arguments.

If you reformulate your argument, and have a go at removing the fallacies or false premises already identifed for you, I'll take a look at it again, and I'll even help you reformulate it so that it doesn't contain any fallacies or false premises I can identify, if I can think of a way of doing so.

It's good advice to check the premises of your argument, and check it against any of the lists of common fallacies are out there before you post it, that way you'll save yourself a lot of time and make a better argument.

orubiru · 13-03-2015 05:16PM

Cen taurus wrote: »

I just did with your Zeus claim. All posts are available using the search function.

As for your other claim, I'll repost this again for you :

Wait. What was the claim?

Can you summarise it?

orubiru · 13-03-2015 05:17PM

TheLurker wrote: »

Name ONE. Name a single false claim, explain why it is false and what false assumption, premise, strawman, misrepresentation or fallacy I used.

But of course you won't. You never do.

You will claim you already did and then not be able to find the post where you did so.
You will claim I haven't supported my argument, and then ignore any support I give.
You will claim I'm using a fallacy and then refuse to point out where or explain how it is a fallacy.

This seems to be how you think debating works. Again I'm sorry I assumed you were genuinely asking questions for clarification or debate, rather than just wasting everyone's time.

Nice prediction. Wanna start a religion?

TheLurker · 13-03-2015 05:18PM

Cen taurus wrote: »

I just did with your Zeus claim. All posts are available using the search function.

All of your objections were answered by me. I explained, in detail, that they were either irrelevant (example whether the death took place on a cross) or simply wrong (claiming the Greek gods were not ever born in human form)

You ignored the ENTIRE POST and just said it contained false claims, yet you didn't detail any of them. At all. Any of them

Cen taurus wrote: »

As for your other claim, I'll repost this again for you :

You have never shown where any fallacies exist in any of my posts. Ever. You have simply repeated ad nausum they do and ignored any and all requires to clarify where.

When I demand you back up your claim that said fallacies are present you do nothing but stall, obfuscate and evade.

Even by Christian apologetics standards your debating style is devoid of substance.

TheLurker · 13-03-2015 05:22PM

orubiru wrote: »

Nice prediction. Wanna start a religion?

My prediction came true, he told me to go use the search function. To find his own posts, posts he insist exist but no one can find. After I went to the trouble of complying sources for common knowledge about Greek mythology that he just ignored, he won't even bother to link to his own posts. A less charitable person might say it is because said posts don't exist and he knows it.

tommy2bad · 13-03-2015 05:46PM

orubiru wrote: »

What about Joseph Smith then? As far as I know no scholars are denying the historicity of Joseph Smith.

Some 15 million people follow Mormonism. So, how were you able to choose between Mormonism and Catholicism?

Scholars might be somewhat skeptical of the golden plates though!
Just to be clear, are you arguing for a non theistic view or just arguing against the anthropomorphic view of God?
A lot of the confusion aout what God is comes from the way He has been anthropomorphised. Even referring to it as 'He' is a form of this, forgetting how alien and different God must be. I can understand the need to 'put a handle' on the concept but it sell God short and confuses thinking about what God is. When Jesus said to call God Abba, father, it was not a description of what but how, how to relate to God.

orubiru · 13-03-2015 05:57PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

Scholars might be somewhat skeptical of the golden plates though!
Just to be clear, are you arguing for a non theistic view or just arguing against the anthropomorphic view of God?
A lot of the confusion aout what God is comes from the way He has been anthropomorphised. Even referring to it as 'He' is a form of this, forgetting how alien and different God must be. I can understand the need to 'put a handle' on the concept but it sell God short and confuses thinking about what God is. When Jesus said to call God Abba, father, it was not a description of what but how, how to relate to God.

I guess I am saying if someone believes in a specific "version" of God, Christianity for example, then what is the process behind saying "Jesus is the only way to God. Dismiss the others"?

Frank Bullitt · 13-03-2015 06:38PM

Let the Hitch step in. Any excuse to listen to the great man.

TheLurker · 13-03-2015 06:53PM

Depends on where you stand with the question of what God is. To an atheist God is is merely one of many supposed supernatural agents who work in nature along easy to understand and predict human like patterns.

A truly alien concept would hold little comfort to human brains. The anthropomorphisation of God is in fact the whole point, it is where God finds value as an explanation to us, it allows us to speculate answers to fundamental questions that we can relate to. We might not understand the technical details but we know God made the universe out of love. We might not understand the process involve but we know God created us for reasons we have children. And so on.

A truly alien concept, such as a Higgs Field fluctuation, holds little to no appeal as an answer to these questions. They are fundamentally unsatisfactory to the human brain precisely because they are so unreliable, so alien.

Cen taurus · 13-03-2015 07:20PM

TheLurker wrote: »

All of your objections were answered by me. I explained, in detail, that they were either irrelevant (example whether the death took place on a cross) or simply wrong (claiming the Greek gods were not ever born in human form)

You ignored the ENTIRE POST and just said it contained false claims, yet you didn't detail any of them. At all. Any of them

You have never shown where any fallacies exist in any of my posts. Ever. You have simply repeated ad nausum they do and ignored any and all requires to clarify where.

When I demand you back up your claim that said fallacies are present you do nothing but stall, obfuscate and evade.

Even by Christian apologetics standards your debating style is devoid of substance.

I've gone through them and detailed the errors, I don't have to keep doing so over and over.
If you can't handle fallacious arguments being criticised, then you should check your claims more carefully before you post them. I've invited you to reformulate them without the errors and try again if you wish, or if you or anyone else has any new arguments for atheism and/or against Christianity that does not contain false premises, fallacies, etc. post them up, and I'll take a look at them for you.

Cen taurus · 13-03-2015 07:22PM

orubiru wrote: »

Wait. What was the claim?

Can you summarise it?

Use the search function, I'm not here to retrieve posts for other people.
When he posts it again, I can re post my origional reply again, and we can keep doing that cycle over and over again every few days when he repeats his denials.

marienbad · 13-03-2015 07:32PM

Cen taurus wrote: »

I've gone through them and detailed the errors, I don't have to keep doing so over and over.
If you can't handle fallacious arguments being criticised, then you should check your claims more carefully before you post them. I've invited you to reformulate them without the errors and try again if you wish, or if you or anyone else has any new arguments for atheism and/or against Christianity that does not contain false premises, fallacies, etc. post them up, and I'll take a look at them for you.

The doubt is strong in this one

Cen taurus · 13-03-2015 07:44PM

marienbad wrote: »

The doubt is strong in this one

marienbad wrote: »

Grow up and stop blaming other for your doubts .

Oops. Freudian slip there again by marienbad, got any arguments yet ?

Frank Bullitt · 13-03-2015 07:49PM

Cen taurus wrote: »

Oops. Freudian slip there again by marienbad, got any arguments yet ?

There is the pot calling the kettle black if ever I saw it.

Cen taurus · 13-03-2015 07:53PM

Gintonious wrote: »

There is the pot calling the kettle black if ever I saw it.

I'm not the one making the claims. Have you got any ?

Frank Bullitt · 13-03-2015 07:55PM

Cen taurus wrote: »

I'm not the one making the claims. Have you got any ?

Are you not making the claim that god exists? Or that you believe in a god? Particularly the Christian god.

Cen taurus · 13-03-2015 08:01PM

Gintonious wrote: »

Are you not making the claim that god exists? Or that you believe in a god? Particularly the Christian god.

As I've already detailed on the thread, I believe God exists, I don't claim it.
Do you understand the difference between a belief and a claim ?
I also believe alien life exists as well, I don't claim it.

Frank Bullitt · 13-03-2015 08:06PM

Cen taurus wrote: »

As I've already detailed on the thread, I believe God exists, I don't claim it.
Do you understand the difference between a belief and a claim ?
I also believe alien life exists as well, I don't claim it.

That reads pretty vague to be honest.

You are saying you believe in a God, but not claiming that you believe in a God?

marienbad · 13-03-2015 08:12PM

Cen taurus wrote: »

Oops. Freudian slip there again by marienbad, got any arguments yet ?

The difference is I am comfortable with doubt .

Got any opinion yourself ?

marienbad · 13-03-2015 08:20PM

Cen taurus wrote: »

As I've already detailed on the thread, I believe God exists, I don't claim it.
Do you understand the difference between a belief and a claim ?
I also believe alien life exists as well, I don't claim it.

claim
kleɪm

1.
state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof. and

belief
bɪˈliːf/
noun
noun: belief; plural noun: beliefs

1.
an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.

hair splitting

Frank Bullitt · 13-03-2015 08:23PM

Another way of putting it would also be this, that what Cen Taurus is claiming/believing, is the exact same thing.

Existential claim - to claim belief in the existence of an entity or phenomenon in a general way with the implied need to justify its claim to existence. It is often used when the entity is not real, or its existence is in doubt. "He believes in witches and ghosts" or "many children believe in Santa Claus" or "I believe in a deity" are typical examples. The linguistic form is distinct from the assertion of the truth of a proposition since verification is either considered impossible/irrelevant or a counterfactual situation is assumed.

So while you are claiming that there is a difference between your belief and claim, there isn't.

Cen taurus · 13-03-2015 08:36PM

TheLurker wrote: »

Depends on where you stand with the question of what God is.

Not really, if God exists, he can exist whether people exist or not.

TheLurker wrote: »

To an atheist God is merely one of many supposed supernatural agents who work in nature along easy to understand and predict human like patterns.

I thought a core doctrine of atheism is that the only thing atheists have in common is that they lack belief. I'm not sure how you can claim to know the thinking of all atheists.

TheLurker wrote: »

A truly alien concept would hold little comfort to human brains.

What's comfort got to do with anything ?

TheLurker wrote: »

The anthropomorphisation of God is in fact the whole point, it is where God finds value as an explanation to us, it allows us to speculate answers to fundamental questions that we can relate to.

TheLurker wrote: »

We might not understand the technical details but we know God made the universe out of love.

Who claims this and where ?

TheLurker wrote: »

We might not understand the process involve but we know God created us for reasons we have children.

You do ? How do you know this ?

TheLurker wrote: »

A truly alien concept, such as a Higgs Field fluctuation, holds little to no appeal as an answer to these questions. They are fundamentally unsatisfactory to the human brain precisely because they are so unreliable, so alien.

What's alien about it ? It holds great appeal for anyone with an interest in theoretical Physics.

Cen taurus · 13-03-2015 08:38PM

Gintonious wrote: »

Another way of putting it would also be this, that what Cen Taurus is claiming/believing, is the exact same thing.

So while you are claiming that there is a difference between your belief and claim, there isn't.

That would be known as a straw man fallacy, it’s also directed yet again at the individual poster rather than the subject.

Many people believe there is probably alien life (life that has not originated on earth) out there somewhere, despite the fact no evidence for alien life has been found to date. This is not the same as claiming there is alien life. Believing that alien life exists, is not the same as claiming that it does exist. Atheists time and time again state that atheism is in fact agnostic atheism and means unbelief, rather than the claim God does not exist.

Frank Bullitt · 13-03-2015 08:40PM

Cen taurus wrote: »

That would be known as a straw man fallacy.

Really? Care to explain how?

This reads as a cop-out on your part.

Cen taurus · 13-03-2015 08:45PM

Gintonious wrote: »

Really? Care to explain how?

This reads as a cop-out on your part.

I already have, see post above. And my part has nothing to do with the difference between belief and claim.

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

Comments