TOUGH QUESTIONS

[AConcernedCitizen]

Would you say that you are agnostic on Santa Claus?

Of course. Aren't you?

From where would you get absolute knowledge of the nonexistence of Santa Claus? How would you go about proving his nonexistence? Can you prove a negative?

 

[Gordy327]

I do, but it's personal. Your declaration tat I have no personal experience is an article of your faith.

I didn't say you did not have "personal experience." I said your "experience" is subjective and anecdotal, which is not actual evidence for anything. It's no different when one "experiences" hallucinations while on a drug trip.

False.

No, true!

So it is "subjective and anecdotal"... but I don't have it? Do you see the fault in your logic?

Do you understand what subjective and anecdotal means?

So you have concluded there is no God and make a habit of telling everyone else that based on your experience we shouldn't believe in God either.... preach, Brother Gordy.

You like to put words in people's mouths, don't you? Which is as good as lying. I have said there is no evidence for a god. You have not demonstrated otherwise. Believe whatever you want. But belief does not equal fact. Hence, it's just a belief.

LOL. False. I mean, a few are, but none that you would listen to.

Here is a solid podcast hosted by a Christian where Christians and Atheists discuss the existence of God. Will you listen to it?

No. I've heard similar tripe before. It doesn't change the fact that atheists are simply not convinced there is a god. Especially since there is no evidence for any god.

I CAN refute it and I HAVE refuted it.

Only in your mind. Must be another "belief."

The Trichotomy of Theist/Agnostic/Atheist is a logical division of word with real meaning. Once you get into "Agnostic Atheist" and "Agnostic Theist" you've lost the plot and are ready for "Theistic Atheist" .... Which I guess is what Richard Dawkins is these days as a "Cultural Christian".

The terminologies have established definitons. You're attemot to make it proverbially black and white does not change that fact.

 

[jmotivator]

I didn't say you did not have "personal experience." I said your "experience" is subjective and anecdotal, which is not actual evidence for anything. It's no different when one "experiences" hallucinations while on a drug trip.

You still don't seem to grasp that your judgement of my persona experience can't be proven, so your position is an article of faith.

No, true!

Nope.

Do you understand what subjective and anecdotal means?

I do! Do you understand that neither undermined a statement of personal belief, nor prove a statemet of person experience meaningless?

You like to put words in people's mouths, don't you? Which is as good as lying. I have said there is no evidence for a god. You have not demonstrated otherwise. Believe whatever you want. But belief does not equal fact. Hence, it's just a belief.

I have never said that by beliefs aren't beliefs, I have said your beliefs are beliefs, not facts.

No. I've heard similar tripe before. It doesn't change the fact that atheists are simply not convinced there is a god. Especially since there is no evidence for any god.

Your statement is still false. an Atheist ("a"-absence of, "theist" - God/Gods) does not believe there is a God/Gods. A person who doesn't believe there is sufficient evidence for the existence of God/Gods is an Agnostic ("a" - absence, "gnostic" - knowledge).

If you don't believe there is sufficient evidence to prove the existence of God you are an agnostic.

If you don't believe there is a God for lack of evidence then you are an atheist, and you fail logic.

Only in your mind. Must be another "belief."

No, I wrote it out. You believe my arguments are false.

The terminologies have established definitons. You're attemot to make it proverbially black and white does not change that fact.

They do have established definitions, and I've presented them because that is what they mean.

 

[Gordy327]

You still don't seem to grasp that your judgement of my persona experience can't be proven, so your position is an article of faith.

Notice how I said belief does not equal fact. I know it cannot be proven. Which is why it can also be dismissed.

Nope.

Yep.

I do! Do you understand that neither undermined a statement of personal belief, nor prove a statemet of person experience meaningless?

Do you understand personal belief does not establish the validity of anything, especially any affirmative claims based on them?

I have never said that by beliefs aren't beliefs, I have said your beliefs are beliefs, not facts.

I made no mention of my beliefs.

Your statement is still false. an Atheist ("a"-absence of, "theist" - God/Gods) does not believe there is a God/Gods. A person who doesn't believe there is sufficient evidence for the existence of God/Gods is an Agnostic ("a" - absence, "gnostic" - knowledge).

If you don't believe there is sufficient evidence to prove the existence of God you are an agnostic.

Belief has nothing to do with it. There is simply no objective evidence for god, period.

If you don't believe there is a God for lack of evidence then you are an atheist, and you fail logic.

I have already said I am an atheist. I have no belief. What did you not understand about that?

No, I wrote it out. You believe my arguments are false.

More like flawed.

They do have established definitions, and I've presented them because that is what they mean.

Yet you still seem to confuse the distinction between the A/Gnostics side A/Theism.

 

[jmotivator]

Notice how I said belief does not equal fact. I know it cannot be proven. Which is why it can also be dismissed.

Again, your "dismissal" is an assertion of a fact that you can't prove. It is a matter of your faith that it isn't fact because you didn't experience it.

Do you understand personal belief does not establish the validity of anything, especially any affirmative claims based on them?

I'm not trying to establish the validity of God to you, Gordy. At some point I hope you figure that out... until then keep punching straw men.

I made no mention of my beliefs.

But you did. Your assessment of my personal experience is a judgement without access to the evidence, which makes your assessment a belief.

Belief has nothing to do with it. There is simply no objective evidence for god, period.

And so belief has everything to do with it. Unless you have no belief one way or the other, and then you are agnostic.

I have already said I am an atheist. I have no belief. What did you not understand about that?

You are an agnostic. It you are an atheist you and making a firm decision of something that you lack evidence of... which is illogical.

I'm trying to tell you that your position is logical but you aren't what you claim to be and you are insisting that you are in fact illoical.

You do you, I suppose.

More like flawed.

Not flawed. My augment is correct, and your argument for shades of gray is the argument of an agnostic. Atheists and Theists are certain of their position, agnostics aren't.

Yet you still seem to confuse the distinction between the A/Gnostics side A/Theism.

I don't confuse them, I statement them accurately based on the direct translation of the words.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

You are an agnostic. It you are an atheist you and making a firm decision of something that you lack evidence of... which is illogical.

In typing that, you gambled your very life on the nonexistence of a deadly curse cast upon your keyboard by a malicious fey. What evidence did you use in making the firm decision that there was no deadly curse cast upon your keyboard?

 

[jmotivator]

In typing that, you gambled your very life on the nonexistence of a deadly curse cast upon your keyboard by a malicious fey. What evidence did you use in making the firm decision that there was no deadly curse cast upon your keyboard?

Before we get to the rest of your question, what is it you think I am gambling away, exactly?

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Before we get to the rest of your question, what is it you think I am gambling away, exactly?

Your life, as I said. You risked death by deadly keyboard curse again just to ask me that question.

 

[jmotivator]

Your life, as I said. You risked death by deadly keyboard curse again just to ask me that question.

And what in my life am I losing. Do you think Christianity is killing me?

If you believe in keyboard curses then go for it.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

And what in my life am I losing. Do you think Christianity is killing me?

If you believe in keyboard curses then go for it.

I don't believe in keyboard curses. There isn't enough evidence for the existence of keyboard curses to compel me to believe in them.

My default position in regards to keyboard curses, leprechauns, extraterrestrial abductions, unicorns, etc. is strong disbelief, rather than this indecisive, even-odds approach that you seem to think agnosticism entails.

You appear to think it is "illogical" to treat a deadly curse on your keyboard as nonexistent just because there isn't any evidence for its existence. The agnostic position, according to your idea of agnosticism, would be to just say "I don't know whether there is a deadly curse on my keyboard or not."

 

[jmotivator]

I don't believe in keyboard curses. There isn't enough evidence for the existence of keyboard curses to compel me to believe in them.

My default position in regards to keyboard curses, leprechauns, extraterrestrial abductions, unicorns, etc. is strong disbelief, rather than this indecisive, even-odds approach that you seem to think agnosticism entails.

You appear to think it is "illogical" to treat a deadly curse on your keyboard as nonexistent just because there isn't any evidence for its existence. The agnostic position, according to your idea of agnosticism, would be to just say "I don't know whether there is a deadly curse on my keyboard or not."

That is a fine straw man, but that is not what I said agnosticism is. Agnosticism isn't "even odds", it is taking no position because you don't have any evidence either way.

While Gordy on this thread argues what is, in fact, agnosticism, regardless of what Gordy wants to be recognized as, what you represent is in fact real Atheism, which is unsupportable nonsense.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

That is a fine straw man, but that is not what I said agnosticism is. Agnosticism isn't "even odds", it is taking no position because you don't have any evidence either way.

While Gordy on this thread argues what is, in fact, agnosticism, regardless of what Gordy wants to be recognized as, what you represent is in fact real Atheism, which is unsupportable nonsense.

What does "taking no position" mean? You have no evidence either way when it comes to a deadly curse on your keyboard, yet you clearly have taking a strong position of disbelief.

If it is "unsupportable nonsense" to take a position of disbelief in God when one doesn't have any evidence either way, then it is likewise "unsupportable nonsense" to take a position of disbelief in Santa, leprechauns, extraterrestrial abductions, unicorns, and purple, lavender-scented fire-breathing dragons with pink polka dots.

 

[The Mark]

God never makes anyone gay. Gay comes from the very first sin, which is the sin of pride.

Atheism is a religion.

Are...are you just throwing out ancient troll comments from history?

 

[jmotivator]

What does "taking no position" mean? You have no evidence either way when it comes to a deadly curse on your keyboard, yet you clearly have taking a strong position of disbelief.

Nope. I've spent the rest of my entire life not having a position at all on keyboard curses and I still don't.

I am not rushing around to dissuade people from believing in a keyboard curse because I don't care. I only said anything about it because you brought it up, and I took no position on it.

If I was to approach the subject of keyboard curses like an Atheist approaches theism I would hover around boards discussing keyboard curses looking to argue with anyone who believes in keyboard curses while lying to everyone that I really have no position on the subject.

If it is "unsupportable nonsense" to take a position of disbelief in God when one doesn't have any evidence either way, then it is likewise "unsupportable nonsense" to take a position of disbelief in Santa, leprechauns, extraterrestrial abductions, unicorns, and purple, lavender-scented fire-breathing dragons with pink polka dots.

Logically you can't prove a negative. The proper way to approach any subject that you have no information on is to spend no time on it, much less arguing about it.

Also, interesting that you mention purple. Purple is not a wavelength of light, so it is not really a color. Purple is something we all experience individually and personally and have agreed on a name for it. Much like God is for those of us who have experience him, while someone who has never seen the color purple because they have colorblindness would point at the fact that purple isn't a wavelength of light as proof that purple doesn't exist.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Nope. I've spent the rest of my entire life not having a position at all on keyboard curses and I still don't.

I am not rushing around to dissuade people from believing in a keyboard curse because I don't care. I only said anything about it because you brought it up, and I took no position on it.

If I was to approach the subject of keyboard curses like an Atheist approaches theism I would hover around boards discussing keyboard curses looking to argue with anyone who believes in keyboard curses while lying to everyone that I really have no position on the subject.

Yet here you are, hovering around a board, arguing about keyboard curses, and lying to everyone that you really have no position on the subject.

 

[devildavid]

False. It has all of those things. It has sacred texts, it has faith revivals, it has preachers, it has apostates and it has articles of faith in the truth of an unprovable position.

Your hand waving dismissal is no more convincing than Gordy's



I can in fact point them out. I did so above.



So in your position Pastafarianism and Christianity are totally different because one is fake while the other is fake?



John Dunphy is no true Scotsman, eh?



I have a reason for my claim and I've provided them. This thread and subforum is full of examples of Atheist preachers.

You have presented no evidence of atheism having these things you claim it does.

No single persons views who identifies as an atheist change what atheism factually is. If a sports fan is an atheist, Ot doesn’t mean being a sports fan is part of atheism. If an atheist enjoys chocolate, it doesn’t mean enjoying chocolate is part of atheism.

 

[Luce]

Sure, sounds plausible. Which God are we talking about?

Better be Eris.

 

[Hari Seldon]

 

[Daisy]

View attachment 67548847

Um, yes they did have the concept of what is good and bad because God told them...obey the good that I tell you and live, disobey and die...

 

[tosca1]

If Jesus saved us on the cross, why do we still deal with the reality of living in a fallen world?

 

[poppopfox]

Um, yes they did have the concept of what is good and bad because God told them...obey the good that I tell you and live, disobey and die...

Why did "God" have to tell them? They couldn't figure it out for themselves like the Buddhists did?

The five precepts are the foundation of Buddhist ethics and are considered guidelines for Buddhists to follow:
Not killing
Buddhists should not injure or kill any living being, including animals. Many Buddhists choose to be vegetarian as a result.
Not stealing
Buddhists should not take what is not given to them.
Not misusing sex
Buddhists should abstain from unlawful sexual intercourse, including adultery and looking at people in a lustful way.
Not engaging in false speech
Buddhists should not lie or gossip about others, and should avoid wrong speech that can hurt others or taint their own souls.
Not indulging in intoxicants
Buddhists should avoid using drugs, alcohol, and other intoxicants that can cloud the mind and hinder enlightenment.

 

[tosca1]

Would you say that you are agnostic on Santa Claus?

Going along with the Santa Claus legend for the sake of tradition does not make you an agnostic on Santa Claus..............UNLESS.................

.........................you entertain the idea that this Santa Claus that comes every Christmas could be real.

 

[tosca1]

Why did "God" have to tell them? They couldn't figure it out for themselves like the Buddhists did?

The five precepts are the foundation of Buddhist ethics and are considered guidelines for Buddhists to follow:
Not killing
Buddhists should not injure or kill any living being, including animals. Many Buddhists choose to be vegetarian as a result.
Not stealing
Buddhists should not take what is not given to them.
Not misusing sex
Buddhists should abstain from unlawful sexual intercourse, including adultery and looking at people in a lustful way.
Not engaging in false speech
Buddhists should not lie or gossip about others, and should avoid wrong speech that can hurt others or taint their own souls.
Not indulging in intoxicants
Buddhists should avoid using drugs, alcohol, and other intoxicants that can cloud the mind and hinder enlightenment.

The Old Testament explains that God had created mankind in the image of GOD. That doesn't mean we look like GOD, since GOD is a spirit.
It's not about physical.












God’s likeness denotes our capacity to rule over creation and be in relationship with God and other humans and to exercise reason, intelligence, speech,
moral consciousness, creativity, rationality, and choice.
Since the beginning of time, God has desired to bless us and enjoy close fellowship with us, and for this reason He made us like Himself.

What does it mean when God said, “Let Us make man in Our image” (Genesis 1:26)? | GotQuestions.org

What does it mean when God said, “Let Us make man in Our image”? What is the meaning of Genesis 1:26?

www.gotquestions.org

Like I've said, our superiority over animals are even displayed more than ever, today!

 

[tosca1]

Why Did 3 Of the Gospel Writers Miss This Impact Event?​

The Gospel of Matthew records an incredible event that isn’t mentioned in the other gospels. If it really happened, why don’t the other gospel writers include it?

 

[tosca1]

Still on the earthquake:

Quake reveals day of Jesus' crucifixion, researchers believe​

Jesus, as described in the New Testament, was most likely crucified on Friday, April 3 in the year 33, geologists say. They base their conclusion on a review of seismic activity.

The latest investigation, reported in International Geology Review, focused on earthquake activity at the Dead Sea, located 13 miles from Jerusalem.
The Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 27, mentions that an earthquake coincided with the crucifixion:

“And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split and the tombs broke open.”

Quake reveals day of Jesus' crucifixion, researchers believe

Jesus, as described in the New Testament, was most likely crucified on Friday, April 3 in the year 33, geologists say. They base their conclusion on a review of seismic activity.

www.nbcnews.com

Secular Geologist, Jefferson Williams of Supersonic Geophysical, and colleagues Markus Schwab and Achim Brauer of the German Research Center for Geosciences, researched the Dead Sea and
revealed that at least two major earthquakes occurred: A widespread earthquake in 31 B.C. and a seismic event that happened sometime between the years 26 and 36.
Thus, this earthquake was clearly the one at Jesus' crucifixion.

Is There Historical Evidence for the Darkness & Earthquake at the Crucifixion?

www.christianevidence.net