• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:1396] Questions that atheists are afraid to answer

How does that make "more sense"??
Quantum physics is not considered moral and good. God is considered moral and good when the opposite is true. If more people read the Bible more people would realize it's a book of horrors. The Old Testament God bears little resemblance to the New Testament God.
 
That's right, all posted scripture must meet with your personal approval, recall how I was dragged over the coals by you for posting this recently (I was even publicly accused by you of being a misogynist simply because I posted something that you didn't like)

View attachment 67327236

These words have authority, these inspired epistles are the Word of God.
View attachment 67327258

That's the real reason my quoting Timothy upset you so much "it Judges the thoughts and attitudes" - your thoughts and attitudes; if you read something in scripture that upsets you then you must look inward, at yourself, not outward, not at me, not at others.
It doesnt bother me at all. I find it (the Timothy scripture) prehistoric and pathetic and it's illuminating that you rely on it as truth...and need to...to prop up your self esteem. Nothing in that scripture has affected my life...I've grown up in a time of enlightenment and equality for women.

That Timothy scripture only reinforced my frequent comments that the Bible was written by fallible men of the times 🤷 It's a perfect example. We all know that women are equal to men, in intellect especially.

The Word of God is active and alive, it is compassion, brotherly love, forgiveness, and peace. Nothing in that Timothy scripture had anything to do with that. It was the crippled view of a man that erroneously believed it.

LOL, so much for your rebuttal, it fails as well. Is it worse because it comes from a woman?
 
I wish people would actually think more about exactly what they write.

I have no idea what you mean by "objectively real" or "requires faith".

The term "faith" as I use it refers to trust, confidence and one must indeed have trust and confidence in something before one can depend on it for anything.

So to even claim something is objectively real absolutely requires one to trust some process or procedure to decide on whether something is real, one must trust oneself, one must trust one's own reasoning abilities.
faith
[ feyth ]SHOW IPA
noun
confidence or trust in a person or thing:

If something is real faith is unnecessary.

Faith is only required when trying to get people to believe in things that aren't true.
 
faith
[ feyth ]SHOW IPA
noun
confidence or trust in a person or thing:

If something is real faith is unnecessary.

Faith is only required when trying to get people to believe in things that aren't true.

Glib, that's all I get from that post, glibness.
 
I suppose that is one way to see this, but as an Agnostic/Atheist I simply accept that I do not "Know" something does not exist out there but absolutely know the Gods of men are not it.
But you are ignoring the definition of atheism.

Fact. You do not hold theistic beliefs. I.e. you are by definition an atheist.

Fact: you do not 'lack knowledge about theism.' You know lots about theism. You just dont buy it.

You are an atheist who wants to go the easy way, avoid argument, and say you are agnostic, when in actuality that is not true, you know plenty about theism, you don't believe it, and thus you lack theistic beliefs, which means you are an atheist not an agnostic.
 
But you are ignoring the definition of atheism.

Fact. You do not hold theistic beliefs. I.e. you are by definition an atheist.

Fact: you do not 'lack knowledge about theism.' You know lots about theism. You just dont buy it.

You are an atheist who wants to go the easy way, avoid argument, and say you are agnostic, when in actuality that is not true, you know plenty about theism, you don't believe it, and thus you lack theistic beliefs, which means you are an atheist not an agnostic.

The agnostic label does not apply to one's knowledge of theism but to whether one is confident that God exists.
 
Glib, that's all I get from that post, glibness.
But he isn't wrong. If something is true, that means it can be proven true. If something can be proven true, proof of its trueness exist. If proof of its trueness exists, then it is possible for us to find this proof and evaluate it, at which point the thing will have been proven true to us.

Therefore, it is unnecessary to believe in something without proof of its validity if it is true, because proof exists. That makes it very dubious if someone insists you believe something on faith alone. If it is true, as they are claiming, they should be able to prove it to you. So, why aren't they doing so?

Often it is because they do not possess proof of their claims, and thus do not know if what they are claiming is true. In other words, they're tricking you.
 
What does it matter whether something exists within one's imagination or on paper? they equally exist.
Often a million dollars exist in my imagination but not on paper. Since that doesn't matter I'm going shopping! Have my butler call my chauffeur. WOO HOO!
 
But he isn't wrong. If something is true, that means it can be proven true.

No it does not mean that, self evident truths are not proven, are not deduced from other facts or knowledge, for example "I exist" is obvious to you already, you do not have to go though some process of logical steps to prove to yourself that you exist.

If something can be proven true, proof of its trueness exist. If proof of its trueness exists, then it is possible for us to find this proof and evaluate it, at which point the thing will have been proven true to us.

There are true statements that cannot be proven to be true.

Therefore, it is unnecessary to believe in something without proof of its validity if it is true, because proof exists. That makes it very dubious if someone insists you believe something on faith alone. If it is true, as they are claiming, they should be able to prove it to you. So, why aren't they doing so?

What you choose to believe is your business, what justifications you find for your beliefs is your business, if you want "proof" then that's your choice, whatever serves as "proof" for you is your choice.

Often it is because they do not possess proof of their claims, and thus do not know if what they are claiming is true. In other words, they're tricking you.

I have no idea who you are referring to when you say "they do no possess proof", any claims or propositions that I make myself though are always justified, always rational, there's always a reason why I assert the things I do.
 
No it does not mean that.
1617834095990.png
The English word true is generally accepted to be synonymous with verifiable.
There are true statements that cannot be proven to be true.
Then how does one know the statement is true?
 
Often a million dollars exist in my imagination but not on paper. Since that doesn't matter I'm going shopping! Have my butler call my chauffeur. WOO HOO!

I never said that an imagined million dollars is the same as an actual million dollars, what I did say is that they are each real phenomenon, the act of imagining a million dollars is real, it really happens inside your mind.

Humans have the ability to imagine and without that ability we'd have none of the material wonders we all have and enjoy, human imagination, ingenuity is real, is necessary.
 
LMAO! Oh thank you! That's great! You are telling me to shut up (again) because I'm a woman and have made you look bad. Not only have I proven you wrong and pointed out your gross sin, I am a woman! You have been corrected and your sin brought to light by a woman! Sad but apparently this means you believe you are 'less than a woman,' since I've out-thought and out-taught you.
You-plural start from the a priori that anyone who rigorously defends theological truths ‘looks bad’, because such things are just not done in polite company. No one who does so starts from a point of ‘looking good’ therefore.

Note that I see nothing approaching ‘gross sin’ in anything SH says. And I admit to being confused by your constant references to Christian categories, even the use of the phrase Word of God, sin, and other terms that indicate some level of belief. Yet here you are working hand in hand with people who advocate an atheistic position. It really does not make sense.

Quite some time back I thought this was made clear: you obviously have no right and no authority to teach anyone anything about Christian ideas, Christian theology, and possibly Christian values. This is revealed by what you say. Non one condemned you, you self-condemned.

I would not ever tell you, or anyone, to *shut up*, and no one told you the same, but within Christian categories, which are agreed upon categories of value, you obviously are confused and mis-directed. If you ever did write out a complete idea — you never do — I am pretty sure the thinking-errors would manifest themselves, as they did just recenly with David.

I think this is a safe and a fair comment.

It is in no sense a sin to attempt to a) define solid theological values & truths, b) to define and then defend what is true against what is false, partially true or a lie — in fact very much the opposite. So it is very hard to know exactly how to act today When disbelief and open opposition/rebellion to some of the Christian mandates are so prevalent.

You are damned if you do & damned if you don’t! to put it colloquially.

But it is true that some people, for reasons that can be discovered, simply do not want to hear it and often will not hear it.

My final comment in regard to this is that Christianity represents a special category within all the religions we might name. It is unique, it is singular. And it merits, therefore, a special defense. But obviously I speak as a believer and one inclined to *traditional categories of understanding*.

I have read many of your posts and I see you as offering no substantial service to any Christian category, concept or notion that I can recognize.
 
You are telling me to shut up (again) because I'm a woman and have made you look bad.
I believe that I spoke to something that might come close to defining something important about *you* (not just you as a person but a wide group, a current of thought really, or a current of non-thought or even anti-thought) with what I’d written this AM:
If I said “People who should not be granted power to decide, are deciding” I would be accused of being anti-democratic (or seen as such). And if I then defined ‘higher realms of knowledge’ I would be accused of ‘arrogance’ and ‘hautiness’ — and here the power-dynamic issue would become (more) plain. (Because I do in fact believe this, and very strongly: the best of the best in our Civilization has always been defined by ‘masters’ — those who can and do devote themselves to a given category of knowledge).

So the crescendo I refer to is the ascent of those people, those persons, those groups, those factions, who rush forward boldly but unthinkingly to tear down and tear apart what they (genuinely) believe ‘must go!’ Must be removed! Must be toppled and trampled underfoot. It is like a cresting wave. The present destructive trends will go on until, at what point I am uncertain, an opposing force arrests them.
 
So you define yourself by what you don't believe in? Very odd.

I define myself by evidence--namely, LACK OF evidence for an entity called "God", so I then make the logical conclusion.
 
I define myself by evidence--namely, LACK OF evidence for an entity called "God", so I then make the logical conclusion.

Haha, ok. I don't see the point in bothering to define yourself by a lack of evidence in something that doesn't exist, but be my guest.
 
Just for fun.

How did Renee Descartes die?
 
You-plural start from the a priori that anyone who rigorously defends theological truths ‘looks bad’, because such things are just not done in polite company. No one who does so starts from a point of ‘looking good’ therefore.

Note that I see nothing approaching ‘gross sin’ in anything SH says. And I admit to being confused by your constant references to Christian categories, even the use of the phrase Word of God, sin, and other terms that indicate some level of belief. Yet here you are working hand in hand with people who advocate an atheistic position. It really does not make sense.

Quite some time back I thought this was made clear: you obviously have no right and no authority to teach anyone anything about Christian ideas, Christian theology, and possibly Christian values. This is revealed by what you say. Non one condemned you, you self-condemned.

I would not ever tell you, or anyone, to *shut up*, and no one told you the same, but within Christian categories, which are agreed upon categories of value, you obviously are confused and mis-directed. If you ever did write out a complete idea — you never do — I am pretty sure the thinking-errors would manifest themselves, as they did just recenly with David.

I think this is a safe and a fair comment.

It is in no sense a sin to attempt to a) define solid theological values & truths, b) to define and then defend what is true against what is false, partially true or a lie — in fact very much the opposite. So it is very hard to know exactly how to act today When disbelief and open opposition/rebellion to some of the Christian mandates are so prevalent.

You are damned if you do & damned if you don’t! to put it colloquially.

But it is true that some people, for reasons that can be discovered, simply do not want to hear it and often will not hear it.

My final comment in regard to this is that Christianity represents a special category within all the religions we might name. It is unique, it is singular. And it merits, therefore, a special defense. But obviously I speak as a believer and one inclined to *traditional categories of understanding*.

I have read many of your posts and I see you as offering no substantial service to any Christian category, concept or notion that I can recognize.
TL;dr :LOL: 🤗
 
I believe that I spoke to something that might come close to defining something important about *you* (not just you as a person but a wide group, a current of thought really, or a current of non-thought or even anti-thought) with what I’d written this AM:
I hit mumbo jumbo in the first sentence of your other quote and....forget it. More pretentious crap.

So the rest was TL;dr. 🤷

His misogyny is obvious and indefensible. If you are attempting to defend that...glad I'm not bothering.
 
Of course. I was going to include your likely response!

But none of it was written for you. It is about you!

Read or don’t read = it is all the same.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom