• 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

I'd appreciate it if you'd say a few nice words about Morti. Some say he is 'adorable', some that he is 'enlightened', and one among us declares that he is 'sweet'.

What statement will you make, Soylent Green?
You are a dishonest debater. Making claims of how good christianity has been for society while desperately ignoring any question that demonstrates the damage christianity has done. Again I ask you to be honest and deal with the question instead of ignoring it and hoping it goes away.
But that is not what is being discussed here. The problem of human harm-done is a human problem, not the problem of Christianity.

You need to find 'dishonesty' because that dishonesty is part of your a priori bias. All Christians and any believer is, by definition, dishonest. The honest person agrees with all your assertions and conclusions. It is all circular.
You really do not bother to think outside of your own space.
Actually this is not true. I fully and absolutely and thoroughly, with no doubt, understand what you(-plural) are on about. That in itself indicates thinking outside of my own space. I understand it, and I fundamentally disagree. That is different!
Examine your own need for a god.
There is an aspect where god, as you say, is 'needed'. But there is also, and definitely, a realm of intellectual ideation where God (and high metaphysics) is determined to be true, not asserted.

Morti knows of this. I hope that he will help you to realize the same. You cannot pray to Morti because he does not set himself up as 'god'. But you can communicate telepathically with him and he will, bless his caninity, respond as he responds to me and others.
 
I'd appreciate it if you'd say a few nice words about Morti. Some say he is 'adorable', some that he is 'enlightened', and one among us declares that he is 'sweet'.

What statement will you make, Soylent Green?

But that is not what is being discussed here. The problem of human harm-done is a human problem, not the problem of Christianity.

You need to find 'dishonesty' because that dishonesty is part of your a priori bias. All Christians and any believer is, by definition, dishonest.

Actually this is not true. I fully and absolutely and thoroughly, with no doubt, understand what you(-plural) are on about. That in itself indicates thinking outside of my own space. I understand it, and I fundamentally disagree. That is different!

There is an aspect where god, as you say, is 'needed'. But there is also, and definitely, a realm of intellectual ideation where God (and high metaphysics) is determined to be true, not asserted.

Morti knows of this. I hope that he will help you to realize the same.
You are dodging the issue. Sherlock made the claim that his misogynism comes from what the bible tells him. He quoted timothy. This is a problem of christianity made by humans. Which is what christianity is.

And no there is no intellectual ideation where God (and high metaphysics) is determined to be true. There are just bad arguments that have zero substance for a god. But again I understand. You are again being dishonest and trying to dodge the question. You make claims of all the good christianity has done but avoid all the bad it is still doing in todays world. The action of a hypocrite.
 
This is certainly a possibility, but I believe she has trapped herself into accepting my conclusion by typing her own words. I asked for clear and concise answers because by doing so it absolutely MUST end in what I stated.
I made a good faith effort last night to re-group and focus on something more succinct and straightforward.
We can’t merely insist that something is true because we wish it were.
Such as the existence of a god?

Agreed, there must be proof for others, for 'non-believers'. For the rest of us, there's faith.
It was not addressed directly. It seems that she wont face that mirror 🤷
 
I made a good faith effort last night to re-group and focus on something more succinct and straightforward.


It was not addressed directly. It seems that she wont face that mirror 🤷
Sadly that is how these discussions always end, I had hoped she was different but if wishes were horses.
 
Sadly that is how these discussions always end, I had hoped she was different but if wishes were horses.
Whatever happens don’t start sobbing helplessly.

End? Nothing ended. I understand your issues, your argument, and the reasons you hold to them. I see, clearly, how your conceptions functions — and I do not agree with your conclusions.

This is not dishonesty nor a failure to think or to reason.

The different outcome could only be if I came to this discussion with your conclusions already established.
 
Whatever happens don’t start sobbing helplessly.

End? Nothing ended. I understand your issues, your argument, and the reasons you hold to them. I see, clearly, how your conceptions functions — and I do not agree with your conclusions.

This is not dishonesty nor a failure to think or to reason.

The different outcome could only be if I came to this discussion with your conclusions already established.
Actually the outcome was and is that you stated for all to see, repeatedly that your God is a manmade concept and then claimed you did not do so. we at least got you to admit to it but not to understand why we all do not get why you worship this false God. This lack of accountability to rational thought underlies the reasons you (plural) are not taken seriously. Now, even after being called out for it you continue to struggle for relevance in this discussion which is not flattering which is why I recommended you quit while behind. At this point all you are accomplishing is digging the hole deeper.
 
Actually the outcome was and is that you stated for all to see, repeatedly that your God is a manmade concept and then claimed you did not do so. we at least got you to admit to it but not to understand why we all do not get why you worship this false God. This lack of accountability to rational thought underlies the reasons you (plural) are not taken seriously. Now, even after being called out for it you continue to struggle for relevance in this discussion which is not flattering which is why I recommended you quit while behind. At this point all you are accomplishing is digging the hole deeper.
Your concern is quite touching. ;)

No, all concepts are man-made, and by definition only perceivable within the biological-mechanical mechanism of entities like us, with these characteristics and limitations. For this reason impressions come from outside and, as is obvious and logical, are received by our awareness and translated into 'conceptions'. This is of course true for strict material phenomena. I did not say, and I do not believe, that what we refer to by the word 'God' is made-up in the way you have determined. The determination you make, through I do grasp the logical train of thought, is an incomplete perception. And behind that incomplete perception is an adamant will that has decided to, shall we say, go no further and to do no more work. So with this I point to a failure on your part, and I express this not so much with a sense of blame but rather with the understanding that this is, in fact, the farthest you can go, at least right now.

I do admit, for it is an unavoidable 'first principle' of my understanding, that faced with a person, and some people, who reason as you do and within limited, constrained channels or along determines lines, that any sort of 'proof' is impossible. And in truth I can say that I understand why you can go no further and will go no further.

There is a great deal in our world -- in conventional opinion, in assertions by powerful intellects, and as well by a culture that seeks to get out from certain *constraints* insisted on by Christian theological principles -- that supports the view that you have. Honestly, I do not think I would call you dishonest. But I am uncertain if there is, or if there is not, a moral responsibility that you incur through your denial and negation. But this denial and negation occurs on an inner plane and in relation to those things that had been described as 'transcendental' and also supra-physical by serious theology for a great long time. And it is true that the first 'road' and the first 'avenue' to association with God -- this according to all mystics and all religious, and even Kierkegaard who coined the term 'leap of faith' -- is a movement within the soul that has been given the term 'faith'.
 
[cont. from previous]

This is where I stand in relation to everything discussed in this thread so far. I accept that I cannot present you with the 'proof' you are adamantly convinced does not, and cannot, exist in reality. But I am not perturbed and in no sense have I 'failed' nor failed in the argument that I set out to develop and the principles that I sincerely defend.

I know that all of these problems -- these problems that you stumble over, yet with some justification given the intensity of the cultural counter-argument and opposition to 'God' -- I know that great minds have discursively worked out these problems. But since their arguments, these argumentsI refer to, have not been necessary in my own case I have not bothered to investigate them. But I certainly will. And I will *report my findings*.

Will any of this convince any of you? Very doubtful. Will you be moved in any sense to grasp with more depth and sensitivity the nature of the problem (as Nietzsche defined it) of 'the death of God' and its effect in man, in you of course, in us, and in culture and civilization? Based on what I have read here so far, I do doubt it.

I am not in any sense bothered, distressed and certainly not *saddened* with any of the feigned emotion you have spoken of. My object was and still is to 'defend the conceptual pathway to divinity'. Obviously, given my stated values, to fail in relation to this task would be a sin. But when I say 'sin' I mean if I were to cease to defend the belief that I have, if you will permit me to say it like this, earned. It is also an obligation entered into.

Faith is a gift and (obviously) a part of Grace. It was always defined this way and the messenger of this truth was the figure of Jesus Christ in the Gospels. That is the entire meaning of the story in fact! Inadvertently you bring this all out into the open. And this is a *good*.

But these are Christian categories . . . and you are definitely not Christians, according to your own negations. That possibility never closes though. It simply never does.
At this point all you are accomplishing is digging the hole deeper.
I accept that you are certain about this . . .
 
Last edited:
Your concern is quite touching. ;)

No, all concepts are man-made, and by definition only perceivable within the biological-mechanical mechanism of entities like us, with these characteristics and limitations. For this reason impressions come from outside and, as is obvious and logical, are received by our awareness and translated into 'conceptions'. This is of course true for strict material phenomena. I did not say, and I do not believe, that what we refer to by the word 'God' is made-up in the way you have determined. The determination you make, through I do grasp the logical train of thought, is an incomplete perception. And behind that incomplete perception is an adamant will that has decided to, shall we say, go no further and to do no more work. So with this I point to a failure on your part, and I express this not so much with a sense of blame but rather with the understanding that this is, in fact, the farthest you can go, at least right now.

I do admit, for it is an unavoidable 'first principle' of my understanding, that faced with a person, and some people, who reason as you do and within limited, constrained channels or along determines lines, that any sort of 'proof' is impossible. And in truth I can say that I understand why you can go no further and will go no further.

There is a great deal in our world -- in conventional opinion, in assertions by powerful intellects, and as well by a culture that seeks to get out from certain *constraints* insisted on by Christian theological principles -- that supports the view that you have. Honestly, I do not think I would call you dishonest. But I am uncertain if there is, or if there is not, a moral responsibility that you incur through your denial and negation. But this denial and negation occurs on an inner plane and in relation to those things that had been described as 'transcendental' and also supra-physical by serious theology for a great long time. And it is true that the first 'road' and the first 'avenue' to association with God -- this according to all mystics and all religious, and even Kierkegaard who coined the term 'leap of faith' -- is a movement within the soul that has been given the term 'faith'.
Okay, I believe we are done here as nothing more will be accomplished in discussion. You have your beliefs and I have mine, yours are faith based and ephemeral while mine require rational explanation and data. I appreciate your input and honesty in reply as it is rare.
 
Okay, I believe we are done here . . .
Oh no, I have only just begun. But what I mean is the *project* that I define is one of a lifetime. It never ends. I still have to look into those discursive ‘proofs’ I mentioned.

But I will not quibble with your personal closing statement.

Thank you as well.
 
Your concern is quite touching. ;)

No, all concepts are man-made, and by definition only perceivable within the biological-mechanical mechanism of entities like us, with these characteristics and limitations.

Or, you could have just said, "by us".

You love to hear the sound of your own voice (in the digital sense). That's why I won't engage with you.
 
Or, you could have just said, "by us".

You love to hear the sound of your own voice (in the digital sense). That's why I won't engage with you.
Did you ever see a movie or play called "Steel Magnolias?" There's a line I love in that movie, "an ounce of pretension is worth a pound of manure." It's a great play on words of the old medical cliche.
 
Claims of contradictions are not evidence of contradictions.

They most certainly are. That fact that you refuse to accept that speaks volumes about you.

The bible is held out as the infallible word of god, yet god constantly contradicts himself.

Even if that were not so, documents are testimonial evidence. How is it you're "Sherlock Holmes" but don't understand that?

The testimonial evidence conflicts. Period.

This god-thing can't even get the genealogy of Joseph right. Luke and Matthew have Joseph descending through two different sons of Solomon.

Rather odd, considering Jesus was alleged to be immaculately conceived.

Of course, the whole point of the lies and deception is to convince people that Jesus is somehow descended of David.

That's odder still, considering that Ephraim is the rightful heir of Israel and not Judah.
 
How does any of the above serve to show that God does not exist, that the scripture was not inspired by God?

Then by your own admission, your god misleads people.

it seems like just another example of the genetic fallacy - that how a belief arose shows that the belief is not true.

Your position is fallacious, because you reject other gods without any logical basis for doing so.

Your position is also sheer tautology.

You reject the premise of Erra and the Howling Wind (Erra is the name of Ninurta/El Shaddai in the Mitanni language), which is that Sodom, Gomorrah and the cities of the plain were destroyed because the son of a particular god had his armies based there and was preparing to launch an attack, yet you accept the premise of the Hebrews who plagiarized the text and change it into a morality play.
 
They most certainly are. That fact that you refuse to accept that speaks volumes about you.

Accept what? your speculative claim that what you decide is a contradiction is a true contradiction? your opinions are your opinions just as mine are mine.

The bible is held out as the infallible word of god, yet god constantly contradicts himself.

The Bible is held out as being full of contradictions, yet it is actually the word of God.

Even if that were not so, documents are testimonial evidence. How is it you're "Sherlock Holmes" but don't understand that?

The testimonial evidence conflicts. Period.

We have what we have, if your way of dealing with God's word is to fabricate claims of it being littered, swamped in contradictions and then by extension reject it because contradictory documents cannot contain truth, then do so, that's your line of reasoning and fine, it isn't mine.

This god-thing can't even get the genealogy of Joseph right. Luke and Matthew have Joseph descending through two different sons of Solomon.

Seriously? are you actually that naive?

Rather odd, considering Jesus was alleged to be immaculately conceived.

The term "immaculate" with respect to conception has never been anything to do with Christ's conception, your lack of familiarity with the whole subject is now starting to speak volumes about you.

Of course, the whole point of the lies and deception is to convince people that Jesus is somehow descended of David.

You'll need to show evidence, solid evidence to support the belief you have of "lies and deception" regarding the genealogies.

That's odder still, considering that Ephraim is the rightful heir of Israel and not Judah.

One thing at a time eh.
 
Last edited:
Then by your own admission, your god misleads people.

And? so what?

Your position is fallacious, because you reject other gods without any logical basis for doing so.

Enough generalities, enough insinuation what exactly did I say that you disagree with?

Your position is also sheer tautology.

You reject the premise of Erra and the Howling Wind (Erra is the name of Ninurta/El Shaddai in the Mitanni language), which is that Sodom, Gomorrah and the cities of the plain were destroyed because the son of a particular god had his armies based there and was preparing to launch an attack, yet you accept the premise of the Hebrews who plagiarized the text and change it into a morality play.

You'll have to forgive me, but where did I express a rejection of the "premise of Erra and the..."?

Seems the only erras here are all yours.
 
Accept what? your speculative claim that what you decide is a contradiction is a true contradiction? your opinions are your opinions just as mine are mine.



The Bible is held out as being full of contradictions, yet it is actually the word of God.



We have what we have, if your way of dealing with God's word is to fabricate claims of it being littered, swamped in contradictions and then by extension reject it because contradictory documents cannot contain truth, then do so, that's your line of reasoning and fine, it isn't mine.



Seriously? are you actually that naive?



The term "immaculate" with respect to conception has never been anything to do with Christ's conception, your lack of familiarity with the whole subject is now starting to show.



You'll need to show evidence, solid evidence to support the belief you have of "lies and deception" regarding the genealogies.



One thing at a time eh.

“The Word of God”. *L*. Such an imagination!
 
“The Word of God”. *L*. Such an imagination!



That's a little bit different from your usual.
I can just imagine........you must be getting quite tired too, of blurting out the same old lines!

You were beginning to sound like a broken record.
 
Okay, I believe we are done here as nothing more will be accomplished in discussion. You have your beliefs and I have mine, yours are faith based and ephemeral while mine require rational explanation and data. I appreciate your input and honesty in reply as it is rare.

Faith in the Abrahamic God, is also backed by logic.
That's easily proven. All you have to do is listen to faithful Philosophers.

Lol - it seems only yesterday that Dawkins had abandoned his book, The God Delusion - to be shredded by WLCraig - page by page.
Dawkins knew he cannot stand by, and defend his own book.



 
Faith in the Abrahamic God, is also backed by logic.
That's easily proven. All you have to do is listen to faithful Philosophers.

Lol - it seems only yesterday that Dawkins had abandoned his book, The God Delusion - to be shredded by WLCraig - page by page.
Dawkins knew he cannot stand by, and defend his own book.

Faith in god is not backed by any form of logic, but by logical fallacies.
 
Faith in the Abrahamic God, is also backed by logic.
That's easily proven. All you have to do is listen to faithful Philosophers.

Lol - it seems only yesterday that Dawkins had abandoned his book, The God Delusion - to be shredded by WLCraig - page by page.
Dawkins knew he cannot stand by, and defend his own book.





Craig would wipe his feet on Dawkins much as I do to Devildavid quite regularly.
 
Back
Top Bottom