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

[bongsaway]

LOL. So, show me your BEST ONE EXAMPLE (only 1, your BEST ONE EXAMPLE) of a fictitious person, place, or event in the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). Cite the pertinent scripture(s), provide your evidence and/or argument, and make your case.

Let's see that bad boy.

Can you explain to me how a man lived in the belly of a fish for three days?

 

[Lursa]

I have nothing more to say to you, this conversation can serve no purpose.

No worries. You have zero proof that God exists and in this response , this entire thread, you fail Him. Clearly and pathetically.

You refused to answer my questions directly and honestly and finally ran out of road. You bring shame to Christianity, I certainly hope that you are not a Christian.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I dont think you understand why it is up to you to answer these questions
Hint it has to do with logic

It is up to me to start a thread of my choosing with an intent of my choosing to purses questions of my choosing.

That you feel entitled to interpret this as an opportunity to attack me for asking uncomfortable questions is irrelevant to me, it is a diversionary tactic, it is just another way for an atheist to avoid answering questions, based on the entitled belief that atheists are exempt from having to justify their position.

All propositions require support, whether it be "God exists" or "There's no evidence for God" the atheist no less accountable for their beliefs than the theist.

I've made my point, the thread is a public record of how this progressed and serves as an excellent example of why I regard atheism as vacuous, good afternoon.

 

[bongsaway]

It is up to me to start a thread of my choosing with an intent of my choosing to purses questions of my choosing.

That you feel entitled to interpret this as an opportunity to attack me for asking uncomfortable questions is irrelevant to me, it is a diversionary tactic, it is just another way for an atheist to avoid answering questions, based on the entitled belief that atheists are exempt from having to justify their position.

All propositions require support, whether it be "God exists" or "There's no evidence for God" the atheist no less accountable for their beliefs than the theist.

I've made my point, the thread is a public record of how this progressed and serves as an excellent example of why I regard atheism as vacuous, good afternoon.

Your thread is your opinion of atheists that you try desperately to push on us non believers. In my opinion there is no god and none of the people who believe in a god have proven there is. Who on herer has actually seen and spoken to and got responses from their christian god?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

No worries. You have zero proof that God exists and in this response , this entire thread, you fail Him. Clearly and pathetically.

You refused to answer my questions directly and honestly and finally ran out of road. You bring shame to Christianity, I certainly hope that you are not a Christian.

You know what you remind me of:

 

[nota bene]

It is up to me to start a thread of my choosing with an intent of my choosing to purses questions of my choosing.

That you feel entitled to interpret this as an opportunity to attack me for asking uncomfortable questions is irrelevant to me, it is a diversionary tactic, it is just another way for an atheist to avoid answering questions, based on the entitled belief that atheists are exempt from having to justify their position.

All propositions require support, whether it be "God exists" or "There's no evidence for God" the atheist no less accountable for their beliefs than the theist.

I've made my point, the thread is a public record of how this progressed and serves as an excellent example of why I regard atheism as vacuous, good afternoon.

You are entitled, of course, to begin a thread on a topic and with an intent of your choosing. But you begin by begging the question in your thread title.

In Post #3 Redress said, "Not being a theist does not require being an anti-theist" and asked why he should care. There doesn't seem to be any fear being expressed here, only a lack of interest.

 

[Quag]

It is up to me to start a thread of my choosing with an intent of my choosing to purses questions of my choosing.

That you feel entitled to interpret this as an opportunity to attack me for asking uncomfortable questions is irrelevant to me, it is a diversionary tactic, it is just another way for an atheist to avoid answering questions, based on the entitled belief that atheists are exempt from having to justify their position.

All propositions require support, whether it be "God exists" or "There's no evidence for God" the atheist no less accountable for their beliefs than the theist.

I've made my point, the thread is a public record of how this progressed and serves as an excellent example of why I regard atheism as vacuous, good afternoon.

You can start the thread (heck you can start one about why gizmits are superior to whatzits if you want) but logically it is those claiming God exists that must answer those questions.
The only point you have made is that you fail to comprehend that the burden of proof remains with the one claiming God exists, ie you
Now you can either try to prove God exists or by refusing admit you cannot.

 

[Lursa]

You know what you remind me of:

View attachment 67324164

You know what you remind me of? 250+ responses of failure to uphold any proof of God. Defeat and shame in the face of His Name. It appears you are a Christian from the use of that scripture, and that shames the Holy Spirit. You were afraid to stand up and proclaim His Name and the proof of His Existence. Instead of trying to lead non-believers to Him, you sought to exalt your own pride in doing the opposite, shaming them...and not only that...you FAILED!

You got some repenten' to do.

 

[lwf]

Why? how did you establish which of these is the more probable?

Again you are attributing probabilities to things but how? what are you doing to say X is more probable than Y? this is particularly important when dealing with things we can't test, can't try and experiment with, without data you can't get statistics and without statistics you can't calculate probabilities.

Ditto.

Because it requires fewer suppositions. "Just the way things are" requires only one leap of faith and asks only one question. An intelligent creator requires many leaps of faith and creates more questions than it answers.

 

[Daisy]

Because it requires fewer suppositions. "Just the way things are" requires only one leap of faith and asks only one question. An intelligent creator requires many leaps of faith and creates more questions than it answers.

I prefer that to atheism, which leaves many questions unanswered...at least God answers the pertinent questions...

 

[lwf]

I prefer that to atheism, which leaves many questions unanswered...at least God answers the pertinent questions...

Fair enough.

 

[Buckeyes85]

You can start the thread (heck you can start one about why gizmits are superior to whatzits if you want) but logically it is those claiming God exists that must answer those questions.
The only point you have made is that you fail to comprehend that the burden of proof remains with the one claiming God exists, ie you
Now you can either try to prove God exists or by refusing admit you cannot.

Uncomfortable question that I doubt you can answer as to why gizmits are supposedly superior to watzits. I am convinced you are wrong. Prove me wrong

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

You know what you remind me of? 250+ responses of failure to uphold any proof of God. Defeat and shame in the face of His Name. It appears you are a Christian from the use of that scripture, and that shames the Holy Spirit. You were afraid to stand up and proclaim His Name and the proof of His Existence. Instead of trying to lead non-believers to Him, you sought to exalt your own pride in doing the opposite, shaming them...and not only that...you FAILED!

You got some repenten' to do.

 

[watsup]

View attachment 67324171

To paraphrase: why don you criticize the booger in your brother's nose and pay no attention to the booger hanging out of your own nose?

 

[Mircea]

1. What is your process for evaluating evidence for God?

Investigatory comparative analysis.

2. Do you even have a process for evaluating such evidence?

Yes.

3. Are you willing to tell me, to describe this process?

Yes. I did location blocking in all four gospels. That is, where (what location) was Jesus, then where did he go next. That was followed by companion blocking, that is, who was Jesus with when he was at those locations, and then action blocking, meaning what was Jesus saying/doing at those locations with those people.

That led to the discovery of 100s of conflicts and contradictions.

As a prosecutor, I could not put Matthew, Mark, Luke or John on the witness stand, because their testimonies conflict heavily.

They can't even agree on the day Jesus was crucified.

I did a comparative analysis of the Hebrew texts.

About 90% of the first 19 Chapters of Genesis were not written by the Hebrews. Those stories are poorly plagiarized copies of much older stories written by older civilizations. They were altered to fit the then-existing political and social conditions in the Hebrew kingdoms.

The Book of Job was originally written by the Sumerians, as evidenced by the 32 different Sumerian-Akkadian loanwords in the text.

Psalms, Proverbs and Lamentations are all poorly plagiarized copies of Ugaritic texts.

The transition from polytheism -- the worship of a pantheon of gods -- to henotheism -- the elevation of one god in a pantheon above the others -- to monolatry -- the worship of one god to the exclusion of all other gods -- is well evidenced.

Sorry, the Hebrews are not monotheists, and by extension, neither are x-tians. They are monolatrists.

It is also painfully clear that it is Ephraim who is the true and rightful heir to Israel and not Judah. However, certain persons, namely the Aaronid Priesthood who are secondary to the Mosaic Priesthood -- want you to believe otherwise. That would be part of the political and social thing I mentioned.

4. If not why? why are you unwilling to describe a process yet eager for me to describe my evidence?

I already have.

5. How can you claim you've never seen evidence for God when you do not have any way to evaluate evidence for God?

It is clear from the texts that god(s) were created by humans for humans, and in particular for certain humans to be elevated above other humans to lord over them (no pun intended).

6 . Can you reassure me that you don't intend to reject anything and everything that I might show to you as evidence?

All you got is a nothing-burger.

I've tried, I've asked several and all I get is evasion, waffling, prevarication.

What does it reveal to us when the atheist refuses to answer these? what can we infer from their stubborn refusals?

I put it to you that this means that these atheists actually already believe there is no God, they falsely claim to "withhold" belief because they want to masquerade as being rational, they do not want to admit that deep in their hearts they are convinced there is no God.

So when an atheist asks for evidence beware, they have no intention of honestly evaluating evidence, that's all just part of their game, their real process is to simply reject whatever is shown them, no need to evaluate when they already believe (but won't admit) that there is no God.

This is good old fashioned atheism: "an explicit belief that no gods exist" yet they are afraid too to even admit that and be honest.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Arlette]

Evidence for who? I certainly don't have evidence for atheists because whatever is shown them, no matter what it may be, is rejected.

I'm just gonna guess you saw God in a potato chip?

 

[Lursa]

View attachment 67324171

Heh, I was pointing out your failings to our Lord....I see they found their target. Of course I sin...we all do. What is your point?

What I see now, is a poster who's own words failed...as he failed to exalt and honor Our Lord...and now falls back onto the comfort of His Word. Good idea.

"You know what you remind me of? 250+ responses of failure to uphold any proof of God. Defeat and shame in the face of His Name. It appears you are a Christian from the use of that scripture, and that shames the Holy Spirit. You were afraid to stand up and proclaim His Name and the proof of His Existence. Instead of trying to lead non-believers to Him, you sought to exalt your own pride in doing the opposite, shaming them...and not only that...you FAILED! ​

​

You got some repenten' to do. "​

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Investigatory comparative analysis.

Was that process one of these:

Yes. I did location blocking in all four gospels. That is, where (what location) was Jesus, then where did he go next. That was followed by companion blocking, that is, who was Jesus with when he was at those locations, and then action blocking, meaning what was Jesus saying/doing at those locations with those people.

That led to the discovery of 100s of conflicts and contradictions.

As a prosecutor, I could not put Matthew, Mark, Luke or John on the witness stand, because their testimonies conflict heavily.

They can't even agree on the day Jesus was crucified.

I did a comparative analysis of the Hebrew texts.

About 90% of the first 19 Chapters of Genesis were not written by the Hebrews. Those stories are poorly plagiarized copies of much older stories written by older civilizations. They were altered to fit the then-existing political and social conditions in the Hebrew kingdoms.

The Book of Job was originally written by the Sumerians, as evidenced by the 32 different Sumerian-Akkadian loanwords in the text.

Psalms, Proverbs and Lamentations are all poorly plagiarized copies of Ugaritic texts.

The transition from polytheism -- the worship of a pantheon of gods -- to henotheism -- the elevation of one god in a pantheon above the others -- to monolatry -- the worship of one god to the exclusion of all other gods -- is well evidenced.

Sorry, the Hebrews are not monotheists, and by extension, neither are x-tians. They are monolatrists.

It is also painfully clear that it is Ephraim who is the true and rightful heir to Israel and not Judah. However, certain persons, namely the Aaronid Priesthood who are secondary to the Mosaic Priesthood -- want you to believe otherwise. That would be part of the political and social thing I mentioned.

So what exactly was the proposition you were investigating? did someone hand you a Bible and say it was evidence for God? or was something else going on? I'm just trying to get a context for what you're saying here.

 

[Arlette]

I plan to present nothing to anyone who has no ability to comprehend it, which is pretty much most atheists.

They ask only so they can reject, that is their modus operandi.

IOW, only a believer in Unicorns can prove that Unicorns exist. Atheists couldn't comprehend the evidence.
Lol, but whatever floats your boat

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

IOW, only a believer in Unicorns can prove that Unicorns exist. Atheists couldn't comprehend the evidence.
Lol, but whatever floats your boat

Why is the possibility that atheists do not know what to look for such a big deal for you? I was once an atheist and an outspoken one at that, I know of what I speak.

 

[Lursa]

Why is the possibility that atheists do not know what to look for such a big deal for you? I was once an atheist and an outspoken one at that, I know of what I speak.

Still waiting for those examples.

 

[HonestJoe]

The process doesn't work, it is irrational, does that matter to you?

Why do you say that? What is your process for evaluating the rationality of my process?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Heh, I was pointing out your failings to our Lord....I see they found their target. Of course I sin...we all do. What is your point?

What I see now, is a poster who's own words failed...as he failed to exalt and honor Our Lord...and now falls back onto the comfort of His Word. Good idea.

"You know what you remind me of? 250+ responses of failure to uphold any proof of God. Defeat and shame in the face of His Name. It appears you are a Christian from the use of that scripture, and that shames the Holy Spirit. You were afraid to stand up and proclaim His Name and the proof of His Existence. Instead of trying to lead non-believers to Him, you sought to exalt your own pride in doing the opposite, shaming them...and not only that...you FAILED! ​

​

You got some repenten' to do. "​

It seems you've understood none of what I've said in this thread, you have misconstrued, your own prejudices have been your guide, your own nature has blinded you and you have accused me.

The point you have missed is that the we - each of us - are the judges of evidence, we each form a judgement about God's existence in different ways, using different means, different reasoning, different arguments.

The way to evaluate evidence for God is to examine ourselves, our deepest held beliefs, our own nature, ego, character, why do we think what we think, it is self examination, reflection that leads to recognition of evidence for God.

By asking the atheist what I did it emphasizes the need to look inwards, inside our own nature to understand, if one cannot explain why one really does something, then one cannot understand truth because one cannot see truth.

Yet you stand there as a self appointed representative of God, you are no better than anyone else, no better that then the Pharisees, if you cannot see that you are not a Christian.

 

[watsup]

It seems you've understood none of what I've said in this thread, you have misconstrued, your own prejudices have been your guide, your own nature has blinded you and you have accused me.

The point you have missed is that the we - each of us - are the judges of evidence, we each form a judgement about God's existence in different ways, using different means, different reasoning, different arguments.

The way to evaluate evidence for God is to examine ourselves, our deepest held beliefs, our own nature, ego, character, why do we think what we think, it is self examination, reflection that leads to recognition of evidence for God.

By asking the atheist what I did it emphasizes the need to look inwards, inside our own nature to understand, if one cannot explain why one really does something, then one cannot understand truth because one cannot see truth.

Yet you stand there as a self appointed representative of God, you are no better than anyone else, no better that then the Pharisees, if you cannot see that you are not a Christian.

Sunday sermon.

 

[Lursa]

You know what you remind me of? 250+ responses of failure to uphold any proof of God. Defeat and shame in the face of His Name. It appears you are a Christian from the use of that scripture, and that shames the Holy Spirit. You were afraid to stand up and proclaim His Name and the proof of His Existence. Instead of trying to lead non-believers to Him, you sought to exalt your own pride in doing the opposite, shaming them...and not only that...you FAILED!

You got some repenten' to do.

It seems you've understood none of what I've said in this thread, you have misconstrued, your own prejudices have been your guide, your own nature has blinded you and you have accused me.

The point you have missed is that the we - each of us - are the judges of evidence, we each form a judgement about God's existence in different ways, using different means, different reasoning, different arguments.

The way to evaluate evidence for God is to examine ourselves, our deepest held beliefs, our own nature, ego, character, why do we think what we think, it is self examination, reflection that leads to recognition of evidence for God.

By asking the atheist what I did it emphasizes the need to look inwards, inside our own nature to understand, if one cannot explain why one really does something, then one cannot understand truth because one cannot see truth.

Yet you stand there as a self appointed representative of God, you are no better than anyone else, no better that then the Pharisees, if you cannot see that you are not a Christian.

TL;dr

My post calling you out for disappointing God stands.

Where are the examples I've asked for so many times during this thread? Why havent you been able to answer it in order to move the discussion forward?

What is vacuous is requesting evidence yet having no idea what do with it.

Please give me examples.