Total Posts:75|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Atheist Delusion

Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 11:04:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Atheists will often say "we do not believe in God because there is no evidence for the existence of a divine being". "The wise man", wrote Hume, "proportions his beliefs to the evidence for them". This is a statement of a philosophy which is known as "evidentialism". Evidentialism holds that evidence must exist for all doxastic statements, such as "there is a God". This is all well and good, but what about the doxastic stance atheists take by saying that they disbelieve in God? This stance, no matter with what certainty it is assumed, also requires evidence for it.

If there is no evidence for the absence of God, the atheist is deluded. He has taken a stance contrary to his stated one about the matter of God existing.

Does this not make atheists as deluded as the theists they mock?

Think about it.
thett3
Posts: 14,349
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 11:20:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/4/2014 11:04:31 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheists will often say "we do not believe in God because there is no evidence for the existence of a divine being". "The wise man", wrote Hume, "proportions his beliefs to the evidence for them". This is a statement of a philosophy which is known as "evidentialism". Evidentialism holds that evidence must exist for all doxastic statements, such as "there is a God". This is all well and good, but what about the doxastic stance atheists take by saying that they disbelieve in God? This stance, no matter with what certainty it is assumed, also requires evidence for it.

If there is no evidence for the absence of God, the atheist is deluded. He has taken a stance contrary to his stated one about the matter of God existing.

Does this not make atheists as deluded as the theists they mock?

Think about it.

No, it really doesn't. The atheistic perspective is that there is no evidence God exists, so why would they believe in him? Very, very few atheists proclaim to be sure God does not exist, but rather they think there isn't enough evidence to make it likely so they reject the belief. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence as they say.

Naturally this comes across as thick headed to some actually religious people who feel the presence of the divine in their lives daily and don't feel that it's an extraordinary claim to believe in God at all. Atheists would say they're delusional. My personal view is it doesn't really matter. I believe in God and have felt his presence in my life, not in a "thett, I am God do x", but rather in more subtle ways and I don't really doubt that He is there, not anymore. Maybe I'm delusional. I don't really care. Ultimately our worldview is framed by involuntary perceptions we have that there are no way to prove, and we rationalize our belief from there. That's just the way of things.

I totally digressed there, but whatever
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
bulproof
Posts: 25,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 11:31:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
God/s is a claim made by men. No god has ever made that claim.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 12:57:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/4/2014 11:04:31 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheists will often say "we do not believe in God because there is no evidence for the existence of a divine being". "The wise man", wrote Hume, "proportions his beliefs to the evidence for them". This is a statement of a philosophy which is known as "evidentialism". Evidentialism holds that evidence must exist for all doxastic statements, such as "there is a God". This is all well and good, but what about the doxastic stance atheists take by saying that they disbelieve in God? This stance, no matter with what certainty it is assumed, also requires evidence for it.

If there is no evidence for the absence of God, the atheist is deluded. He has taken a stance contrary to his stated one about the matter of God existing.

Does this not make atheists as deluded as the theists they mock?

Think about it.

Some atheists do believe they have evidence against God. One example is the problem of evil. I am not one of them.

Atheism is when someone does not believing in God and lacking belief in God falls under it. You don't need evidence to lack belief, all you need is a lack of evidence for something to lack belief in it.

For example, if you are selling me a product and don't give me any evidence that it is superior to that of your competitors, I don't need any evidence that it is worse to simply say that I don't believe you when you say your product is better.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 4:22:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/4/2014 11:20:02 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/4/2014 11:04:31 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheists will often say "we do not believe in God because there is no evidence for the existence of a divine being". "The wise man", wrote Hume, "proportions his beliefs to the evidence for them". This is a statement of a philosophy which is known as "evidentialism". Evidentialism holds that evidence must exist for all doxastic statements, such as "there is a God". This is all well and good, but what about the doxastic stance atheists take by saying that they disbelieve in God? This stance, no matter with what certainty it is assumed, also requires evidence for it.

If there is no evidence for the absence of God, the atheist is deluded. He has taken a stance contrary to his stated one about the matter of God existing.

Does this not make atheists as deluded as the theists they mock?

Think about it.

No, it really doesn't. The atheistic perspective is that there is no evidence God exists, so why would they believe in him? Very, very few atheists proclaim to be sure God does not exist, but rather they think there isn't enough evidence to make it likely so they reject the belief. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence as they say.

Naturally this comes across as thick headed to some actually religious people who feel the presence of the divine in their lives daily and don't feel that it's an extraordinary claim to believe in God at all. Atheists would say they're delusional. My personal view is it doesn't really matter. I believe in God and have felt his presence in my life, not in a "thett, I am God do x", but rather in more subtle ways and I don't really doubt that He is there, not anymore. Maybe I'm delusional. I don't really care. Ultimately our worldview is framed by involuntary perceptions we have that there are no way to prove, and we rationalize our belief from there. That's just the way of things.

I totally digressed there, but whatever

So what exactly is it that you think drives religious people? Whom are often asked to produce evidence, and very often do - albeit with the INTELLECTUAL REQUIRED caveat that it is not conclusive - that we must relay of INDUCTIVE reasoning to make the case.

We have and entire field of Apologetics, with, admittedly, some cases better than others.

So how exactly do you:

a. Arrive at the conclusion that there is no God? Have you studied the entire field of Apologetics and found it ... utterly without evidence? Or do you merely disagree based on ... as the OP asks ... no evidence whatsoever?

b. What exactly do you think drives our faith? Do you think we do not understand what inductive reasoning is? How probability can inform a decision? That assumptions, which are used in planning, baed upon this preponderance of the evidence, is now somehow invalid?

All without evidence?

How does that work?
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 5:04:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/4/2014 11:04:31 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheists will often say "we do not believe in God because there is no evidence for the existence of a divine being". "The wise man", wrote Hume, "proportions his beliefs to the evidence for them". This is a statement of a philosophy which is known as "evidentialism". Evidentialism holds that evidence must exist for all doxastic statements, such as "there is a God". This is all well and good, but what about the doxastic stance atheists take by saying that they disbelieve in God? This stance, no matter with what certainty it is assumed, also requires evidence for it.

If there is no evidence for the absence of God, the atheist is deluded. He has taken a stance contrary to his stated one about the matter of God existing.

Does this not make atheists as deluded as the theists they mock?

Think about it.

No, because a lack of belief is not a doxastic position, it is the absence of a doxastic position. If I do not find any persuasive reason to believe there definitely is or is not a god, it is only rational to not believe there definitely is or isn't a god. By definition.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 8:16:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 5:04:44 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 4/4/2014 11:04:31 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheists will often say "we do not believe in God because there is no evidence for the existence of a divine being". "The wise man", wrote Hume, "proportions his beliefs to the evidence for them". This is a statement of a philosophy which is known as "evidentialism". Evidentialism holds that evidence must exist for all doxastic statements, such as "there is a God". This is all well and good, but what about the doxastic stance atheists take by saying that they disbelieve in God? This stance, no matter with what certainty it is assumed, also requires evidence for it.

If there is no evidence for the absence of God, the atheist is deluded. He has taken a stance contrary to his stated one about the matter of God existing.

Does this not make atheists as deluded as the theists they mock?

Think about it.

No, because a lack of belief is not a doxastic position, it is the absence of a doxastic position. If I do not find any persuasive reason to believe there definitely is or is not a god, it is only rational to not believe there definitely is or isn't a god. By definition.

So, if we tops out a term that is little used, THAT is the evidence of how much better our position is than yours?

In the modern age of google, however, that would be a very silly position to take:

"Doxastic logic is a modal logic concerned with reasoning about beliefs. The term doxastic derives from the ancient Greek ^8;a2;_8;^5;, doxa, which means "belief." Typically, a doxastic logic uses 'Bx' to mean "It is believed that x is the case," and the set \mathbb{B} denotes a set of beliefs. In doxastic logic, belief is treated as a modal operator."

Clearly, "it is believed they "no God" is the case," doesn't help your position.

It would indeed, as you atheist sdemand to be treated as fully rational, help, if you simply laid out your beliefs HONESTLY (really, who are you fooling? Its pretty obvious you guys don;t believe in God) and attempt dot support it with something that look alike evidence.

Pretending that a little used logical term, a form of modal logic, somehow, in and of itself, makes no God valid is ... not logical in the least.
bulproof
Posts: 25,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 8:36:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 8:16:12 AM, neutral wrote:
So, if we tops out a term that is little used, THAT is the evidence of how much better our position is than yours?

A string of words does not a sentence make. Oh the most intelligent person here, top 1%.
hahaha
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 11:14:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 8:36:24 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/5/2014 8:16:12 AM, neutral wrote:
So, if we tops out a term that is little used, THAT is the evidence of how much better our position is than yours?

A string of words does not a sentence make. Oh the most intelligent person here, top 1%.
hahaha

Actually, a string of words DOES make a sentence.

What does not make a logical claim would be assuming that, simply because someone is a Christian, they cannot write a sentence or that their IQ MUST be lower than yours?

That is called prejudice.

And generally speaking, bigotry is not a sustainable ideology.

You know, all black people are not dumber than you either?

All women are not dumber than you either?

All Asians are NOT better at math than you?

You see the trend?

What I see is a standard bigoted poster, who will attempt to twist someone faith into an insult, until he realizes that the person is indeed capable of defending himself from such abusive and irrational twists. Having failed, then tries anything, even the slightest bit of personal information and attempts poorly to twist that into a personal insult?

Do you really think my IQ changes because YOU want to accept it or not? Does anyones?

Is my world supposed to be rocked because YOU, in the throughs of animosity and bigotry, reject something plainly obvious?

So yes, you are doing an excellent job of demonstrating the delusions of modern atheism, and how bigoted people are apparently drifting toward atheism because they think somehow its valid expression?

Its just simple bigotry. Nothing more.

Intelligent people can see that. Easily.

I tell you want bul, any more attacks will simply be reported for the clear violation of the Forum's rules against Hate speech. Clear?
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 11:18:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/4/2014 11:04:31 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheists will often say "we do not believe in God because there is no evidence for the existence of a divine being". "The wise man", wrote Hume, "proportions his beliefs to the evidence for them". This is a statement of a philosophy which is known as "evidentialism". Evidentialism holds that evidence must exist for all doxastic statements, such as "there is a God". This is all well and good, but what about the doxastic stance atheists take by saying that they disbelieve in God? This stance, no matter with what certainty it is assumed, also requires evidence for it.

If there is no evidence for the absence of God, the atheist is deluded. He has taken a stance contrary to his stated one about the matter of God existing.

Does this not make atheists as deluded as the theists they mock?

Think about it.

do you think being skeptical is delusional
for instance...
a complete stranger offers to watch my child in their home while i work.
since there is no evidence of ill will, should i just take the strangers word for it...

atheists are consistent ...theist are not.
don't like it....tough
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
Charliecdubs
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 1:46:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think the person arguing against atheism is making a huge misunderstanding. Atheism can best be explained in this way. Picture a murder case in court. Someone is being tried for murder. Now the only two possibilities are that he (we'll use he) is either guilty or innocent of the crime. However all that is being decided is whether the claim he is guilty or not valid based on the evidence. It is never decided by the court that he is guilty or innocent just guilty or not guilty. This is the same with anyone who has a religion and wants to say it is true. The burden of proof is on the theist because they are making the claim "guilty". Atheism is the default position or the "not guilty". Atheism is not making a claim of any kind and has nothing to prove it is just the term we use to describe someone who is taking the default position. The theist however is responsible for bringing out the evidence because they are making the "guilty" claim. So in the simplest way theist has something to try to prove and atheist is seeing it as not proven. I feel this has been explained to you already though so I am not sure what you are still rambling about nor have you provided evidence to be disputed over.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 1:56:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/4/2014 11:31:10 PM, bulproof wrote:
God/s is a claim made by men. No god has ever made that claim.

That's assuming scriptures are false
SemperVI
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 2:22:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/4/2014 11:04:31 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheists will often say "we do not believe in God because there is no evidence for the existence of a divine being". "The wise man", wrote Hume, "proportions his beliefs to the evidence for them". This is a statement of a philosophy which is known as "evidentialism". Evidentialism holds that evidence must exist for all doxastic statements, such as "there is a God". This is all well and good, but what about the doxastic stance atheists take by saying that they disbelieve in God? This stance, no matter with what certainty it is assumed, also requires evidence for it.

If there is no evidence for the absence of God, the atheist is deluded. He has taken a stance contrary to his stated one about the matter of God existing.

Does this not make atheists as deluded as the theists they mock?

Think about it.

Installgentoo, what does it matter? What exactly is your point? What call to action is it - you are calling for? Should we lock them up? Perhaps make them wear clothing with a scarlet "A". Maybe we can send them to a reeducation camp so they think just like you. Oh no, wait - I know - lets sterilize them! After all - they are delusional according to your evidence .

Honestly -- at what point in your life did you decide an entire group of people who do not share the same belief system you do are delusional. Does a person who does not believe in God threaten you that much that you are compelled to label all of them in way that is not only presumptive, but petty. People enjoy life's journey from different vantage points, perspectives and paths. Accept the reality that not everyone will see things they way you do. Anything less is, well -- delusional.

Peace
Cocorico113
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 8:33:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 4:22:01 AM, neutral wrote:
At 4/4/2014 11:20:02 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/4/2014 11:04:31 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheists will often say "we do not believe in God because there is no evidence for the existence of a divine being". "The wise man", wrote Hume, "proportions his beliefs to the evidence for them". This is a statement of a philosophy which is known as "evidentialism". Evidentialism holds that evidence must exist for all doxastic statements, such as "there is a God". This is all well and good, but what about the doxastic stance atheists take by saying that they disbelieve in God? This stance, no matter with what certainty it is assumed, also requires evidence for it.

If there is no evidence for the absence of God, the atheist is deluded. He has taken a stance contrary to his stated one about the matter of God existing.

Does this not make atheists as deluded as the theists they mock?

Think about it.

No, it really doesn't. The atheistic perspective is that there is no evidence God exists, so why would they believe in him? Very, very few atheists proclaim to be sure God does not exist, but rather they think there isn't enough evidence to make it likely so they reject the belief. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence as they say.

Naturally this comes across as thick headed to some actually religious people who feel the presence of the divine in their lives daily and don't feel that it's an extraordinary claim to believe in God at all. Atheists would say they're delusional. My personal view is it doesn't really matter. I believe in God and have felt his presence in my life, not in a "thett, I am God do x", but rather in more subtle ways and I don't really doubt that He is there, not anymore. Maybe I'm delusional. I don't really care. Ultimately our worldview is framed by involuntary perceptions we have that there are no way to prove, and we rationalize our belief from there. That's just the way of things.

I totally digressed there, but whatever

So what exactly is it that you think drives religious people? Whom are often asked to produce evidence, and very often do - albeit with the INTELLECTUAL REQUIRED caveat that it is not conclusive - that we must relay of INDUCTIVE reasoning to make the case.

We have and entire field of Apologetics, with, admittedly, some cases better than others.

So how exactly do you:

a. Arrive at the conclusion that there is no God? Have you studied the entire field of Apologetics and found it ... utterly without evidence? Or do you merely disagree based on ... as the OP asks ... no evidence whatsoever?
An atheist disagrees with the theory of God because of a lack of evidence to support the belief. Simply stating that one must study the entire field of apologetics to understand God, is a clear indicator that your argument is lacking in evidence. I could state that you do not understand every atheist argument and have not correctly studied the theory of evolution or the big bang, leading your arguments therefore useless. This is not the case. One can argue for or against a point that is not completely and absolutely known them. Refer to Bertrand Russell's teapot analogy for further evidence.

b. What exactly do you think drives our faith? Do you think we do not understand what inductive reasoning is? How probability can inform a decision? That assumptions, which are used in planning, baed upon this preponderance of the evidence, is now somehow invalid?

All without evidence?
Many people that hold faith believe that the bible or other holy books are evidence and the truth, which is shown through the large portion of the population that believe in the story of Noah's ark. Religion is based on hope, that they are special and will be saved and people like to hope

How does that work?
bulproof
Posts: 25,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 9:42:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/6/2014 1:56:04 PM, stubs wrote:
At 4/4/2014 11:31:10 PM, bulproof wrote:
God/s is a claim made by men. No god has ever made that claim.

That's assuming scriptures are false

Not at all. Scriptures were written by men.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
bulproof
Posts: 25,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 9:45:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 11:14:35 AM, neutral wrote:
At 4/5/2014 8:36:24 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/5/2014 8:16:12 AM, neutral wrote:
So, if we tops out a term that is little used, THAT is the evidence of how much better our position is than yours?

A string of words does not a sentence make. Oh the most intelligent person here, top 1%.
hahaha

Actually, a string of words DOES make a sentence.

What does not make a logical claim would be assuming that, simply because someone is a Christian, they cannot write a sentence or that their IQ MUST be lower than yours?

That is called prejudice.

And generally speaking, bigotry is not a sustainable ideology.

You know, all black people are not dumber than you either?

All women are not dumber than you either?

All Asians are NOT better at math than you?

You see the trend?

What I see is a standard bigoted poster, who will attempt to twist someone faith into an insult, until he realizes that the person is indeed capable of defending himself from such abusive and irrational twists. Having failed, then tries anything, even the slightest bit of personal information and attempts poorly to twist that into a personal insult?

Do you really think my IQ changes because YOU want to accept it or not? Does anyones?

Is my world supposed to be rocked because YOU, in the throughs of animosity and bigotry, reject something plainly obvious?

So yes, you are doing an excellent job of demonstrating the delusions of modern atheism, and how bigoted people are apparently drifting toward atheism because they think somehow its valid expression?

Its just simple bigotry. Nothing more.

Intelligent people can see that. Easily.

I tell you want bul, any more attacks will simply be reported for the clear violation of the Forum's rules against Hate speech. Clear?
Are your posts meant to be threatening? hahahaha.......they aren't.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 1:48:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 4:22:01 AM, neutral wrote:
So how exactly do you:

a. Arrive at the conclusion that there is no God? Have you studied the entire field of Apologetics and found it ... utterly without evidence? Or do you merely disagree based on ... as the OP asks ... no evidence whatsoever?

Atheism isnt about arriving to the conclusion that there is no God.

A man comes up to you, out of the blue, and tells you that he is selling the cure for cancer in a bottle, all for a low low price of a thousand dollars a drop.

Do you buy it, or not?

Theists are the ones who buy it. Atheists are the ones who are skeptical, and do not buy it.

Instead, Atheists ask for evidence that the bottle can actually cure cancer.

b. What exactly do you think drives our faith? Do you think we do not understand what inductive reasoning is? How probability can inform a decision? That assumptions, which are used in planning, baed upon this preponderance of the evidence, is now somehow invalid?

All without evidence?

How does that work?

No one said you cant be a hypocrite. Thats the problem with the human mind, we tend to compartmentalize things. Despite what I said above, I have trusted and helped people out, and ended up being scammed out of my money. Humans arent robots. We arent perfectly rational, perfect reasonable beings.

But the difference between atheists and theists, is that most atheists strive to become as reasonable, rational, logical, as can be. I think you do understand probability, inductive reasoning, etc. But I also think that if we were to discuss this further, and I were to demonstrate how you were being irrational, unreasonable, etc, that you most likely wouldnt care.
bulproof
Posts: 25,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 3:29:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/7/2014 3:22:44 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 4/4/2014 11:31:10 PM, bulproof wrote:
God/s is a claim made by men.

Genetic fallacy. Yawn.

Genetically inferior. Oh dear.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 5:27:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/4/2014 11:04:31 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheists will often say "we do not believe in God because there is no evidence for the existence of a divine being". "The wise man", wrote Hume, "proportions his beliefs to the evidence for them". This is a statement of a philosophy which is known as "evidentialism". Evidentialism holds that evidence must exist for all doxastic statements, such as "there is a God". This is all well and good, but what about the doxastic stance atheists take by saying that they disbelieve in God? This stance, no matter with what certainty it is assumed, also requires evidence for it.

If there is no evidence for the absence of God, the atheist is deluded. He has taken a stance contrary to his stated one about the matter of God existing.

Does this not make atheists as deluded as the theists they mock?

Think about it.

If there is no evidence for either, then disbelief is the most rational stance.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 10:23:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/6/2014 9:42:16 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/6/2014 1:56:04 PM, stubs wrote:
At 4/4/2014 11:31:10 PM, bulproof wrote:
God/s is a claim made by men. No god has ever made that claim.

That's assuming scriptures are false

Not at all. Scriptures were written by men.

certainly physically written. No one is debating that.
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 10:27:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/7/2014 10:23:34 AM, stubs wrote:
At 4/6/2014 9:42:16 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/6/2014 1:56:04 PM, stubs wrote:
At 4/4/2014 11:31:10 PM, bulproof wrote:
God/s is a claim made by men. No god has ever made that claim.

That's assuming scriptures are false

Not at all. Scriptures were written by men.

certainly physically written. No one is debating that.

yet no god has ever spoken for itself.
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 10:29:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/7/2014 10:27:35 AM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/7/2014 10:23:34 AM, stubs wrote:
At 4/6/2014 9:42:16 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/6/2014 1:56:04 PM, stubs wrote:
At 4/4/2014 11:31:10 PM, bulproof wrote:
God/s is a claim made by men. No god has ever made that claim.

That's assuming scriptures are false

Not at all. Scriptures were written by men.

certainly physically written. No one is debating that.

yet no god has ever spoken for itself.

again, that is assuming the scriptures are false so you necessarily come to that conclusion, not by any deductive reasoning.
bulproof
Posts: 25,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 10:34:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/7/2014 10:29:03 AM, stubs wrote:
At 4/7/2014 10:27:35 AM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/7/2014 10:23:34 AM, stubs wrote:
At 4/6/2014 9:42:16 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/6/2014 1:56:04 PM, stubs wrote:
At 4/4/2014 11:31:10 PM, bulproof wrote:
God/s is a claim made by men. No god has ever made that claim.

That's assuming scriptures are false

Not at all. Scriptures were written by men.

certainly physically written. No one is debating that.

yet no god has ever spoken for itself.

again, that is assuming the scriptures are false so you necessarily come to that conclusion, not by any deductive reasoning.

All scriptures were written by men. Build a bridge and get over it.

None of the men who wrote those alleged scriptures ever claimed that the bible is the word of your god.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 10:40:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/7/2014 10:34:08 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/7/2014 10:29:03 AM, stubs wrote:
At 4/7/2014 10:27:35 AM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/7/2014 10:23:34 AM, stubs wrote:
At 4/6/2014 9:42:16 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/6/2014 1:56:04 PM, stubs wrote:
At 4/4/2014 11:31:10 PM, bulproof wrote:
God/s is a claim made by men. No god has ever made that claim.

That's assuming scriptures are false

Not at all. Scriptures were written by men.

certainly physically written. No one is debating that.

yet no god has ever spoken for itself.

again, that is assuming the scriptures are false so you necessarily come to that conclusion, not by any deductive reasoning.

All scriptures were written by men. Build a bridge and get over it.

lol

None of the men who wrote those alleged scriptures ever claimed that the bible is the word of your god.

You haven't read them have you?
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 10:43:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/7/2014 10:29:03 AM, stubs wrote:
At 4/7/2014 10:27:35 AM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/7/2014 10:23:34 AM, stubs wrote:
At 4/6/2014 9:42:16 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/6/2014 1:56:04 PM, stubs wrote:
At 4/4/2014 11:31:10 PM, bulproof wrote:
God/s is a claim made by men. No god has ever made that claim.

That's assuming scriptures are false

Not at all. Scriptures were written by men.

certainly physically written. No one is debating that.

yet no god has ever spoken for itself.

again, that is assuming the scriptures are false so you necessarily come to that conclusion, not by any deductive reasoning.
nope it's based on this several important facts...

there are many scriptures that exist all claiming the same thing yet they contradict one another...
considering these 3rd party revelations came from a time when people thought earthquakes, were a sign of god's wrath
or that a girl who didn't bleed on her wedding night (who so happen to not please her new husband) was to be stoned to death as the lack of blood is evidence for not being a virgin, let a lone the entire idea that sex (fornication) is a reason someone should be killed in the first place is also absolutely immoral... Deut. 22:13-21

so considering that alone...no the scriptures are a commentary of how an ignorant tribe of people who knew very little compared to what we now know about the macro and micro world...nothing more...
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 10:46:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I hold the position that there is evidence to demonstrate that God does in fact exist. But like all evidence you have to search for it and be open to it when's presented to you.

And so that's the burden a believer in God is stuck with . . . but that the atheist/agnostic must open himself up to when it's presented.

I already have tangible, irrefutable evidence that God exist. In fact, everyday I encounter this evidence.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 10:51:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Basically it comes down to this:

In order for a believer to demonstrate that God does is in fact exist he needs to present tangible evidence that shows irrefutably that God exist. But it also requires the atheist/agnostic to open himself up to this evidence, so that it can be evaluated.

What's obvious evidence to one person can only become obvious evidence to another person when the second person volunteerily permits himself to evaluate this evidence, without first shunning it. It requires an open mind.
bulproof
Posts: 25,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 10:54:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/7/2014 10:40:53 AM, stubs wrote:
At 4/7/2014 10:34:08 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/7/2014 10:29:03 AM, stubs wrote:
At 4/7/2014 10:27:35 AM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/7/2014 10:23:34 AM, stubs wrote:
At 4/6/2014 9:42:16 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/6/2014 1:56:04 PM, stubs wrote:
At 4/4/2014 11:31:10 PM, bulproof wrote:
God/s is a claim made by men. No god has ever made that claim.

That's assuming scriptures are false

Not at all. Scriptures were written by men.

certainly physically written. No one is debating that.

yet no god has ever spoken for itself.

again, that is assuming the scriptures are false so you necessarily come to that conclusion, not by any deductive reasoning.

All scriptures were written by men. Build a bridge and get over it.

lol

None of the men who wrote those alleged scriptures ever claimed that the bible is the word of your god.

You haven't read them have you?
Yes I have please prove my statement wrong.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 10:56:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Human stubborness is one of the reason why numerous people in the world are so blind to its truths. Both religious and non-religious people suffer from this biased way of thinking, and it stunts their intellectual growth and maturity.