Total Posts:114|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Excusing bad parts of your holy book.

corporealbeing
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 5:45:27 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
I am wondering what people think about this: Is excusing bad parts of your holy book (Bible, Tanakh, Qur'an) by presenting alternative translations okay? If so, how can you tell which translation is more correct?

And if the alternative translations were correct, would that even matter? Everyone else is following the mainstream translation.

I have been debating this guy who keeps referring me to other translations of passages in the Torah. It didn't matter, because most of the verses were identical to the mainstream translations. However, I want to know how others feel about this issue.
Thomistic_Calvinist
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 5:55:08 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/3/2016 5:45:27 PM, corporealbeing wrote:
I am wondering what people think about this: Is excusing bad parts of your holy book (Bible, Tanakh, Qur'an) by presenting alternative translations okay? If so, how can you tell which translation is more correct?

And if the alternative translations were correct, would that even matter? Everyone else is following the mainstream translation.

I have been debating this guy who keeps referring me to other translations of passages in the Torah. It didn't matter, because most of the verses were identical to the mainstream translations. However, I want to know how others feel about this issue.

I would disagree with the idea. It seems more like a cop out, because the whole point of theodicy is to offer a justification of the ways of God. I would rather sit down with someone than to have them weasel around the hard parts.
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 3:18:28 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
There is no need to excuse anything. What is being documented here is the history of a relationship. It's very important.

In Christian theology, to really get the full impact of what Jesus did, you need to study the Old Testament with an impartial mind.

If you are judging whether or not certain things are distasteful, you are missing the point. This is a people's relationship with God, and through this, God is revealed.

Scripture is not an idol to be worshiped as God. It is a finger pointing at the moon.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
ViceRegent
Posts: 606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 11:42:59 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/3/2016 5:45:27 PM, corporealbeing wrote:
I am wondering what people think about this: Is excusing bad parts of your holy book (Bible, Tanakh, Qur'an) by presenting alternative translations okay? If so, how can you tell which translation is more correct?

And if the alternative translations were correct, would that even matter? Everyone else is following the mainstream translation.

I have been debating this guy who keeps referring me to other translations of passages in the Torah. It didn't matter, because most of the verses were identical to the mainstream translations. However, I want to know how others feel about this issue.

Where do you get this silly idea that there are "bad" parts of the Bible? Who are you to impose your meaningless, subjective morality on God?
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 12:28:39 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 11:42:59 AM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 6/3/2016 5:45:27 PM, corporealbeing wrote:
I am wondering what people think about this: Is excusing bad parts of your holy book (Bible, Tanakh, Qur'an) by presenting alternative translations okay? If so, how can you tell which translation is more correct?

And if the alternative translations were correct, would that even matter? Everyone else is following the mainstream translation.

I have been debating this guy who keeps referring me to other translations of passages in the Torah. It didn't matter, because most of the verses were identical to the mainstream translations. However, I want to know how others feel about this issue.

Where do you get this silly idea that there are "bad" parts of the Bible? Who are you to impose your meaningless, subjective morality on God?

Steggsy and his imaginary friend believe genocide is good.
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 1:18:26 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 11:42:59 AM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 6/3/2016 5:45:27 PM, corporealbeing wrote:
I am wondering what people think about this: Is excusing bad parts of your holy book (Bible, Tanakh, Qur'an) by presenting alternative translations okay? If so, how can you tell which translation is more correct?

And if the alternative translations were correct, would that even matter? Everyone else is following the mainstream translation.

I have been debating this guy who keeps referring me to other translations of passages in the Torah. It didn't matter, because most of the verses were identical to the mainstream translations. However, I want to know how others feel about this issue.

Where do you get this silly idea that there are "bad" parts of the Bible? Who are you to impose your meaningless, subjective morality on God?

He might impose his meaningful, objective morality derived from God if only God existed to provide it. Lol.
ViceRegent
Posts: 606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 1:20:18 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 1:18:26 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/5/2016 11:42:59 AM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 6/3/2016 5:45:27 PM, corporealbeing wrote:
I am wondering what people think about this: Is excusing bad parts of your holy book (Bible, Tanakh, Qur'an) by presenting alternative translations okay? If so, how can you tell which translation is more correct?

And if the alternative translations were correct, would that even matter? Everyone else is following the mainstream translation.

I have been debating this guy who keeps referring me to other translations of passages in the Torah. It didn't matter, because most of the verses were identical to the mainstream translations. However, I want to know how others feel about this issue.

Where do you get this silly idea that there are "bad" parts of the Bible? Who are you to impose your meaningless, subjective morality on God?

He might impose his meaningful, objective morality derived from God if only God existed to provide it. Lol.

God does not exist? Prove it?
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 1:28:59 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 1:20:18 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 6/5/2016 1:18:26 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/5/2016 11:42:59 AM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 6/3/2016 5:45:27 PM, corporealbeing wrote:
I am wondering what people think about this: Is excusing bad parts of your holy book (Bible, Tanakh, Qur'an) by presenting alternative translations okay? If so, how can you tell which translation is more correct?

And if the alternative translations were correct, would that even matter? Everyone else is following the mainstream translation.

I have been debating this guy who keeps referring me to other translations of passages in the Torah. It didn't matter, because most of the verses were identical to the mainstream translations. However, I want to know how others feel about this issue.

Where do you get this silly idea that there are "bad" parts of the Bible? Who are you to impose your meaningless, subjective morality on God?

He might impose his meaningful, objective morality derived from God if only God existed to provide it. Lol.

God does not exist? Prove it?

Way to miss the point but I'll play anyway (even though I don't have the burden proof).

P1: if an entity is made of something then it is contingent on that something.
P2: God is defined as not contingent (dependent) on anything.
C: God is not made of something.

It trivially follows that God is literally made of nothing and therefore doesn't exist.

Any questions?
ViceRegent
Posts: 606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 1:43:37 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 1:28:59 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/5/2016 1:20:18 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 6/5/2016 1:18:26 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/5/2016 11:42:59 AM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 6/3/2016 5:45:27 PM, corporealbeing wrote:
I am wondering what people think about this: Is excusing bad parts of your holy book (Bible, Tanakh, Qur'an) by presenting alternative translations okay? If so, how can you tell which translation is more correct?

And if the alternative translations were correct, would that even matter? Everyone else is following the mainstream translation.

I have been debating this guy who keeps referring me to other translations of passages in the Torah. It didn't matter, because most of the verses were identical to the mainstream translations. However, I want to know how others feel about this issue.

Where do you get this silly idea that there are "bad" parts of the Bible? Who are you to impose your meaningless, subjective morality on God?

He might impose his meaningful, objective morality derived from God if only God existed to provide it. Lol.

God does not exist? Prove it?

Way to miss the point but I'll play anyway (even though I don't have the burden proof).

P1: if an entity is made of something then it is contingent on that something.
P2: God is defined as not contingent (dependent) on anything.
C: God is not made of something.

It trivially follows that God is literally made of nothing and therefore doesn't exist.

Let us play the game of "Who can spot the most logical fallacies?"

I will start with affirming the consequent fallacy.

P1: If it is raining, the mailman delivers the mail.
P2: The mailman did not deliver the mail.
C: It is not raining.

Who is next?

No, seriously, prove God does not exist and this time without logical fallacies.
bulproof
Posts: 25,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 2:21:16 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 11:42:59 AM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 6/3/2016 5:45:27 PM, corporealbeing wrote:
I am wondering what people think about this: Is excusing bad parts of your holy book (Bible, Tanakh, Qur'an) by presenting alternative translations okay? If so, how can you tell which translation is more correct?

And if the alternative translations were correct, would that even matter? Everyone else is following the mainstream translation.

I have been debating this guy who keeps referring me to other translations of passages in the Torah. It didn't matter, because most of the verses were identical to the mainstream translations. However, I want to know how others feel about this issue.

Where do you get this silly idea that there are "bad" parts of the Bible? Who are you to impose your meaningless, subjective morality on God?

Are you claiming that every word in the bible is true and inspired of god?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
keithprosser
Posts: 2,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 2:25:57 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Are there any good examples of different translations actually mattering all that much? I I don't think any significant translation exists that changes the meaning of a passage to the opposite... with the possible exception of the 'Wicked Bible' which renders the 6th commandment as 'Thou shalt commit adultery'!
https://en.wikipedia.org...
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 4:28:46 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 1:43:37 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 6/5/2016 1:28:59 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/5/2016 1:20:18 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 6/5/2016 1:18:26 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/5/2016 11:42:59 AM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 6/3/2016 5:45:27 PM, corporealbeing wrote:
I am wondering what people think about this: Is excusing bad parts of your holy book (Bible, Tanakh, Qur'an) by presenting alternative translations okay? If so, how can you tell which translation is more correct?

And if the alternative translations were correct, would that even matter? Everyone else is following the mainstream translation.

I have been debating this guy who keeps referring me to other translations of passages in the Torah. It didn't matter, because most of the verses were identical to the mainstream translations. However, I want to know how others feel about this issue.

Where do you get this silly idea that there are "bad" parts of the Bible? Who are you to impose your meaningless, subjective morality on God?

He might impose his meaningful, objective morality derived from God if only God existed to provide it. Lol.

God does not exist? Prove it?

Way to miss the point but I'll play anyway (even though I don't have the burden proof).

P1: if an entity is made of something then it is contingent on that something.
P2: God is defined as not contingent (dependent) on anything.
C: God is not made of something.

It trivially follows that God is literally made of nothing and therefore doesn't exist.

Let us play the game of "Who can spot the most logical fallacies?"

I will start with affirming the consequent fallacy.

P1: If it is raining, the mailman delivers the mail.
P2: The mailman did not deliver the mail.
C: It is not raining.

Who is next?

No, seriously, prove God does not exist and this time without logical fallacies.

Firstly, the above does not even make sense in real life.

Secondly, it is not affirming the consequent. This is:

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Thirdly, if you read the article carefully my inference is perfectly valid:

To put it differently, if P implies Q, the only inference that can be made is non-Q implies non-P. (Non-P and non-Q designate the opposite propositions to P and Q.) This is known as logical contraposition.

An example of affirming the consequent:

If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then he is rich.
Bill Gates is rich.
Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.

Owning Fort Knox is not the only way to be rich. Any number of other ways exist to be rich.

However, one can affirm with certainty that "if Bill Gates is not rich" (non-Q) then "Bill Gates does not own Fort Knox" (non-P). This is the contrapositive of the first statement, and it must be true if and only if the original statement is true.


Now that we have that out of the way, you have your proof of the non-existence of God. There is no logical fallacy. Any more questions?
ViceRegent
Posts: 606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 5:07:13 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 4:28:46 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/5/2016 1:43:37 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 6/5/2016 1:28:59 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/5/2016 1:20:18 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 6/5/2016 1:18:26 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/5/2016 11:42:59 AM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 6/3/2016 5:45:27 PM, corporealbeing wrote:
I am wondering what people think about this: Is excusing bad parts of your holy book (Bible, Tanakh, Qur'an) by presenting alternative translations okay? If so, how can you tell which translation is more correct?

And if the alternative translations were correct, would that even matter? Everyone else is following the mainstream translation.

I have been debating this guy who keeps referring me to other translations of passages in the Torah. It didn't matter, because most of the verses were identical to the mainstream translations. However, I want to know how others feel about this issue.

Where do you get this silly idea that there are "bad" parts of the Bible? Who are you to impose your meaningless, subjective morality on God?

He might impose his meaningful, objective morality derived from God if only God existed to provide it. Lol.

God does not exist? Prove it?

Way to miss the point but I'll play anyway (even though I don't have the burden proof).

P1: if an entity is made of something then it is contingent on that something.
P2: God is defined as not contingent (dependent) on anything.
C: God is not made of something.

It trivially follows that God is literally made of nothing and therefore doesn't exist.

Let us play the game of "Who can spot the most logical fallacies?"

I will start with affirming the consequent fallacy.

P1: If it is raining, the mailman delivers the mail.
P2: The mailman did not deliver the mail.
C: It is not raining.

Who is next?

No, seriously, prove God does not exist and this time without logical fallacies.

Firstly, the above does not even make sense in real life.

Secondly, it is not affirming the consequent. This is:

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Thirdly, if you read the article carefully my inference is perfectly valid:

To put it differently, if P implies Q, the only inference that can be made is non-Q implies non-P. (Non-P and non-Q designate the opposite propositions to P and Q.) This is known as logical contraposition.

An example of affirming the consequent:

If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then he is rich.
Bill Gates is rich.
Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.

Owning Fort Knox is not the only way to be rich. Any number of other ways exist to be rich.

However, one can affirm with certainty that "if Bill Gates is not rich" (non-Q) then "Bill Gates does not own Fort Knox" (non-P). This is the contrapositive of the first statement, and it must be true if and only if the original statement is true.


Now that we have that out of the way, you have your proof of the non-existence of God. There is no logical fallacy. Any more questions?

Dude, I am not interested in your irrational defense of your irrational argument. I want your proof that God does not exist. Put up or shut up.
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 5:14:17 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 11:42:59 AM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 6/3/2016 5:45:27 PM, corporealbeing wrote:
I am wondering what people think about this: Is excusing bad parts of your holy book (Bible, Tanakh, Qur'an) by presenting alternative translations okay? If so, how can you tell which translation is more correct?

And if the alternative translations were correct, would that even matter? Everyone else is following the mainstream translation.

I have been debating this guy who keeps referring me to other translations of passages in the Torah. It didn't matter, because most of the verses were identical to the mainstream translations. However, I want to know how others feel about this issue.

Where do you get this silly idea that there are "bad" parts of the Bible? Who are you to impose your meaningless, subjective morality on God?

Why do you approve of genocide, vicey?
missmedic
Posts: 388
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 5:27:01 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 5:07:13 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 6/5/2016 4:28:46 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/5/2016 1:43:37 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 6/5/2016 1:28:59 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/5/2016 1:20:18 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 6/5/2016 1:18:26 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/5/2016 11:42:59 AM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 6/3/2016 5:45:27 PM, corporealbeing wrote:
I am wondering what people think about this: Is excusing bad parts of your holy book (Bible, Tanakh, Qur'an) by presenting alternative translations okay? If so, how can you tell which translation is more correct?

And if the alternative translations were correct, would that even matter? Everyone else is following the mainstream translation.

I have been debating this guy who keeps referring me to other translations of passages in the Torah. It didn't matter, because most of the verses were identical to the mainstream translations. However, I want to know how others feel about this issue.

Where do you get this silly idea that there are "bad" parts of the Bible? Who are you to impose your meaningless, subjective morality on God?

He might impose his meaningful, objective morality derived from God if only God existed to provide it. Lol.

God does not exist? Prove it?

Way to miss the point but I'll play anyway (even though I don't have the burden proof).

P1: if an entity is made of something then it is contingent on that something.
P2: God is defined as not contingent (dependent) on anything.
C: God is not made of something.

It trivially follows that God is literally made of nothing and therefore doesn't exist.

Let us play the game of "Who can spot the most logical fallacies?"

I will start with affirming the consequent fallacy.

P1: If it is raining, the mailman delivers the mail.
P2: The mailman did not deliver the mail.
C: It is not raining.

Who is next?

No, seriously, prove God does not exist and this time without logical fallacies.

Firstly, the above does not even make sense in real life.

Secondly, it is not affirming the consequent. This is:

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Thirdly, if you read the article carefully my inference is perfectly valid:

To put it differently, if P implies Q, the only inference that can be made is non-Q implies non-P. (Non-P and non-Q designate the opposite propositions to P and Q.) This is known as logical contraposition.

An example of affirming the consequent:

If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then he is rich.
Bill Gates is rich.
Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.

Owning Fort Knox is not the only way to be rich. Any number of other ways exist to be rich.

However, one can affirm with certainty that "if Bill Gates is not rich" (non-Q) then "Bill Gates does not own Fort Knox" (non-P). This is the contrapositive of the first statement, and it must be true if and only if the original statement is true.


Now that we have that out of the way, you have your proof of the non-existence of God. There is no logical fallacy. Any more questions?

Dude, I am not interested in your irrational defense of your irrational argument. I want your proof that God does not exist. Put up or shut up.

God exists by faith not proof, I don't need proof and I don't need faith, therefore god does not exits. However science proves gods are not necessary.

"this alleged entity has no place in any scientific equations, plays no role in any scientific explanations, cannot be used to predict any events, does not describe any thing or force that has yet been detected, and there are no models of the universe in which its presence is either required, productive, or useful."

So all a person has to do is not believe and gods won't exist, just ask Thor or Ra the sun god or a thousands other invented gods that no longer exist. Gods only exist in one place, the same place they are invented, your imagination.
If there's no practical difference between believing and not believe in any gods, then there's no practical difference between the existence and non-existence of any gods. Therefore, atheism should be adopted for purely pragmatic reasons
Rukado
Posts: 527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 5:58:05 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/3/2016 5:45:27 PM, corporealbeing wrote:
I am wondering what people think about this: Is excusing bad parts of your holy book (Bible, Tanakh, Qur'an) by presenting alternative translations okay? If so, how can you tell which translation is more correct?

Look at you, trying to hide the Talmud behind the Tanakh. I don't hide the New Testament behind the Tanakh.

There are no bad parts of the Bible. There are some biblical values you don't agree with, because of your lack of virtue. There is also your dishonest representation of parts for the Bible.
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 6:00:38 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 5:58:05 PM, Rukado wrote:
At 6/3/2016 5:45:27 PM, corporealbeing wrote:
I am wondering what people think about this: Is excusing bad parts of your holy book (Bible, Tanakh, Qur'an) by presenting alternative translations okay? If so, how can you tell which translation is more correct?

Look at you, trying to hide the Talmud behind the Tanakh. I don't hide the New Testament behind the Tanakh.

There are no bad parts of the Bible. There are some biblical values you don't agree with, because of your lack of virtue. There is also your dishonest representation of parts for the Bible.

Disagreeing with genocide is a lack of virtue? Bring on the vices, but not the regents.
Rukado
Posts: 527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 6:15:29 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 6:00:38 PM, desmac wrote:
Disagreeing with genocide is a lack of virtue?

You have no objection to genocide, so why do you claim to object?
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 6:35:31 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 5:58:05 PM, Rukado wrote:
At 6/3/2016 5:45:27 PM, corporealbeing wrote:
I am wondering what people think about this: Is excusing bad parts of your holy book (Bible, Tanakh, Qur'an) by presenting alternative translations okay? If so, how can you tell which translation is more correct?

Look at you, trying to hide the Talmud behind the Tanakh. I don't hide the New Testament behind the Tanakh.

There are no bad parts of the Bible. There are some biblical values you don't agree with, because of your lack of virtue. There is also your dishonest representation of parts for the Bible.

There are many. Here is one:

Numbers 31 - "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."
Rukado
Posts: 527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 7:20:35 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 6:35:31 PM, matt8800 wrote:
Numbers 31 - "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

Sparing the virgins is bad?
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 7:25:28 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 6:15:29 PM, Rukado wrote:
At 6/5/2016 6:00:38 PM, desmac wrote:
Disagreeing with genocide is a lack of virtue?

You have no objection to genocide, so why do you claim to object?

I have several objections to genocide, which is why I wonder that people invent and believe in gods who commit it.
Rukado
Posts: 527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 8:20:00 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 7:25:28 PM, desmac wrote:
I have several objections to genocide, which is why I wonder that people invent and believe in gods who commit it.

Are you against the soft genocide going on right now against the indigenous populations of western Europe?
bulproof
Posts: 25,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 8:29:10 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 8:20:00 PM, Rukado wrote:
At 6/5/2016 7:25:28 PM, desmac wrote:
I have several objections to genocide, which is why I wonder that people invent and believe in gods who commit it.

Are you against the soft genocide going on right now against the indigenous populations of western Europe?
You may need to expand on that and why haven't the news services reported on it?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 9:32:18 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 8:20:00 PM, Rukado wrote:
At 6/5/2016 7:25:28 PM, desmac wrote:
I have several objections to genocide, which is why I wonder that people invent and believe in gods who commit it.

Are you against the soft genocide going on right now against the indigenous populations of western Europe?

How many dead?
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 11:09:18 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 5:07:13 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 6/5/2016 4:28:46 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/5/2016 1:43:37 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 6/5/2016 1:28:59 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/5/2016 1:20:18 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 6/5/2016 1:18:26 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/5/2016 11:42:59 AM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 6/3/2016 5:45:27 PM, corporealbeing wrote:
I am wondering what people think about this: Is excusing bad parts of your holy book (Bible, Tanakh, Qur'an) by presenting alternative translations okay? If so, how can you tell which translation is more correct?

And if the alternative translations were correct, would that even matter? Everyone else is following the mainstream translation.

I have been debating this guy who keeps referring me to other translations of passages in the Torah. It didn't matter, because most of the verses were identical to the mainstream translations. However, I want to know how others feel about this issue.

Where do you get this silly idea that there are "bad" parts of the Bible? Who are you to impose your meaningless, subjective morality on God?

He might impose his meaningful, objective morality derived from God if only God existed to provide it. Lol.

God does not exist? Prove it?

Way to miss the point but I'll play anyway (even though I don't have the burden proof).

P1: if an entity is made of something then it is contingent on that something.
P2: God is defined as not contingent (dependent) on anything.
C: God is not made of something.

It trivially follows that God is literally made of nothing and therefore doesn't exist.

Let us play the game of "Who can spot the most logical fallacies?"

I will start with affirming the consequent fallacy.

P1: If it is raining, the mailman delivers the mail.
P2: The mailman did not deliver the mail.
C: It is not raining.

Who is next?

No, seriously, prove God does not exist and this time without logical fallacies.

Firstly, the above does not even make sense in real life.

Secondly, it is not affirming the consequent. This is:

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Thirdly, if you read the article carefully my inference is perfectly valid:

To put it differently, if P implies Q, the only inference that can be made is non-Q implies non-P. (Non-P and non-Q designate the opposite propositions to P and Q.) This is known as logical contraposition.

An example of affirming the consequent:

If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then he is rich.
Bill Gates is rich.
Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.

Owning Fort Knox is not the only way to be rich. Any number of other ways exist to be rich.

However, one can affirm with certainty that "if Bill Gates is not rich" (non-Q) then "Bill Gates does not own Fort Knox" (non-P). This is the contrapositive of the first statement, and it must be true if and only if the original statement is true.


Now that we have that out of the way, you have your proof of the non-existence of God. There is no logical fallacy. Any more questions?

Dude, I am not interested in your irrational defense of your irrational argument.

My defense is an impartial source and my argument is perfectly rational, as you well know despite the pretense.

I want your proof that God does not exist. Put up or shut up.

I already have and you obviously can't refute it. Just how many proofs do you need? Lol.
ViceRegent
Posts: 606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 12:01:30 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 11:09:18 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/5/2016 5:07:13 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 6/5/2016 4:28:46 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/5/2016 1:43:37 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 6/5/2016 1:28:59 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/5/2016 1:20:18 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 6/5/2016 1:18:26 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/5/2016 11:42:59 AM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 6/3/2016 5:45:27 PM, corporealbeing wrote:
I am wondering what people think about this: Is excusing bad parts of your holy book (Bible, Tanakh, Qur'an) by presenting alternative translations okay? If so, how can you tell which translation is more correct?

And if the alternative translations were correct, would that even matter? Everyone else is following the mainstream translation.

I have been debating this guy who keeps referring me to other translations of passages in the Torah. It didn't matter, because most of the verses were identical to the mainstream translations. However, I want to know how others feel about this issue.

Where do you get this silly idea that there are "bad" parts of the Bible? Who are you to impose your meaningless, subjective morality on God?

He might impose his meaningful, objective morality derived from God if only God existed to provide it. Lol.

God does not exist? Prove it?

Way to miss the point but I'll play anyway (even though I don't have the burden proof).

P1: if an entity is made of something then it is contingent on that something.
P2: God is defined as not contingent (dependent) on anything.
C: God is not made of something.

It trivially follows that God is literally made of nothing and therefore doesn't exist.

Let us play the game of "Who can spot the most logical fallacies?"

I will start with affirming the consequent fallacy.

P1: If it is raining, the mailman delivers the mail.
P2: The mailman did not deliver the mail.
C: It is not raining.

Who is next?

No, seriously, prove God does not exist and this time without logical fallacies.

Firstly, the above does not even make sense in real life.

Secondly, it is not affirming the consequent. This is:

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Thirdly, if you read the article carefully my inference is perfectly valid:

To put it differently, if P implies Q, the only inference that can be made is non-Q implies non-P. (Non-P and non-Q designate the opposite propositions to P and Q.) This is known as logical contraposition.

An example of affirming the consequent:

If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then he is rich.
Bill Gates is rich.
Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.

Owning Fort Knox is not the only way to be rich. Any number of other ways exist to be rich.

However, one can affirm with certainty that "if Bill Gates is not rich" (non-Q) then "Bill Gates does not own Fort Knox" (non-P). This is the contrapositive of the first statement, and it must be true if and only if the original statement is true.


Now that we have that out of the way, you have your proof of the non-existence of God. There is no logical fallacy. Any more questions?

Dude, I am not interested in your irrational defense of your irrational argument.

My defense is an impartial source and my argument is perfectly rational, as you well know despite the pretense.

I want your proof that God does not exist. Put up or shut up.

I already have and you obviously can't refute it. Just how many proofs do you need? Lol.

And this is why it is pointless to rationally debate with atheists. They are irrational as a box of rocks, but too delusional, narcissistic and ignorant to recognize it. I still have hope that one day I will find an atheist that can make a rational argument. Until then I am stuck with the mentally ill.
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 12:21:53 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/6/2016 12:01:30 AM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 6/5/2016 11:09:18 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/5/2016 5:07:13 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 6/5/2016 4:28:46 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/5/2016 1:43:37 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 6/5/2016 1:28:59 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/5/2016 1:20:18 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 6/5/2016 1:18:26 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/5/2016 11:42:59 AM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 6/3/2016 5:45:27 PM, corporealbeing wrote:
I am wondering what people think about this: Is excusing bad parts of your holy book (Bible, Tanakh, Qur'an) by presenting alternative translations okay? If so, how can you tell which translation is more correct?

And if the alternative translations were correct, would that even matter? Everyone else is following the mainstream translation.

I have been debating this guy who keeps referring me to other translations of passages in the Torah. It didn't matter, because most of the verses were identical to the mainstream translations. However, I want to know how others feel about this issue.

Where do you get this silly idea that there are "bad" parts of the Bible? Who are you to impose your meaningless, subjective morality on God?

He might impose his meaningful, objective morality derived from God if only God existed to provide it. Lol.

God does not exist? Prove it?

Way to miss the point but I'll play anyway (even though I don't have the burden proof).

P1: if an entity is made of something then it is contingent on that something.
P2: God is defined as not contingent (dependent) on anything.
C: God is not made of something.

It trivially follows that God is literally made of nothing and therefore doesn't exist.

Let us play the game of "Who can spot the most logical fallacies?"

I will start with affirming the consequent fallacy.

P1: If it is raining, the mailman delivers the mail.
P2: The mailman did not deliver the mail.
C: It is not raining.

Who is next?

No, seriously, prove God does not exist and this time without logical fallacies.

Firstly, the above does not even make sense in real life.

Secondly, it is not affirming the consequent. This is:

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Thirdly, if you read the article carefully my inference is perfectly valid:

To put it differently, if P implies Q, the only inference that can be made is non-Q implies non-P. (Non-P and non-Q designate the opposite propositions to P and Q.) This is known as logical contraposition.

An example of affirming the consequent:

If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then he is rich.
Bill Gates is rich.
Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.

Owning Fort Knox is not the only way to be rich. Any number of other ways exist to be rich.

However, one can affirm with certainty that "if Bill Gates is not rich" (non-Q) then "Bill Gates does not own Fort Knox" (non-P). This is the contrapositive of the first statement, and it must be true if and only if the original statement is true.


Now that we have that out of the way, you have your proof of the non-existence of God. There is no logical fallacy. Any more questions?

Dude, I am not interested in your irrational defense of your irrational argument.

My defense is an impartial source and my argument is perfectly rational, as you well know despite the pretense.

I want your proof that God does not exist. Put up or shut up.

I already have and you obviously can't refute it. Just how many proofs do you need? Lol.

And this is why it is pointless to rationally debate with atheists. They are irrational as a box of rocks, but too delusional, narcissistic and ignorant to recognize it. I still have hope that one day I will find an atheist that can make a rational argument. Until then I am stuck with the mentally ill.

The bluster and incoherent ranting is noted. The inherent dishonesty of many theists never ceases to amaze me. Here you have one who asked for something, received it, and then pretends that nothing happened, resorting to ad hominems to try to cover up his dismal failure. They just lie to your face and expect to get away with it. Simply astounding.