PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
RULES
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
Offline 
What if I do not particularly care what you think I'm entitled to assume?
So, you prefer to assume it is unproven. That's your perogative. But it is only yours.
Let's leave off making other people's assumptions for them, shall we?
To original poster. Somewhere at page 1 or 2 you mention something to the effect that the Bible has been accepted for much longer than it hasn't and that this goes back to 1700 BCE etc. How about this:
Minoan culture dates back to as early as 7000 BCE. Minoan culture was very advanced for its time and had a host of mostly females goddesses and its only rites, rituals and beliefs. These ideas stayed with the Minoans for millenia through the Myceneans, through Greek conquerors and through the Romans. These deities were expanded, altered and adopted in various ways over thousands of years. People of the day believed in these deities and took them as "truth". This is a far greater and richer history than Judeo-Christian theism and the Bible. If I were to argue that because people believed in the "pagan" gods of yore and related beliefs for much longer than they were disproved or disbelieved, would that AT ALL lend credence to my argument that those beliefs or gods are true? No, absolutely not. People also believed for a long time that the world was flat, that lends the credence no idea whatsoever.
Moreover, you try to offer some sort of evidence or proof. Unfortunately the Bible does not fit into this category - quoting verses does nothing to prove any sort of real idea. Once again I could quote the Gospel of Baal and therefore attempt to prove a point about the truth of Baal. But would you believe me any more or consider it scientific proof? No, it is not testable, provable and above all not Judeo-Christian. The problem is that Judeo-Christian theists automatically assign authority to their holy book over every other religion's- there is NOTHING special about the Bible. It is jsut another work of fiction.
All of your evidence is anecdotal and therefore is not evidence at all. Sorry
Biochemist & Law Student
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." -Thomas Jefferson
Illinois is overdue...
Then again....
So much is made of the sacrifice made to humanity by God to ‘allow’ the crucifixion of Jesus. But I wonder, when we read "For God so loved the world...” just what was God giving up? If he (they?) knew of his (their?) imminent return, how by any definition of the word can this be considered a sacrifice? Is this not what a magician does when he disappears in a box, only to reappear in the stage rigging?
I’m not making light of the crucifixion itself; that was a bad way to go for anybody. But if God knew his ‘son’ was going to return, Jesus certainly could not be considered the ‘lamb’ that he is made out to be.
BTW, did anybody bother to tell the sheep that they wouldn’t be needed anymore?! (paid for by the Sheep Anti-Defamation League)
Brian: I am NOT the Messiah!
Arthur: I say you are Lord, and I should know. I've followed a few.
Everytime someone reminds me of the whole blood, sacrifice thing, I'm just as astonished as the first time I heard it. Monkies are such silly animals.
A daughter of hope and fear, religion explains to Ignorance the nature of the unknowable. -Ambrose Bierce
Hello, unixrab...and welcome. I'm a new Christian member too, and thought your thread was an atheist warning other members about me...okay...I haven't had much sleep...
I'll try:
Creation = Creator
Your concience = God's laws written in your heart (metaphorically)
Well, it's not proof of a specific god...but...
Nice try
Can you point to the creation factory?
Metaphorical responses don't fly here.
You're right, this is no proof of Yahweh, Allah, Zues, etc.
Is it more or less true than a fictional novel where we no longer know the author, know that it is not the original writings but translated versions, and where certain chapters have been removed because they didn't appeal to a specific translators interpretation of how the story should be told?
(The last part talking about the gospels that were buried becuase of their controversial statements such as the gospel of mary magdalene and more recently the recovered and restored gospel of judas)
And on that note, what do we make of the gospel of Judas which tells a very different story of Jesus' life. And, do we take the gospel of Judas as eye witness testamony since it's likely that he did not write it since he was most likely dead at the time it was written and we don't know who exactly wrote it?
Appeal to ignorance.
"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person
Such a statement is not worth a response.
God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen
God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen
He didn't set the rules. He's following the rules of logic. And especially avoiding the rules of circular logic.
1. This is exactly the same as asking, "Can you give me proof that God doesn't exist without personal experience?"
2. As I said in my last post, the burden of proof is on you, the positive, NOT on us, the negative.
3. You're asking to prove a negative that is impossible to do so.
Your exact same question is thoroughly investigated here: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/freethinking_anonymous/7381
That's not a proof. That's an assertion. Where is your proof for this assertion? LOL
"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person
Making a claim about the color of someone's hair isn't exactly the same as saying that there is an imaginary friend who hears al of your thoughts and all of your desires and answers prayers when he's not busy building new solor systems or galaxies or any of that universe stuff.
Making a claim requires evidence. As an atheist, I don't make a claim other than that man made gods don't exist. I can point to countless pieces of evidence the pretty much show us that man creates gods and not the other way around.
If you claim that your god is real and al other gods are false, then you have to bring something to the table other than personal experience and circular reasoning.
That's just false.
While "the law" may well have been excepted as true by JEWS going back to 1700 b.c.e., there were countless other gods that pre-dated or co-existed at the time. Making the claim that "mankind" holds the bible to be true is an idiotic statement.
Not only that, but every religionous person, tribe, group, faith, etc. that pre-dated or co-existed with the jewish god holds "the law" to be UNTRUE by default.
Who needs God when you have Chopin?
No, but it is circular reasoning.
Matthew wrote his gospel.
What proof do you have?
It has his name on it.
Anyone who's actually investigated the history of the christian church and the history of the bible itself KNOWS that the earliest scaps of the bible we've found date to about 125 or 150 c.e. The general consensus on the original writtings usually falls between 70 c.e. and 90 c.e. or later depending on the scholorship you're reading.
The bible you read and quote from today didn't exist until after 325 c.e. when Constantine basically told a bunch of bishops to finally make up thier minds on a) was the character of Jesus devine or not and b) what books can we read to establish the previous choice.
Thus, using what is in the bible to justify the bible to to put your faith in the hands of Emperor Constantine and his hand-picked bishops.
The bible disproves itself in the first book and chapter because what is written there flies in the face of everything we KNOW to be true today.
Who needs God when you have Chopin?
So if we weren't corrupted by sin it would be okay for me to get it on w/my cousin? She's a fox! Damn this thing called sin!
Is this why God doesn't approve of contraceptives...so we can't shag our relatives?
Thanks unixrab! It's all starting to make sense now.
Um then why did you respond?
OHOHOH! I got it!
Creation = My Creator = Not your creator
Therefore your god is false.
Ok, I'll try to make this as simple as I can. When a person demands proof established by their own criteria such as "without personal experience or the Bible," they are already rigging the game before it starts. This is typical of atheists. They contrive their own set of rules for proof. All evidence/proof is based on "personal experience." It is the atheist' "personal" opinion/experience of no belief. So, logically such an absurd criteria would of necessity nullify atheism if it's going to nullify theism. The criteria/argument is self-defeating. Second, all arguments are circular. Atheists have a preconceived commitment that God does not exist. That is their starting point and assumption. Theists begin with the premise that God does exist. If atheism is true, then both premises are valid. And the atheist has no logical ground to reject the theistic premise. Third, atheists have no right even appealing to the universal laws of logic untill they are able to provide a rational foundation that would make all reasoning and logic intelligible. For more on this, study the works of Greg Bahnsen and Cornelius Van Til. Fourth, if God does not exist, it is impossible to prove anything, even the laws of logic. So when an atheist demands proof, they are stepping out of their own worldview and into the theistic worldview by assuming that such a thing as proof even exists. Proof cannot exist if God does not exist. So the atheist assumes God exists in that they even require and believ in such a thing as proof. Bottom line, the atheist must secretly rely upon the Christian theistic worldview in order to make sense of his own worldview of atheism. Atheism cannot stand on its own merrits. It is a philosophical absurdity.
God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen
The tone in this thread is getting heavy and the sarcasm is rampant.
Please refer to the link to this forum's rules on the left of this page.
Please be on your best behavior in this forum.
Please remain civil.
Please do without the sarcasm.
If you prefer a no-holds-barred discussion, please take yourselves to the Atheist vs Theist forum.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
FALSE. Okay, I know this is "Kill 'Em With Kindness," but PLEASE, PLEASE try to think on your own rather than just regurgitate whatever hokey propaganda you see.
This one is real easy:
1. (Creation = Creator) begs the question, "Is that a creation?"
2. What kind of creator? I'm a creator too. I create internet posts and rebuttals to illogical claims.
3. Let's apply this logic to other things:
Rock = Rocker? (NO)
Air = Air maker? (NO)
Outer space = Outer spacer? (NO)
Paint = Panter (Yes)
Building = Builder (Yes)
YouTube - Good point...too bad it's not logical in any way
This logic ONLY works on things that we all agree were designed/created. If you want to use this logic to prove that God exists, you have to answer and PROVE #1 and #2 above.
This is an assertion. Where is the proof?
"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person
I SAID: If atheism is true, then both premises are valid. And the atheist has no logical ground to reject the theistic premise.
MY RESPONSE: That might be confusing. I mean that if God did not exist, then logically atheism has no foundation for rejecting the theistic premise because nothing can be proven if God does not exist and all premises would be equally valid. And it cannot be proven that the theistic premise is false if there is no God. If God does not exist, than nothing is provable. You can't even prove the validity of your senses and your mind. The atheist assumes the validity and truthfulness of their senses and mind. The atheist cannot prove that they are not suffering from some severe delusional episode. You can't even prove you exist without first assuming the existence of truth. Namely, the truthfulness of your mind and senses. Since we live in an imperfect universe (the belief in imperfection assumes the existence of perfection), and the theory of evolution asserts the human brain to be evolving, then the brain is not in a perfect state. If it is not in a perfect state, then the logic and reasoning it produces is imperfect. So on what basis does the atheist even assume the laws of logic to be perfect? They are not opperating within the confines of their own worldview. All proof requires certain metaphysical assumptions about the nature of reality. The theist, however, can claim truth and proof because God exists. God is the foundation for truth and proof. He is objective and the highest reality.
God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen
Atheists are not capable of being civil. Their behavior is the logical conclusion of their worldview of no hope, meaning, purpose or absolute moral standard. If there had never been any conception of God in history, the human race would have self-destructed thousands of years ago. Theism is what has kept us going.
God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen
Atheism is not a philosophy or worldview, I'd think you would have figured that out by now. If there never had been theism we wouldnt have had millions die in his or her name across the world over the years. Theism is what holds us back.
Biochemist & Law Student
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." -Thomas Jefferson
AL500, this post is rude, arrogant and very much against this forum's rules.
This is a formal warning to refrain from comments like this and to adhere to the Kill 'Em With Kindness Forum rules.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Your feelings on the matter are moot, seeing as the point is a point of logic.
No, it's not a preference. It's how all logical claims work. An assertion is assumed unproven until proved or demonstrated.
No, it's now logic works. Deny it, and you overturn all of logic.
I think you need to read that back to yourself. You haven't a clue as to what I'm actually referencing... Basic logic tells us that an assertion is held to be not proven until demonstrated.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
lol
Yes mam. But is killing ever kind? By the way, I think you are a great moderator. Cute to
God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen
Thraxis, actually if God didn't exist none of us would be here. Religion has its faults, I freely admit that, as does atheism. But we can't blame religious founders because of the actions of sinful men who twist their messages. Religion also has very strong points. It makes people good and decent citizens. It gives hope. It tells us we are not alone. There is a purpose to history. More hospitals, universities, colleges and orphanages have been founded by Christian's then any other category of people. Stalin and Lenin both believed in evolution and atheism, and they are responsible for the greatest mass murder, then all religious wars combined in all of history.
God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen
bz:
What if I do not particularly care what you think I'm entitled to assume?
ta:
Your feelings on the matter are moot, seeing as the point is a point of logic.
This is what happens when people go to the college book store and buy copies of "Introduction to Inductive Reasoning" and start using phrases they find in it. Did you get to that part about circular reasoning yet?
The fact is, neither of what either of us said has anything to do with logic.
Your assumptions on any topic that you'd care to pick have absolutely nothing at all to do with whether or not the thing itself is correct or incorrect - factual or unfactual, true or false. Assumptions have absolutely nothing to do with the topic of "logic" at all. Assumptions, by their very nature and by definition are non-logical constructs. If you take an assumption, and thoroughly check it out, it ceases to be an assumption and becomes an emphatic statement. That's not what you offered.
In it's essence, here's all you said: "you assume B, therefore you cannot assume C." But there's no reason at all why not. If you are talking about assumptions, then assume whatever the hell you like and damn the torpedos! And I could not care less what you think I'm entitled to assume.
BTW - just as a side note; I think the word you are looking for is "presumed", not "assumed". Unfortunately, presumptions don't help you much either.
bz:
So, you prefer to assume it is unproven.
ta:
No, it's not a preference. It's how all logical claims work. An assertion is assumed unproven until proved or demonstrated.
The way you are using this particular construct is not helping you either. Again, it will help if you distill it to it's most simplistic form. An "assertion" is, by definition, something not proven. The word, strictly interpreted means little more than "to state". It says nothing of it's actual factual content. It is something introduced for the very purpose of examination. But to state, and then not say anything in the way of support is rather like talking to yourself. Like the old Bill Cosby joke about Englishmen. "I was at this party, and some English dude kept saying 'I say! I say!' and then he didn't say anything..."
So simplify what you said (just like an algebra formula) and you have, basically, this: "an unproven thing is unproven until proven."
Golly!
The best that you could torture out of your argument is that a claim that is unproven is neither true nor false - it is indeterminate. Basically, that would be the venue of agnostics - not atheists.
bz:
That's your perogative. But it is only yours.
ta:
No, it's now logic works. Deny it, and you overturn all of logic.
Like I said. Neither of us are engaging in logical reasoning at the moment. If you have some logical construct that proves God doesn't exist, just let me know. In fact, if you have one that proves he DOES exist, well, hell, I'd pay good MONEY for that one.
I have a box. The walls are quite opaque to anything inside the box. Inside the box, I have put little metal objects that can be felt: squares, cubes, triangles, cones, tetrahedrons, and a few pins and needles just for fun, (oh, and some sandpaper, a bit of some foul smelling viscous substance, a sparkly thing, and several small animals) and YOU. Using just what you have available in the box, (because you insist on believing that nothing exists outside the box) prove that either I do exist, or do not exist. Pick either outcome you want to prove and have at it. And don't spend all your time just trying to convince yourself that the small animals in the box with you used to be something else.
Basically, atheists need to, literally, think outside the box.
What tools do you think you can find solely inside the box that prove or disprove anythng at all about what lies outside the box?
Some like to glibly ask us to "point to the creation factory", as though the creator existed inside his creation, and not outside (completely outside) of it. You cannot point to God because God does not exist inside any of the three dimensions in which you could point your arrogant little finger.