What is right and wrong ? Is there no right and wrong if there is NO god ?

[baldeagle]

On Jun 16, 6:01 am, TheInquirer <alw...@ask.questions> wrote:
> On 16/06/2012 3:47 AM, baldeagle wrote:

. > you see: according to you, there is no God or
.> whatever and all these are just stories.

True. you are right.

.> right and wrong are just arbitrary.

Not true. You are wrong.

"right and wrong" is about ethics...about social
norms or standards of conduct...about our
value system. eg. telling lie is wrong...killing
babies is wrong.

God is about superstition...about killing innocent
babies (in Moses story) is the right thing to do...
about punishment for not believing in the fake
story...(to be burned in hell fire for eternity)

In our society, there is ethics...social norms...
standard of behaviours....there is 'right and wrong'
without the need of a fake god.

[TheInquirer]

On 16/06/2012 9:00 AM, baldeagle wrote:
> On Jun 16, 6:01 am, TheInquirer<alw...@ask.questions> wrote:
>> On 16/06/2012 3:47 AM, baldeagle wrote:
>
> .> you see: according to you, there is no God or
> .> whatever and all these are just stories.
>
> True. you are right.

why you say "you are right"? i was just repeating what you said!
so, in effect, you are just saying _you_ yourself is right.
that is the same as
the Bible says the Bible is right
the Koran says the Koran is right
the Richard Dawkins says the Richard Dawkins is right
classical self-referential circular argument. [the worse thing is that
Richard Dawkins is guilty of the same thing, but thinks he is so dammn
bloody smart.] what is so different between you and them?

> .> right and wrong are just arbitrary.
>
> Not true. You are wrong.

you say so?

>
> "right and wrong" is about ethics...about social
> norms or standards of conduct...about our
> value system. eg. telling lie is wrong...killing
> babies is wrong.

who says so?

> God is about superstition...about killing innocent
> babies (in Moses story) is the right thing to do...
> about punishment for not believing in the fake
> story...(to be burned in hell fire for eternity)

how you know is superstition? if there is a "super-"
there must be a "sub-" ... so that is the substition?
how you know the super one is fake? i want proof!
where's the smoking gun?

[Hint: you may try arguing along the lines of "i prayed,
but never receive answers". but be sure i'll hammer
you very very hard with more questions.]

> In our society, there is ethics...social norms...
> standard of behaviours....there is 'right and wrong'
> without the need of a fake god.

why is god the fake one? why is society the fake one?
furthermore, if society could make fake god, certainly
ethics, social norms and standard of behaviours are also
made up by society. and if they are made up by society,
why can't they be re-made up by society? that means if
say 68% of Singaporeans think free sex, gay lesianism
are OK, then can't we change our laws to make it OK?
who are you to say it's wrong when most people say it's
right?

remember (according to you) we don't need to fear the
consequences of hell or reincarnation -- so why not just
go ahead when enough people believe in it?

;-)

--
I ask, becos I'm curious.

[TheInquirer]

On 16/06/2012 9:00 AM, baldeagle wrote:

> On Jun 16, 6:01 am, TheInquirer<alw...@ask.questions> wrote:
>> On 16/06/2012 3:47 AM, baldeagle wrote:
>
> .> you see: according to you, there is no God or
> .> whatever and all these are just stories.
>
> True. you are right.

why you say "you are right"? i was just repeating what you said!
so, in effect, you are just saying _you_ yourself is right.
that is the same as
the Bible says the Bible is right
the Koran says the Koran is right
the Richard Dawkins says the Richard Dawkins is right
classical self-referential circular argument. [the worse thing is that
Richard Dawkins is guilty of the same thing, but thinks he is so dammn
bloody smart.] what is so different between you and them?

> .> right and wrong are just arbitrary.
>
> Not true. You are wrong.

you say so?

>
> "right and wrong" is about ethics...about social
> norms or standards of conduct...about our
> value system. eg. telling lie is wrong...killing
> babies is wrong.

who says so?

> God is about superstition...about killing innocent
> babies (in Moses story) is the right thing to do...
> about punishment for not believing in the fake
> story...(to be burned in hell fire for eternity)

how you know is superstition? if there is a "super-"
there must be a "sub-" ... so that is the substition?
how you know the super one is fake? i want proof!
where's the smoking gun?

[Hint: you may try arguing along the lines of "i prayed,
but never receive answers". but be sure i'll hammer
you very very hard with more questions.]

> In our society, there is ethics...social norms...
> standard of behaviours....there is 'right and wrong'
> without the need of a fake god.

why is god the fake one? why isn't society the fake one?

[baldeagle]

Why are you so confused ...and so confusing ?

But I will answer ...the part about ....

"> who are you to say it's wrong when most people say it's
> right?"

Who am I ?
I am baldeagle.

I say it is wrong...because it is wrong.

When most people say it is right... They are wrong.

When they are wrong it doesn't matter how many
people say the same thing. Eg. It is wrong
to kill Eygpytian babies (the bible say so)...even if
the millions and millions Christians and Jews say
it is the right to do...it is still wrong. I still say it is...
Wrong ..to kill babies.

Are your mind, poisoned and indoctrinated by religion,
even more confused now by my answer ?

[mussa hassan , Chief of Police of Malaysia]

Since there is NO GOD ,

there is NO RIGHT and WRONG ,

so you can fuck your own mother .



thus many heads of Chinese families in classic time
fucked their own daughters- in - law ,

and many filial Chinese sons dared not to speak a WORD ,
since Chinese sons were still living with his Chinese father
under one family roof .

[TheInquirer]

On 17/06/2012 7:05 AM, baldeagle wrote:
> On Jun 16, 12:02 pm, TheInquirer<alw...@ask.questions> wrote:


> Why are you so confused ...and so confusing ?

have you heard of "pretend to be pig to kill the tiger"?

;-)

> But I will answer ...the part about ....
> "> who are you to say it's wrong when most people say it's
>> right?"
>
> Who am I ?
> I am baldeagle.
>
> I say it is wrong...because it is wrong.

based on what?

>
> When most people say it is right... They are wrong.

based on what? based on intuition?

> When they are wrong it doesn't matter how many
> people say the same thing. Eg. It is wrong
> to kill Eygpytian babies (the bible say so)...even if
> the millions and millions Christians and Jews say
> it is the right to do...it is still wrong.

based on what? based on your cock?

I still say it is...

you say, i say, who confirms?

> Wrong ..to kill babies.

based on what? based on yourself (circular arugument)?

> Are your mind, poisoned and indoctrinated by religion,
> even more confused now by my answer ?

it seems that _you_ are confused ... by yourself ... falling into
the same trap of presumption. can't i just be checking out the
arguments? just answer the questions, will you?

i want a CLEAN proof of the falsity of religion or gods.

this means a sound argument
* without resorting to ad hominem attacks
* without resorting to personal bias
* without making any presumptions about the question asker
(i.e. just answer the damn QUESTION, don't answer the
QUESTIONER)
* without resorting to repetition or rephrasing
* without circular reasoning, begging the question
* without resorting to appealing to authority
you understand? hint: define your terms properly first.

Personal experience, anecdotes must be relevant and you must
explain how they are connected to your point that you are trying to
proof, you understtand?

i want straignt answers, you understtand?

--
I ask, becos I'm curious.

btw, have you ever considered the remote possibility that you
fall into the arrogant trap of presumption and you cannot produce
the SMOKING GUN i was asking for, ... because i am holding the gun?

;-)

[baldeagle]

Based on what ? You asked repeatedly !

Based on the truth....Based on common sense.... Based on
science....based on logical analysis...based on superior
intellect....based on natural laws.... based on survey...
based on the discoveries of Newton and Einstein....based
on what my grandpa said....based on the fact that I am
RIGHT. Take your pick.

Certainly not based on what the Bible say or what the
Quran say.

[Pelandok]

Why can't we based on what the Bible say?

[baldeagle]

On Jun 17, 1:54 pm, Pelandok <Daqta...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 17, 1:40 pm, baldeagle <force....@gmail.com> wrote:

>

.> > Certainly not based on what the Bible say or what the
.> > Quran say.
>
.> Why can't we based on what the Bible say?

Yes....why ? Why can't we based our norms,
our social mores on what the bible say ?

Because it teach us the wrong things !
The bible say that it is a good thing ..to kill all
first-born Egyptian babies to free Moses'
people. Killing babies is WRONG. The bible is
WRONG.

Because the bible teach us INCEST.
The bible say God created only Adam and Eve.
It also say Adam and Eve started the human
race. The bible teach us...that the children of Adam
and Eve committed incest. If they did not,
then there is no human race...we would not be
here today.

Incest is WRONG. the bible is WRONG.

Want more examples ???

[ltl...@hotmail.com]

One can also raise the same question on the Quran.
Questions like what is ABSOLUTE right and wrong,
basically, has no answer because it is a paradox.
One needs an absolute reference such as god and
god's word recorded in the scripture, the Christian
Bible or the Islamist Quran or Buddhist teaching in
order to have absolute right and wrong. At the same
time, to the degree that god cannot be proved to
exist and accepted by all people, there is no
absolute reference.

[rst0]

There is no such thing as the "absolute right or wrong".
The Bible may NOT be right.
The Quran may not be right.

The "right" and "wrong" depend on each individual's preferences.

What is "right" for one may be "wrong" for someone else.

> basically, has no answer because it is a paradox.

It's not a paradox.

> One needs an absolute reference such as god and
> god's word recorded in the scripture,

No.

> the Christian
> Bible or the Islamist Quran or Buddhist teaching in
> order to have absolute right and wrong.

No.

> At the same
> time, to the degree that god cannot be proved to
> exist and accepted by all people, there is no
> absolute reference.

"God" was the ancient primitive people's imagination of the unknown.
There is no truth in it.

And there is no "absolute reference".
It's all a personal preference and your moral upbringing.

[Pelandok]

The exodus may have hard archeological evidence that it took place.
The incest story, that it is approved is your interpretation.

That there is the Koran n the Bible already shows differences but
gravity still exists. There are fundamental truths in our experiences.
They do not depend on a subjective yes or no.

[baldeagle]

On Jun 18, 4:15 am, Pelandok <Daqta...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 17, 4:10 pm, baldeagle <force....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 17, 1:54 pm, Pelandok <Daqta...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 17, 1:40 pm, baldeagle <force....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > .> > Certainly not based on what the Bible say or what the
> > .> > Quran say.
>
> > .> Why can't we based on what the Bible say?
>
> > Yes....why ?  Why can't we based our norms,
> > our social mores on what the bible say ?
>
> > Because it teach us the wrong things !
> > The bible say that it is a good thing ..to kill all
> > first-born Egyptian babies to free  Moses'

.> > people.  Killing babies is WRONG. The bible is
.> > WRONG.

>
> > Because the bible teach us INCEST.
> > The bible say God created only Adam and Eve.
> > It also say Adam and Eve started the human
> > race. The bible teach us...that the children of Adam
> > and Eve committed  incest.  If they did not,
> > then there is no human race...we would not be
> > here today.
>

.> > Incest is WRONG. the bible is WRONG.
>
> > Want more examples ???
>
.> The exodus may have hard archeological evidence that it took place.
.> The incest story, that it is approved is your interpretation.

Talk cock.

[rst0]

On Jun 17, 1:15 pm, Pelandok <Daqta...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 17, 4:10 pm, baldeagle <force....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yes....why ?  Why can't we based our norms,
> > our social mores on what the bible say ?
>
> > Because it teach us the wrong things !
> > The bible say that it is a good thing ..to kill all
> > first-born Egyptian babies to free  Moses'
> > people.  Killing babies is WRONG. The bible is
> > WRONG.
>
> > Because the bible teach us INCEST.
> > The bible say God created only Adam and Eve.
> > It also say Adam and Eve started the human
> > race. The bible teach us...that the children of Adam
> > and Eve committed  incest.  If they did not,
> > then there is no human race...we would not be
> > here today.
>
> > Incest is WRONG. the bible is WRONG.
>
> > Want more examples ???
>
> The exodus may have hard archeological evidence that it took place.

Archeologists have searched the Sinai for evidence of Moses' 40 years
of wondering through the desert, and they have found absolutely no
evidence to support Moses existence.

Also, the exodus said Ramesses II first born was killed by God as a
child.

Archeologists have found the skull of Amun-her-khepeshef, Ramesse II's
first born son by Nefertari. He died in battle with a blow to the
back of his head at about early 40s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amun-her-khepeshef

[TheInquirer]

perhaps it's because you you avoid answering right on the dot?

>
> Based on the truth


what is truth?


....Based on common sense....

what is common sense?


Based on
> science

which science? the science based on current materialistic
presumptions (i.e. a thinly veiled form of circular argument)?



....based on logical analysis

your type of logical analysis with circular argument?


...based on superior
> intellect

superior intellect based on circular argument (begging the question,
special pleading)?


....based on natural laws

based on the true natural laws, or presumed natural laws?


.... based on survey...

survey based on what ontological and epistemological assumptions?

> based on the discoveries of Newton

but Newton was a Christian?


and Einstein

and Einstein believe in some form of God?

....based
> on what my grandpa said

and your grandpa is correct?

....based on the fact that I am
> RIGHT.

you say you are right, because you are right (circular argument)?


Take your pick.

all the above have loopholes, so pick which one?

>
> Certainly not based on what the Bible say or what the
> Quran say.

my point is:
the Bible says the Bible is correct
the Quran says the Quran is correct
baldeagle says baldeagle is correct
_how_ are YOU _different_ from the Bible and Quran? You get my point?

[TheInquirer]

On 18/06/2012 4:58 AM, baldeagle wrote:
> On Jun 18, 4:15 am, Pelandok<Daqta...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Talk cock.

who are you to judge? why is it that it is other people who are talking
cock and not you?
circular argument again:
baldeagle says pelandok talk cock
means
baldeagle says baldeagle is correct.

now we have the following:-
the Bible says the Bible is correct.
the Kor'an says the Kor'an is correct.
baldeagle says baldeagle is correct.
how is the baldeagle different from the Bible and Kor'an?
isn't he just a fucking hypocrite with double standards, pretending that
he is so bloody logical, but falling into the trap of circular
logic over and over again?

[TheInquirer]

On 17/06/2012 10:19 PM, rst0 wrote:
> On Jun 17, 4:33 am, "ltl...@hotmail.com"<ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> It's not a paradox.

please explain.

>> One needs an absolute reference such as god and
>> god's word recorded in the scripture,
>
> No.

your word against ltlee's word?

>
>> the Christian
>> Bible or the Islamist Quran or Buddhist teaching in
>> order to have absolute right and wrong.
>
> No.

"no" is not an argument. your word against ltlee's word?
why should i believe _you_ instead of _him_

>
>> At the same
>> time, to the degree that god cannot be proved to
>> exist and accepted by all people, there is no
>> absolute reference.
>
> "God" was the ancient primitive people's imagination of the unknown.

based on what?

my question to you is the same as my question to baldeagle:
can you (or anyone) give a clean proof of the non-existence of God?
i.e.

* without resorting to ad hominem attacks
* without resorting to personal bias
* without making any presumptions about the question asker
(i.e. just answer the damn QUESTION, don't answer the
QUESTIONER)
* without resorting to repetition or rephrasing
* without circular reasoning, begging the question
* without resorting to appealing to authority

?

> There is no truth in it.

based on what?

> And there is no "absolute reference".
> It's all a personal preference and your moral upbringing.

if there is no absolute reference, why should i believe in any
of _your_ arguments, or prefer yours above anyone else's?

[TheInquirer]

On 18/06/2012 7:14 AM, TheInquirer wrote:
> On 17/06/2012 10:19 PM, rst0 wrote:


> my question to you is the same as my question to baldeagle:
> can you (or anyone) give a clean proof of the non-existence of God?
> i.e.
> * without resorting to ad hominem attacks
> * without resorting to personal bias
> * without making any presumptions about the question asker
> (i.e. just answer the damn QUESTION, don't answer the
> QUESTIONER)
> * without resorting to repetition or rephrasing
> * without circular reasoning, begging the question
> * without resorting to appealing to authority
> ?

by the way, baldeagle has already been disqualified (three strikes and
you are out).

can you do better than baldeagle?

[baldeagle]

On Jun 18, 7:19 am, TheInquirer <alw...@ask.questions> wrote:
> On 18/06/2012 7:14 AM, TheInquirer wrote:
>
> > On 17/06/2012 10:19 PM, rst0 wrote:

.> > my question to you is the same as my question
.> > to baldeagle:
. > > can you (or anyone) give a clean proof of the
.> > non-existence of God?

Who claim that god exist ? Can they prove that
their Gods exist.

They can't. They have NEVER, NOT once, prove
that their Gods exist.
This alone... is sufficient proof that their God don't
exist.

See ?

[ltl...@hotmail.com]

On Jun 17, 7:14 pm, TheInquirer <alw...@ask.questions> wrote:
> On 17/06/2012 10:19 PM, rst0 wrote:
>
> > On Jun 17, 4:33 am, "ltl...@hotmail.com"<ltl...@hotmail.com>  wrote:
> > It's not a paradox.
>
> please explain.
>
> >> One needs an absolute reference such as god and
> >> god's word recorded in the scripture,
>
> > No.
>
> your word against ltlee's word?
>
>
>
> >> the Christian
> >> Bible or the Islamist Quran or Buddhist teaching in
> >> order to have absolute right and wrong.
>
> > No.
>
> "no" is not an argument.  your word against ltlee's word?
> why should i believe _you_ instead of _him_
>
>
>
> >> At the same
> >> time, to the degree that god cannot be proved to
> >> exist and accepted by all people, there is no
> >> absolute reference.
>
> > "God" was the ancient primitive people's imagination of the unknown.
>
> based on what?
>
> my question to you is the same as my question to baldeagle:
> can you (or anyone) give a clean proof of the non-existence of God?

No one can prove god's existence or nonexistence.
This is the basis for religious freedom.

[baldeagle]

See.... how confused you are.

Pelandok was talking cock ....
He first challenge me by saying "Why can't
we based(our values and social mores) on what
the Bible say? "

I gave him solid example of the wrong teaching
in the bible...killing babies and incest.

He then tried to say ...what the bible stories may not
be true.

Either the bible stories are true and good teaching
for us to follow...or they are not true.

Is he not talking cock ?

[rst0]

On Jun 17, 5:44 pm, "ltl...@hotmail.com" <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 17, 7:14 pm, TheInquirer <alw...@ask.questions> wrote:
> > based on what?
>
> > my question to you is the same as my question to baldeagle:
> > can you (or anyone) give a clean proof of the non-existence of God?
>
> No one can prove god's existence or nonexistence.

God only exists to people with weak mind. Society consists of meek
people with weak mind thinking "God" will grant them their wish or
prayer the material things they can not get in real life.

> This is the basis for religious freedom.

It's brainwashing by a few taking advantages of the meek wishing to
get ahead.

[Pelandok]

there is a youtube on a crossing site further south and some markers
built by Solomon of the site.

[Pelandok]

this kind of thinking is like debator's thinking. it is not the basis
of scientific thinking. scientific thinking accepts new evidence, new
data, and can conclude differently.
debator's thinking fights at all costs to win. but it is really quite
difficult to win when data stares you in the face.

so truth remains truth which leads us to wonder how they have evidence
of the cock sucking. it could be based on testimony. but what if there
are differing testimonies. then acquittal?

[Pelandok]

that there is nlp involved is quite widespread in certain
denominations. many wish to get ahead and a 10% deposit to guarantee
it is quite a ripoff. sometimes it is 100% and more. when the goods
are not delivered the believer mainly does not cut losses but 'buys
and holds'. this weakness in the system is entrenched and may be
growing. to discard it is a tough road for many and in itself
challenges the system and finetunes the prosperity gospel to correct
its misleading statements.

there may be more to come, i.e. i was a bankrupt,i planted a seed, and
things turned around, etc.etc. in this next crash and recovery
whenever it is decided to happen.

[baldeagle]

What have religion fallacies and wrong teachings got
to do with scientific methods.. !!! ?????

Your cock talking is becoming very bad... becoming
serious ....becoming incurable.

[Pelandok]

> serious ....becoming incurable.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Hey, you're quite sharp and able to get to the crux of the matter. If
only you'd studied a bit more Science. Look at it this way. Tesla was
able to fill a room with electric lightning. Yet he died a lonely man
in poverty in a hotel room. We'd have to google if he was religious in
his life. But the things he pondered on, what he discovered are used
widely in today's world. The thing is you can't see what he dwelt on.
Yet you can see something of it. Since you can't see it, you would
discard it, since your brain is wired such. But yet, it is.

Likewise on matters of hygiene. The carriers of disease are
microscopic. In a bottle of Newater you can't see the TDS in it. So
you assume it is only water. But there are TDS in it. Only the normal
sort, it is not.

So you may not see some link. It does not mean there isn't some
science to some.

[baldeagle]

On Jun 18, 2:50 pm, Pelandok <Daqta...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 18, 12:15 pm, baldeagle <force....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>

.> > What have religion fallacies and wrong teachings got
.> > to do with scientific methods.. !!! ?????
>
.> > Your cock talking is becoming very bad... becoming
.> > serious ....becoming incurable.
>

>
.> Hey, you're quite sharp and able to get to the crux of the matter.
If
.> only you'd studied a bit more Science.

More cock talking... wrong religious teaching
cannot be justified..not by science...not by analysis,
not by logic and reason.

[Pelandok]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaN2acVMGC8

is one on the Red Sea crossing to review.

[baldeagle]

See, you don't give up...trying to change the
subject...to avoid admitting that the bible
teach us immoral things.. the killing of babies.
To free the Jews, God have Egyptian first born
innocent babies killed...and committed other
atrocities against the Egyptians.
This is BAD..very bad teaching.

This is my last word on the subject...unless
you can defend such inhuman acts.

[Pelandok]

> you can defend such inhuman acts.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Baldeagle,

My brains may not be as able to win as yours, however, to put it in
context, the plague that you described was the tenth plague. There
were nine plagues before that.

[rst0]

Pelandok is a plain and simpler version of LT Lee.

[rst0]

What does this got to do with the exodus and Moses?

[TheInquirer]

On 18/06/2012 8:08 AM, baldeagle wrote:
> On Jun 18, 7:19 am, TheInquirer<alw...@ask.questions> wrote:
>> On 18/06/2012 7:14 AM, TheInquirer wrote:
>>
>>> On 17/06/2012 10:19 PM, rst0 wrote:
>
> .> > my question to you is the same as my question
> .> > to baldeagle:
> .> > can you (or anyone) give a clean proof of the
> .> > non-existence of God?
>
> Who claim that god exist ? Can they prove that
> their Gods exist.

your error here is: shifting onus of proof.

i asked for "can you (or anyone) give a clean proof of the non-existence
of God?"

notice that i dont make the claim that if nobody can give a clean proof
of the non-existence of God, then therefore God exists. i am not as
stupid as you to make this connection.

anyway, you are throwing a red-herring i.e. you are using an
intellectually dishonest form of argument in trying to steer away from
my question. "a clean proof of the non-existence of God" and "a clean
proof of the existence of God" are actually two different things. one
may not necessarily cancel the other, because it might happen that no
clean proof exists for either way. (is there? i don't know, that's why
i ask). it may be undecidable. (is it undecidable? i don't know,
that's why i ask). or maybe there is a way to Hegellianly synthesise
these two oppositing theses than mankind has yet to discover. i really
don't know. i really don't know, that's why i ask. but i expect good
answers, or none at all. i am perfectly fine in carrying my own
research on my own, you know?

also, please refer to my new thread "How Baldeagle should have answered
my questions"

[TheInquirer]

On 18/06/2012 11:16 AM, rst0 wrote:
> On Jun 17, 5:44 pm, "ltl...@hotmail.com"<ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 17, 7:14 pm, TheInquirer<alw...@ask.questions> wrote:
>>> based on what?
>>
>>> my question to you is the same as my question to baldeagle:
>>> can you (or anyone) give a clean proof of the non-existence of God?
>>
>> No one can prove god's existence or nonexistence.
>

> God only exists to people with weak mind.

how do you know?

Society consists of meek
> people with weak mind thinking "God" will grant them their wish or
> prayer the material things they can not get in real life.

is calling people weak minded a form of argument? if not, what makes
you superior?

(rubbish snipped)

i guess you are the same as baldeagle. you, rst, are also disqualified.
i do not consider your responses as worth anything.


for the rest of you, please refer to this video for a good example of
what i am looking for.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6PWFvzKl3I&feature=related

of course, this argument is not water-tight (is there such a thing?)
but i consider this a very good testimony and argument. the speaker
(interviewee) supports his points with facts, research, and scholarship
and does not resort to circular argument, or calling other people stupid
or "weak-minded". are there any other good ones?

[TheInquirer]

On 18/06/2012 12:05 PM, Pelandok wrote:
> On Jun 18, 11:16 am, rst0<rst0w...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 17, 5:44 pm, "ltl...@hotmail.com"<ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 17, 7:14 pm, TheInquirer<alw...@ask.questions> wrote:
>>>> based on what?
>>
>>>> my question to you is the same as my question to baldeagle:
>>>> can you (or anyone) give a clean proof of the non-existence of God?
>>
>>> No one can prove god's existence or nonexistence.
>>
>> God only exists to people with weak mind. Society consists of meek
>> people with weak mind thinking "God" will grant them their wish or
>> prayer the material things they can not get in real life.
>>
>>> This is the basis for religious freedom.
>>
>> It's brainwashing by a few taking advantages of the meek wishing to
>> get ahead.
>
> that there is nlp

what is NLP? Ni-eh Lam Pah (your lam pah)?

[TheInquirer]

On 18/06/2012 7:14 AM, baldeagle wrote:

> See.... how confused you are.

you are the one who is confused.

> Pelandok was talking cock ....
> He first challenge me by saying "Why can't
> we based(our values and social mores) on what
> the Bible say? "
>
> I gave him solid example of the wrong teaching
> in the bible...killing babies and incest.

your word against his word, right? circular argument.

(snip) (snip) (snip) (snip) (snip) (snip) (snip)

[TheInquirer]

it's not about winning or losing. I asked, becos I'm curious. I
want to know the answer. and i want good answers. calling people
stupid or presuming certain beliefs about the questioner does not
show superior logic or thinking, besides being irrelevant and
irreverend.

Many atheists like to criticise religious people as weak minded,
illogical. As i have proven convincingly, these guys are guilty of the
same bigotry, circular reasoning as theists. (besides name calling,
evading the question etc.)

this makes my quest to know the truth very difficult, people from
both camps present junk arguments. for your information, the opposite
of theism is not atheism. there are many other permutations and
options, if one cares enough to research into the matter.

but since like attracts like (i am not attracted to baldeagle or rst),
shall i just leave you guys to entertain one another?

thanks. good bye!

[rst0]

On Jun 18, 11:08 am, TheInquirer <alw...@ask.questions> wrote:
> On 18/06/2012 11:16 AM, rst0 wrote:
>
> > On Jun 17, 5:44 pm, "ltl...@hotmail.com"<ltl...@hotmail.com>  wrote:
> >> On Jun 17, 7:14 pm, TheInquirer<alw...@ask.questions>  wrote:
> >>> based on what?
>
> >>> my question to you is the same as my question to baldeagle:
> >>> can you (or anyone) give a clean proof of the non-existence of God?
>
> >> No one can prove god's existence or nonexistence.
>
> > God only exists to people with weak mind.
>
> how do you know?
>
> Society consists of meek
>
> > people with weak mind thinking "God" will grant them their wish or
> > prayer the material things they can not get in real life.
>
> is calling people weak minded a form of argument?  if not, what makes
> you superior?
>
> (rubbish snipped)
>
> i guess you are the same as baldeagle.  you, rst, are also disqualified.
> i do not consider your responses as worth anything.
>
> for the rest of you, please refer to this video for a good example of
> what i am looking for.
>    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6PWFvzKl3I&feature=related

This is an example of which you are looking for?

He didn't say anything worth mentioning!!!!

[rst0]

On Jun 18, 11:21 am, TheInquirer <alw...@ask.questions> wrote:
> On 18/06/2012 7:17 PM, Pelandok wrote:
>
> > On Jun 18, 6:01 pm, baldeagle<force....@gmail.com>  wrote:
> > Baldeagle,
>
> > My brains may not be as able to win as yours,
>
> it's not about winning or losing.

Yes, I agree. It's a divergent views on subject of common interest.
We all look at things differently.

[Andy W]

Neuro-linguistic programming, probably.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming

[baldeagle]

On Jun 19, 1:59 am, TheInquirer <alw...@ask.questions> wrote:
> On 18/06/2012 8:08 AM, baldeagle wrote:
>
> > On Jun 18, 7:19 am, TheInquirer<alw...@ask.questions>  wrote:
> >> On 18/06/2012 7:14 AM, TheInquirer wrote:
>
> >>> On 17/06/2012 10:19 PM, rst0 wrote:
>

>

.> > Who claim that god exist ? Can they prove that
.> > their Gods exist.
.> > They can't. They have NEVER, NOT once, prove
.> > that their Gods exist.
.> > This alone... is sufficient proof that their God don't
.> > exist.

.> your error here is: shifting onus of proof.

This is another proof that you are confused.

[baldeagle]

Pelandok is ok. He tried his best but found
himself in a dead corner....an impossible
position.. when he try to defend the position that
the bible should be used as our social mores.

Social mores of society in the time when the
bible was written is outdated and not acceptable
to us. Now, we have our own ethical standards...
but still far from perfect.
Hence our discussion in this forum.

[Father Haskell]

On Jun 17, 8:44 pm, "ltl...@hotmail.com" <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> No one can prove god's existence or nonexistence.
> This is the basis for religious freedom.

How do you prove nonexistence?

[baldeagle]

Can you show us proof of the existence of god...since
you claim to be a christian priest ...a father.

[ltl...@hotmail.com]

I certainly cannot.
People, however, can choose to believe or not to believe
god's existence. If the majority agree and/or proclaim
"God does not exist," then god does not exist by proclamation.