Theists don't intend their arguments for God to be valid arguments - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[Dingbat]

Instead, they argue that philosophical arguments leading to conclusions on subjects other than God's existence don't meet the standard of validity either:

Contemporary proponents of such arguments do not see theistic arguments as attempted “proofs,” in the sense that they are supposed to provide valid arguments with premises that no reasonable person could deny. Such a standard of achievement would clearly be setting the bar for success very high, and proponents of theistic arguments rightly note that philosophical arguments for interesting conclusions in any field outside of formal logic hardly ever reach such a standard.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/#GoaTheArg

[LL]

Well, that would be a relief, if it were true. But it isn't. Theists continue to play the same old song over and over, and they think it proves something. All it proves is that theists can't think independently and rationally. All they can do is think emotionally and subjectively. They need their blanky and their pacifier.

LL

[Alan Wostenberg]

"Contemporary proponents of such arguments do not see theistic arguments as attempted “proofs,” in the sense that they are supposed to provide valid arguments with premises that no reasonable person could deny.".... Quod erat demonstrandum?  These contemporary proponents are, on the Catholic view, fideists. For Vatican 1 teaches

The same Holy mother Church holds and teaches that God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason…

Now "with certainty" means it is not an hypothesis subject to correction by future facts, but a metaphysical demonstration from premises that no reasonable person can doubt.

[LL]

On Sep 9, 2015, at 11:29 AM, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:

"Contemporary proponents of such arguments do not see theistic arguments as attempted “proofs,” in the sense that they are supposed to provide valid arguments with premises that no reasonable person could deny.".... Quod erat demonstrandum?  These contemporary proponents are, on the Catholic view, fideists. For Vatican 1 teaches

The same Holy mother Church holds and teaches that God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason…

Now "with certainty" means it is not an hypothesis subject to correction by future facts, but a metaphysical demonstration from premises that no reasonable person can doubt.

You can't prove god by citing a religious view. It is begging the question.

It's like saying, "I believe in ghosts because my ghost manual and my ghost organization say they exist." 

LL

On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 11:39:09 AM UTC-6, Dingbat wrote:

Instead, they argue that philosophical arguments leading to conclusions on subjects other than God's existence don't meet the standard of validity either:

Contemporary proponents of such arguments do not see theistic arguments as attempted “proofs,” in the sense that they are supposed to provide valid arguments with premises that no reasonable person could deny. Such a standard of achievement would clearly be setting the bar for success very high, and proponents of theistic arguments rightly note that philosophical arguments for interesting conclusions in any field outside of formal logic hardly ever reach such a standard.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/#GoaTheArg

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[LL]

If that's the case, why do they waste so much time and energy making theistic arguments? Whatever argument they advance has been shown to have no legs--they even admit it--yet they expect people to believe their premise. That sounds suspiciously like the definition of insanity. 

[Dingbat]

On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 2:58:49 PM UTC-4, LL wrote:

On Sep 9, 2015, at 10:39 AM, "'Dingbat' via Atheism vs Christianity"<atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Instead, they argue that philosophical arguments leading to conclusions on subjects other than God's existence don't meet the standard of validity either:

Contemporary proponents of such arguments do not see theistic arguments as attempted “proofs,” in the sense that they are supposed to provide valid arguments with premises that no reasonable person could deny. Such a standard of achievement would clearly be setting the bar for success very high, and proponents of theistic arguments rightly note that philosophical arguments for interesting conclusions in any field outside of formal logic hardly ever reach such a standard.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/#GoaTheArg

If that's the case, why do they waste so much time and energy making theistic arguments? Whatever argument they advance has been shown to have no legs--they even admit it--yet they expect people to believe their premise.

They claim that other philosophical conclusions you already accept don't meet the most stringent standard of validity either, so you shouldn't apply such a stringent standard to "God exists." Alan can presumably elaborate as to what some of those other conclusions might be.

Secondly, they claim that religion is not only not as bad as portrayed by its detractors; it's positively cuddly.

Thirdly, they claim that even apparently atheistic philosophers are not as atheistic as claimed by either themselves or others, although they do seem to concede that Dawkins and Co are really atheists.

Some of these points are made here:

The God Conclusion: God and the Western Philosophical Tradition Paperback – 2009

by Keith Ward
http://www.amazon.com/The-God-Conclusion-Philosophical-Tradition/dp/0232527571

Discover why:

...Plato was not a world-hating totalitarian
...Aquinas' Five Ways are not so bad after all
...Kicking stones cannot refute Bishop Berkeley
...Schopenhauer was not quite an atheist
...and other refreshing new perspectives on spiritual thinking in western philosophy.

This entertaining book posits the theory that philosophy, far from being the enemy of religion, has more often than not supported a non-materialist view of the universe. Keith Ward re-examines the works of western philosophy'€™s greatest thinkers€“ from Plato and Aquinas to Kant and Hegel€“ and suggests that the majority accepted €˜the God conclusion€: that there is a supreme spiritual reality which is the cause or underlying nature of the physical cosmos.

[Alan Wostenberg]

Agree, L.Lane, "can't prove God by citing a religious view"... but then the cite didn't say that.  Rather, the Vatican I dogma, reaffirmed in CCC 36 is: The same Holy mother Church holds and teaches that God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason…

It's the fideists who believe God's existence is in principle indemonstrable so you gotta have faith. Internet atheists, like the fideists, believe God's existence is indemonstrable. Unlike fideists, they think you ought not believe.      Perhaps that's why neither fideist nor internet atheist much trouble themselves with actually studying the best theistic arguments in depth.    In stark contrasts we Catholics have more faith in reason. Consequently we hunker down, study the best theistic arguments. It's bracing!  Come on in, the water's fine, my fallen Catholic friend! 

On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 12:44:15 PM UTC-6, LL wrote:

[LL]

On Sep 9, 2015, at 12:19 PM, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:

Agree, L.Lane, "can't prove God by citing a religious view"... but then the cite didn't say that.  Rather, the Vatican I dogma, reaffirmed in CCC 36 is: The same Holy mother Church holds and teaches that God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason…

Same thing as far as I can see. How is that different from what I said? It's a  circular argument, no matter how you try to twist it. 

LL

It's the fideists who believe God's existence is in principle indemonstrable so you gotta have faith. Internet atheists, like the fideists, believe God's existence is indemonstrable. Unlike fideists, they think you ought not believe.      Perhaps that's why neither fideist nor internet atheist much trouble themselves with actually studying the best theistic arguments in depth.    In stark contrasts we Catholics have more faith in reason. Consequently we hunker down, study the best theistic arguments. It's bracing!  Come on in, the water's fine, my fallen Catholic friend! 

On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 12:44:15 PM UTC-6, LL wrote:

On Sep 9, 2015, at 11:29 AM, Alan Wostenberg <> wrote:

"Contemporary proponents of such arguments do not see theistic arguments as attempted “proofs,” in the sense that they are supposed to provide valid arguments with premises that no reasonable person could deny.".... Quod erat demonstrandum?  These contemporary proponents are, on the Catholic view, fideists. For Vatican 1 teaches

The same Holy mother Church holds and teaches that God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason…

Now "with certainty" means it is not an hypothesis subject to correction by future facts, but a metaphysical demonstration from premises that no reasonable person can doubt.

You can't prove god by citing a religious view. It is begging the question.

It's like saying, "I believe in ghosts because my ghost manual and my ghost organization say they exist." 

LL

On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 11:39:09 AM UTC-6, Dingbat wrote:

Instead, they argue that philosophical arguments leading to conclusions on subjects other than God's existence don't meet the standard of validity either:

Contemporary proponents of such arguments do not see theistic arguments as attempted “proofs,” in the sense that they are supposed to provide valid arguments with premises that no reasonable person could deny. Such a standard of achievement would clearly be setting the bar for success very high, and proponents of theistic arguments rightly note that philosophical arguments for interesting conclusions in any field outside of formal logic hardly ever reach such a standard.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/#GoaTheArg

--

[Rupert]

On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 9:19:53 PM UTC+2, Alan Wostenberg wrote:

Agree, L.Lane, "can't prove God by citing a religious view"... but then the cite didn't say that.  Rather, the Vatican I dogma, reaffirmed in CCC 36 is: The same Holy mother Church holds and teaches that God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason…

So when are we finally going to get to hear what the reasons are?

[Alan Wostenberg]

Lane, you think it's circular?   A circular argument asserts what it intends to prove. Take a closer look at CCC 36  "The same Holy mother Church holds and teaches that God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason".  What is it asserting?    How is it circular?
On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 1:42:59 PM UTC-6, LL wrote:

[LL]

On Sep 9, 2015, at 12:17 PM, "'Dingbat' via Atheism vs Christianity"<atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 2:58:49 PM UTC-4, LL wrote:

On Sep 9, 2015, at 10:39 AM, "'Dingbat' via Atheism vs Christianity"<atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Instead, they argue that philosophical arguments leading to conclusions on subjects other than God's existence don't meet the standard of validity either:

Contemporary proponents of such arguments do not see theistic arguments as attempted “proofs,” in the sense that they are supposed to provide valid arguments with premises that no reasonable person could deny. Such a standard of achievement would clearly be setting the bar for success very high, and proponents of theistic arguments rightly note that philosophical arguments for interesting conclusions in any field outside of formal logic hardly ever reach such a standard.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/#GoaTheArg

If that's the case, why do they waste so much time and energy making theistic arguments? Whatever argument they advance has been shown to have no legs--they even admit it--yet they expect people to believe their premise.

They claim that other philosophical conclusions you already accept don't meet the most stringent standard of validity either,

Like what? 

so you shouldn't apply such a stringent standard to "God exists." Alan can presumably elaborate as to what some of those other conclusions might be.

Secondly, they claim that religion is not only not as bad as portrayed by its detractors; it's positively cuddly.

They would, wouldn't they? They manage to leave out all the ugly stuff. Of course it looks good if no one looks beneath the surface. 

Thirdly, they claim that even apparently atheistic philosophers are not as atheistic as claimed by either themselves or others,

Like who? 

although they do seem to concede that Dawkins and Co are really atheists.

Who are they to decide who is "really" an atheist. Should atheists start defining who is "really" a theost? 

Some of these points are made here:

The God Conclusion: God and the Western Philosophical Tradition Paperback – 2009

by Keith Ward
http://www.amazon.com/The-God-Conclusion-Philosophical-Tradition/dp/0232527571

Discover why:

...Plato was not a world-hating totalitarian
...Aquinas' Five Ways are not so bad after all
...Kicking stones cannot refute Bishop Berkeley
...Schopenhauer was not quite an atheist
...and other refreshing new perspectives on spiritual thinking in western philosophy.

This entertaining book posits the theory that philosophy, far from being the enemy of religion, has more often than not supported a non-materialist view of the universe. Keith Ward re-examines the works of western philosophy'€™s greatest thinkers€“ from Plato and Aquinas to Kant and Hegel€“ and suggests that the majority accepted €˜the God conclusion€: that there is a supreme spiritual reality which is the cause or underlying nature of the physical cosmos.

Nothing these books say or that any book says can show evidence that a god exists or that any good comes out of believing religious myths. When that day arrives, i'm sure you'll let me know. 

LL

[LL]

On Sep 9, 2015, at 12:50 PM, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:

Lane, you think it's circular?   A circular argument asserts what it intends to prove. Take a closer look at CCC 36  "The same Holy mother Church holds and teaches that God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason".  What is it asserting?    How is it circular?

It assumes god exists and tries to prove it by stating what a god-believing church preaches. You can't get any more circular than that. Injecting "the natural power of human reason" is a red herring, also with no evidence. 

LL

On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 1:42:59 PM UTC-6, LL wrote:

On Sep 9, 2015, at 12:19 PM, Alan Wostenberg <> wrote:

Agree, L.Lane, "can't prove God by citing a religious view"... but then the cite didn't say that.  Rather, the Vatican I dogma, reaffirmed in CCC 36 is: The same Holy mother Church holds and teaches that God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason…

Same thing as far as I can see. How is that different from what I said? It's a  circular argument, no matter how you try to twist it. 

 

--

[Rupert]

On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 9:50:45 PM UTC+2, Alan Wostenberg wrote:

Lane, you think it's circular?   A circular argument asserts what it intends to prove. Take a closer look at CCC 36  "The same Holy mother Church holds and teaches that God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason". 

You shouldn't be constantly saying this, and at the same time refusing actually to offer the least reason to think that God exists.

[Dingbat]

On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 3:58:57 PM UTC-4, LL wrote:

On Sep 9, 2015, at 12:17 PM, "'Dingbat' via Atheism vs Christianity"<atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 2:58:49 PM UTC-4, LL wrote:

On Sep 9, 2015, at 10:39 AM, "'Dingbat' via Atheism vs Christianity"<atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Instead, they argue that philosophical arguments leading to conclusions on subjects other than God's existence don't meet the standard of validity either:

Contemporary proponents of such arguments do not see theistic arguments as attempted “proofs,” in the sense that they are supposed to provide valid arguments with premises that no reasonable person could deny. Such a standard of achievement would clearly be setting the bar for success very high, and proponents of theistic arguments rightly note that philosophical arguments for interesting conclusions in any field outside of formal logic hardly ever reach such a standard.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/#GoaTheArg

If that's the case, why do they waste so much time and energy making theistic arguments? Whatever argument they advance has been shown to have no legs--they even admit it--yet they expect people to believe their premise.

They claim that other philosophical conclusions you already accept don't meet the most stringent standard of validity either,

Like what? 

I can't remember. Either Brock or Alan once gave an example of something that atheists accept without the same kind of valid proof that atheists demand for God.

Matt Slick of Christian apologetics research ministry asks:
If there was a proof that truly did prove God's existence, would the atheist be able to accept it?

> You shouldn't apply such a stringent standard to "God exists." Alan can presumably elaborate as to what some of those other conclusions might be.

Secondly, they claim that religion is not only not as bad as portrayed by its detractors; it's positively cuddly.

They would, wouldn't they? They manage to leave out all the ugly stuff. Of course it looks good if no one looks beneath the surface. 

Thirdly, they claim that even apparently atheistic philosophers are not as atheistic as claimed by either themselves or others,

> Like who? 

The example given in this book is Schopenhauer. The book claims that atheists claim Schopenhauer as an atheist but he really wasn't.

although they do seem to concede that Dawkins and Co are really atheists.

Who are they to decide who is "really" an atheist. Should atheists start defining who is "really" a theist? 

Some of these points are made here:

The God Conclusion: God and the Western Philosophical Tradition Paperback – 2009

by Keith Ward
http://www.amazon.com/The-God-Conclusion-Philosophical-Tradition/dp/0232527571

Discover why:

...Plato was not a world-hating totalitarian
...Aquinas' Five Ways are not so bad after all
...Kicking stones cannot refute Bishop Berkeley
...Schopenhauer was not quite an atheist
...and other refreshing new perspectives on spiritual thinking in western philosophy.

This entertaining book posits the theory that philosophy, far from being the enemy of religion, has more often than not supported a non-materialist view of the universe. Keith Ward re-examines the works of western philosophy'€™s greatest thinkers€“ from Plato and Aquinas to Kant and Hegel€“ and suggests that the majority accepted €˜the God conclusion€: that there is a supreme spiritual reality which is the cause or underlying nature of the physical cosmos.

Nothing these books say or that any book says can show evidence that a god exists or that any good comes out of believing religious myths. When that day arrives, i'm sure you'll let me know. 

LL

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[lawrey]

On Wednesday, 9 September 2015 19:29:02 UTC+1, Alan Wostenberg wrote:

"Contemporary proponents of such arguments do not see theistic arguments as attempted “proofs,” in the sense that they are supposed to provide valid arguments with premises that no reasonable person could deny.".... Quod erat demonstrandum?  These contemporary proponents are, on the Catholic view, fideists. For Vatican 1 teaches

The same Holy mother Church holds and teaches that God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason…

Now "with certainty" means it is not an hypothesis subject to correction by future facts, but a metaphysical demonstration from premises that no reasonable person can doubt.

                Alan,
                           I thought I'd seen it all from you but this has to be the most contradictory

                           double-talk you've managed in a long time, I have to wonder where you

                           found the gall to even consider it.

                          You start by asserting the contemporary proponents are fideists, and go on

                          to say the  Sancta Mater Ecclesia teaches that a god is the end of all things with

                          certainty. "WHAT? how on earth can you in all honesty, possibly say that?

                          It is quite deliberately false and you know it. The reason there are atheists here

                          is exactly because there is no such thing as a god known to man that exists or has

                          ever existed in the recorded history of the world.

                          Your god-thing is beyond the reason of your own church fathers to explain, that is

                          why you, like the fideists can't rely on reason, it is beyond all reason; that is why

                          you resort to the gimmick of faith.....That being the case of course it is a   

                          hypothetical notion; the very fact that you go on to say it is a metaphysical

                          demonstration screams that it is unknown and without existence, except in the   

                          minds imagination.

                          Any reasonable person doesn't just doubt it.... they just do not after reasoning,

                          believe it.

[GT]

On Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 4:58:49 AM UTC+10, LL wrote:

On Sep 9, 2015, at 10:39 AM, "'Dingbat' via Atheism vs Christianity"<atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Instead, they argue that philosophical arguments leading to conclusions on subjects other than God's existence don't meet the standard of validity either:

Contemporary proponents of such arguments do not see theistic arguments as attempted “proofs,” in the sense that they are supposed to provide valid arguments with premises that no reasonable person could deny. Such a standard of achievement would clearly be setting the bar for success very high, and proponents of theistic arguments rightly note that philosophical arguments for interesting conclusions in any field outside of formal logic hardly ever reach such a standard.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/#GoaTheArg

If that's the case, why do they waste so much time and energy making theistic arguments? Whatever argument they advance has been shown to have no legs--they even admit it--yet they expect people to believe their premise. That sounds suspiciously like the definition of insanity. 

Theists assert their beliefs. They don't pretend their beliefs are factual. And, an example of insane behavior would be atheism's non-belief. You people challenge theists, who at least have a belief of their own, but have no belief yourselves.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[LL]

On Sep 11, 2015, at 12:16 AM, GT <greg....@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 4:58:49 AM UTC+10, LL wrote:

On Sep 9, 2015, at 10:39 AM, "'Dingbat' via Atheism vs Christianity"<atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Instead, they argue that philosophical arguments leading to conclusions on subjects other than God's existence don't meet the standard of validity either:

Contemporary proponents of such arguments do not see theistic arguments as attempted “proofs,” in the sense that they are supposed to provide valid arguments with premises that no reasonable person could deny. Such a standard of achievement would clearly be setting the bar for success very high, and proponents of theistic arguments rightly note that philosophical arguments for interesting conclusions in any field outside of formal logic hardly ever reach such a standard.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/#GoaTheArg

If that's the case, why do they waste so much time and energy making theistic arguments? Whatever argument they advance has been shown to have no legs--they even admit it--yet they expect people to believe their premise. That sounds suspiciously like the definition of insanity. 

Theists assert their beliefs. They don't pretend their beliefs are factual. And, an example of insane behavior would be atheism's non-belief. You people challenge theists, who at least have a belief of their own, but have no belief yourselves.

Atheists have common sense and think rationally, so unsupported beliefs are not necessary to us.  Only children and theists need fairy tales. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.

[GT]

On Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 4:27:56 AM UTC+10, LL wrote:

Well, that would be a relief, if it were true. But it isn't. Theists continue to play the same old song over and over, and they think it proves something. All it proves is that theists can't think independently and rationally. All they can do is think emotionally and subjectively. They need their blanky and their pacifier.

LL

If theists can't think independently or rationally, then what of atheists who debate with them? Who is the more irrational? And that's literally or logically deducted. And so the false sense of security is given to you by who then? It's not Mother Nature, as that makes no sense, you are not naturalists after-all, and regardless can have no faith in Nature anyhow.

[GT]

On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 5:24:57 PM UTC+10, LL wrote:

On Sep 11, 2015, at 12:16 AM, GT <greg....@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 4:58:49 AM UTC+10, LL wrote:

On Sep 9, 2015, at 10:39 AM, "'Dingbat' via Atheism vs Christianity"<atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Instead, they argue that philosophical arguments leading to conclusions on subjects other than God's existence don't meet the standard of validity either:

Contemporary proponents of such arguments do not see theistic arguments as attempted “proofs,” in the sense that they are supposed to provide valid arguments with premises that no reasonable person could deny. Such a standard of achievement would clearly be setting the bar for success very high, and proponents of theistic arguments rightly note that philosophical arguments for interesting conclusions in any field outside of formal logic hardly ever reach such a standard.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/#GoaTheArg

If that's the case, why do they waste so much time and energy making theistic arguments? Whatever argument they advance has been shown to have no legs--they even admit it--yet they expect people to believe their premise. That sounds suspiciously like the definition of insanity. 

Theists assert their beliefs. They don't pretend their beliefs are factual. And, an example of insane behavior would be atheism's non-belief. You people challenge theists, who at least have a belief of their own, but have no belief yourselves.

Atheists have common sense and think rationally, so unsupported beliefs are not necessary to us.  Only children and theists need fairy tales. 

Unsupported beliefs! You have no beliefs at all.  What are you on about. You believe that you have the support of science. But you don't. So what have you got? Nothing!

[LL]

On Sep 11, 2015, at 12:57 AM, GT <greg....@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 5:24:57 PM UTC+10, LL wrote:

On Sep 11, 2015, at 12:16 AM, GT <greg....@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 4:58:49 AM UTC+10, LL wrote:

On Sep 9, 2015, at 10:39 AM, "'Dingbat' via Atheism vs Christianity"<atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Instead, they argue that philosophical arguments leading to conclusions on subjects other than God's existence don't meet the standard of validity either:

Contemporary proponents of such arguments do not see theistic arguments as attempted “proofs,” in the sense that they are supposed to provide valid arguments with premises that no reasonable person could deny. Such a standard of achievement would clearly be setting the bar for success very high, and proponents of theistic arguments rightly note that philosophical arguments for interesting conclusions in any field outside of formal logic hardly ever reach such a standard.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/#GoaTheArg

If that's the case, why do they waste so much time and energy making theistic arguments? Whatever argument they advance has been shown to have no legs--they even admit it--yet they expect people to believe their premise. That sounds suspiciously like the definition of insanity. 

Theists assert their beliefs. They don't pretend their beliefs are factual. And, an example of insane behavior would be atheism's non-belief. You people challenge theists, who at least have a belief of their own, but have no belief yourselves.

Atheists have common sense and think rationally, so unsupported beliefs are not necessary to us.  Only children and theists need fairy tales. 

Unsupported beliefs! You have no beliefs at all.  What are you on about. You believe that you have the support of science. But you don't. So what have you got? Nothing!

In your idiot's opinion. What else could you say? You use science every moment of your life, but you deny it when it comes to god. That's rational! You don't even have the support of common sense. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.

[LL]

On Sep 11, 2015, at 12:54 AM, GT <greg....@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 4:27:56 AM UTC+10, LL wrote:

Well, that would be a relief, if it were true. But it isn't. Theists continue to play the same old song over and over, and they think it proves something. All it proves is that theists can't think independently and rationally. All they can do is think emotionally and subjectively. They need their blanky and their pacifier.

LL

If theists can't think independently or rationally, then what of atheists who debate with them? Who is the more irrational? And that's literally or logically deducted. It's a false sense of security given to you by who? It's not Mother Nature, as that makes no sense, you are not naturalists after-all.

No, I'm a rationalist--something you apparently know nothing about. You, meanwhile are a fantasist. 

[e_space]

On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 3:16:14 AM UTC-4, GT wrote:

On Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 4:58:49 AM UTC+10, LL wrote:

On Sep 9, 2015, at 10:39 AM, "'Dingbat' via Atheism vs Christianity"<atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Instead, they argue that philosophical arguments leading to conclusions on subjects other than God's existence don't meet the standard of validity either:

Contemporary proponents of such arguments do not see theistic arguments as attempted “proofs,” in the sense that they are supposed to provide valid arguments with premises that no reasonable person could deny. Such a standard of achievement would clearly be setting the bar for success very high, and proponents of theistic arguments rightly note that philosophical arguments for interesting conclusions in any field outside of formal logic hardly ever reach such a standard.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/#GoaTheArg

If that's the case, why do they waste so much time and energy making theistic arguments? Whatever argument they advance has been shown to have no legs--they even admit it--yet they expect people to believe their premise. That sounds suspiciously like the definition of insanity. 

Theists assert their beliefs. They don't pretend their beliefs are factual. And, an example of insane behavior would be atheism's non-belief. You people challenge theists, who at least have a belief of their own, but have no belief yourselves.

what is the value of having "beliefs"? ... why not rely on facts? ... i think it is okay for one to have beliefs as long as they do not preach them as the truth until they have the facts in hand ... atheists may consider something to be existent, and in that sense, they may hold a belief ... but they don't put it out there as if it were a fact ... the very reason that religious people refer to "faith in god" is because they don't have the facts ... if they actually knew that god, God or GOD existed, do you think the word "faith", "belief" or "hope" would be part of their rhetoric? 

[Answer_42]

On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 3:16:14 AM UTC-4, GT wrote:

On Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 4:58:49 AM UTC+10, LL wrote:

On Sep 9, 2015, at 10:39 AM, "'Dingbat' via Atheism vs Christianity"<atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Instead, they argue that philosophical arguments leading to conclusions on subjects other than God's existence don't meet the standard of validity either:

Contemporary proponents of such arguments do not see theistic arguments as attempted “proofs,” in the sense that they are supposed to provide valid arguments with premises that no reasonable person could deny. Such a standard of achievement would clearly be setting the bar for success very high, and proponents of theistic arguments rightly note that philosophical arguments for interesting conclusions in any field outside of formal logic hardly ever reach such a standard.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/#GoaTheArg

If that's the case, why do they waste so much time and energy making theistic arguments? Whatever argument they advance has been shown to have no legs--they even admit it--yet they expect people to believe their premise. That sounds suspiciously like the definition of insanity. 

Theists assert their beliefs. They don't pretend their beliefs are factual.

 

So they are meaningless.

 

And, an example of insane behavior would be atheism's non-belief. You people challenge theists, who at least have a belief of their own, but have no belief yourselves.

 

What would I need beliefs for?

 

 

[Answer_42]

On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 3:24:57 AM UTC-4, LL wrote:

On Sep 11, 2015, at 12:16 AM, GT <greg....@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 4:58:49 AM UTC+10, LL wrote:

On Sep 9, 2015, at 10:39 AM, "'Dingbat' via Atheism vs Christianity"<atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Instead, they argue that philosophical arguments leading to conclusions on subjects other than God's existence don't meet the standard of validity either:

Contemporary proponents of such arguments do not see theistic arguments as attempted “proofs,” in the sense that they are supposed to provide valid arguments with premises that no reasonable person could deny. Such a standard of achievement would clearly be setting the bar for success very high, and proponents of theistic arguments rightly note that philosophical arguments for interesting conclusions in any field outside of formal logic hardly ever reach such a standard.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/#GoaTheArg

If that's the case, why do they waste so much time and energy making theistic arguments? Whatever argument they advance has been shown to have no legs--they even admit it--yet they expect people to believe their premise. That sounds suspiciously like the definition of insanity. 

Theists assert their beliefs. They don't pretend their beliefs are factual. And, an example of insane behavior would be atheism's non-belief. You people challenge theists, who at least have a belief of their own, but have no belief yourselves.

Atheists have common sense and think rationally,

 

Well, to be fair, not all of them.

In fact, atheism does not guarantee rationalism. It says nothing about rationalism. It's just that most are rational, in a larger ratio then theists, I dare say.

 

so unsupported beliefs are not necessary to us.  Only children and theists need fairy tales. 

 

Yes, that seems to be the case. 

 

 

[LL]

Although that's essentially true, an atheist is not automatically rational, but in my experience there are few irrational atheists. There are probably some who came to it through a different way than through rational thinking and have not actually thought it through rationally. But I think that represents a minority of atheists. A thinking person  needs a certain amount of true understanding about belief and non belief to become and remain an atheist. My opinion, anyway. 

LL

 

so unsupported beliefs are not necessary to us.  Only children and theists need fairy tales. 

 

Yes, that seems to be the case. 

 

 

--

[LL]

Indeed. Only an indoctrinated theist would make such an inane statement. 

LL

 

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.

[GT]

On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 6:04:55 PM UTC+10, LL wrote:

On Sep 11, 2015, at 12:57 AM, GT <greg....@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 5:24:57 PM UTC+10, LL wrote:

On Sep 11, 2015, at 12:16 AM, GT <greg....@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 4:58:49 AM UTC+10, LL wrote:

On Sep 9, 2015, at 10:39 AM, "'Dingbat' via Atheism vs Christianity"<atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Instead, they argue that philosophical arguments leading to conclusions on subjects other than God's existence don't meet the standard of validity either:

Contemporary proponents of such arguments do not see theistic arguments as attempted “proofs,” in the sense that they are supposed to provide valid arguments with premises that no reasonable person could deny. Such a standard of achievement would clearly be setting the bar for success very high, and proponents of theistic arguments rightly note that philosophical arguments for interesting conclusions in any field outside of formal logic hardly ever reach such a standard.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/#GoaTheArg

If that's the case, why do they waste so much time and energy making theistic arguments? Whatever argument they advance has been shown to have no legs--they even admit it--yet they expect people to believe their premise. That sounds suspiciously like the definition of insanity. 

Theists assert their beliefs. They don't pretend their beliefs are factual. And, an example of insane behavior would be atheism's non-belief. You people challenge theists, who at least have a belief of their own, but have no belief yourselves.

Atheists have common sense and think rationally, so unsupported beliefs are not necessary to us.  Only children and theists need fairy tales. 

Unsupported beliefs! You have no beliefs at all.  What are you on about. You believe that you have the support of science. But you don't. So what have you got? Nothing!

In your idiot's opinion. What else could you say? You use science every moment of your life, but you deny it when it comes to god. That's rational! You don't even have the support of common sense. 

Atheism is not in anyway scientific. You mistakenly believe that you have the support of science though. This is apparent in your claim that I as a theist denies science in some way.

 

[GT]

On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 6:07:10 PM UTC+10, LL wrote:

On Sep 11, 2015, at 12:54 AM, GT <greg....@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 4:27:56 AM UTC+10, LL wrote:

Well, that would be a relief, if it were true. But it isn't. Theists continue to play the same old song over and over, and they think it proves something. All it proves is that theists can't think independently and rationally. All they can do is think emotionally and subjectively. They need their blanky and their pacifier.

LL

If theists can't think independently or rationally, then what of atheists who debate with them? Who is the more irrational? And that's literally or logically deducted. It's a false sense of security given to you by who? It's not Mother Nature, as that makes no sense, you are not naturalists after-all.

No, I'm a rationalist--something you apparently know nothing about. You, meanwhile are a fantasist. 

Atheism is an opposing force with no philosophical position of its own. That's not being rational.
 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[LL]

On Sep 13, 2015, at 7:04 PM, GT <greg....@gmail.com> wrote:

> Atheism is not in anyway scientific. You mistakenly believe that you have the support of science though.

No atheist I know claims to "have the support of science"--whatever that's supposed to mean. Most atheists use the scientific method to test their logic. That's all. Science has absolutely nothing to say about atheism or theism. It has something to say about logical thinking and the burden of proof. That's all. It's something theism does NOT have. Alll theism has is empty claims with no evidence. Theists don't use the scientific method. They use the "faith" method. If they want to believe their fairytales, , that's all it takes--faith, atheists demand evidence for claims. That's the biggest difference between them.

> This is apparent in your claim that I as a theist denies science in some way.

I don't know what you claim and I don't care much. If you don't demand evidence for claims you are denying science on it's face. That's all I need to know.

LL

[GT]

On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 8:27:31 PM UTC+10, e_space wrote:

On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 3:16:14 AM UTC-4, GT wrote:

On Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 4:58:49 AM UTC+10, LL wrote:

On Sep 9, 2015, at 10:39 AM, "'Dingbat' via Atheism vs Christianity"<atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Instead, they argue that philosophical arguments leading to conclusions on subjects other than God's existence don't meet the standard of validity either:

Contemporary proponents of such arguments do not see theistic arguments as attempted “proofs,” in the sense that they are supposed to provide valid arguments with premises that no reasonable person could deny. Such a standard of achievement would clearly be setting the bar for success very high, and proponents of theistic arguments rightly note that philosophical arguments for interesting conclusions in any field outside of formal logic hardly ever reach such a standard.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/#GoaTheArg

If that's the case, why do they waste so much time and energy making theistic arguments? Whatever argument they advance has been shown to have no legs--they even admit it--yet they expect people to believe their premise. That sounds suspiciously like the definition of insanity. 

Theists assert their beliefs. They don't pretend their beliefs are factual. And, an example of insane behavior would be atheism's non-belief. You people challenge theists, who at least have a belief of their own, but have no belief yourselves.

what is the value of having "beliefs"? ... why not rely on facts? ... i think it is okay for one to have beliefs as long as they do not preach them as the truth until they have the facts in hand ... atheists may consider something to be existent, and in that sense, they may hold a belief ... but they don't put it out there as if it were a fact ... the very reason that religious people refer to "faith in god" is because they don't have the facts ... if they actually knew that god, God or GOD existed, do you think the word "faith", "belief" or "hope" would be part of their rhetoric? 

Theists claims that a God exists are assertions of belief as well you know. For example 'God is real' is stating a belief. Where as atheists assert God as being a myth. "There is no God" for example. And where are the facts when it comes to how the universe came into existence. And what facts do theists deny?
 

[GT]

On Saturday, September 12, 2015 at 5:57:44 AM UTC+10, Answer_42 wrote:

On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 3:16:14 AM UTC-4, GT wrote:

On Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 4:58:49 AM UTC+10, LL wrote:

On Sep 9, 2015, at 10:39 AM, "'Dingbat' via Atheism vs Christianity"<atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Instead, they argue that philosophical arguments leading to conclusions on subjects other than God's existence don't meet the standard of validity either:

Contemporary proponents of such arguments do not see theistic arguments as attempted “proofs,” in the sense that they are supposed to provide valid arguments with premises that no reasonable person could deny. Such a standard of achievement would clearly be setting the bar for success very high, and proponents of theistic arguments rightly note that philosophical arguments for interesting conclusions in any field outside of formal logic hardly ever reach such a standard.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/#GoaTheArg

If that's the case, why do they waste so much time and energy making theistic arguments? Whatever argument they advance has been shown to have no legs--they even admit it--yet they expect people to believe their premise. That sounds suspiciously like the definition of insanity. 

Theists assert their beliefs. They don't pretend their beliefs are factual.

 

So they are meaningless.

Beliefs can have value. If that wasn't how it is, then 'all' beliefs would be delusions. They're not. Some turn out to be real.
 

 

And, an example of insane behavior would be atheism's non-belief. You people challenge theists, who at least have a belief of their own, but have no belief yourselves.

 

What would I need beliefs for?

You need an explanation as to how the universe came about. And, whatever you come up with is a belief still. It's something you can't prove.
 

 

 

[GT]

On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 1:57:57 PM UTC+10, LL wrote:

On Sep 13, 2015, at 7:04 PM, GT <greg....@gmail.com> wrote:

> Atheism is not in anyway scientific. You mistakenly believe that you have the support of science though.


No atheist I know claims to "have the support of science"--whatever that's supposed to mean. Most atheists use the scientific method to test their logic. That's all. Science has absolutely nothing to say about atheism or theism. It has something to  say about logical thinking and the burden of proof. That's all. It's something theism does NOT have. Alll theism has is empty claims with no evidence. Theists don't use the scientific method. They use the "faith" method. If they want to believe their fairytales, , that's all it takes--faith, atheists demand evidence for claims. That's the biggest difference between them.

You believe science supports the position that there is no God. Now, you'll probably now say that that's not what you are saying anyhow. But the reality is that it is what you say. For example 'theists believe in fairy-tales'. Sure, that can expressed as a challenge. But the reality is that atheists get away with saying there is no God.  And atheists have no logic to test. Atheism is a non-position remember. If not, lay some of that atheist's logic on me now.  And what is wrong with having faith? I don't have much of it as such my self, but don't see anything wrong with it as a concept.  

> This is apparent in your claim that I as a theist denies science in some way.

I don't know what you claim and I don't care much. If you don't demand evidence for claims you are denying science on it's face. That's all I need to know.

LL

Philosophical values are not physical things. For example everything that exists would need to be evidence of there being a God, so how can evidence that a God exists still be shown respectively from all other things that exist.
 

[LL]

On Sep 13, 2015, at 9:27 PM, GT <greg....@gmail.com> wrote:

> Theists claims that a God exists are assertions of belief as well you know. For example 'God is real' is stating a belief. Where as atheists assert God as being a myth. "There is no God" for example.

Except that atheists don't say that, state that or believe that. If you knew the first thing about atheism--and you prove every time you post here that you know absolutely nothing about atheism--you would know that there is nothing in atheism that says there is no god. Atheism is a statement on belief. That's all it is. Atheists lack belief in a god of any description. He root of the word "atheism" proves that: a = without; theism = belief in god. That's exactly what atheists' position is. They lack belief without evidence and there is no evidence. If atheists say god is a myth, it's because that's the only rational position to take given other people's beliefs without evidence. Absolutely nothing about the stories and claims about god have any evidence, so what can they be but myths? It is a default. Atheism does not claim there is no god, it claims there is no evidence for a god, which is absolutely true. If an individual atheist claims there is no god, that person should be required to show evidence behind his claim that there is no god, just as theists should be required to show their evidence behind their claim that there IS a god.

> And where are the facts when it comes to how the universe came into existence.

What facts do you have and what evidence do you have to support any claim of how the universe came into existence?

> And what facts do theists deny?

Many, though not all theists deny all scientific facts that show the possibility of how the universe is likely to have come into existence. Scientists do have evidence for certain aspects of how the earth came into existence, theists have none for their myths. Atheists generally accept that science is telling the truth. Many theists deny it in favor of their completely unsupported myths. THAT is the difference between them.

Meanwhile most theists--the more intelligent and sensible ones--have capitulated to known scientific facts, such as that the Earth revolves around the sun and that the earth is far older than 5,000 years. Most Christian religions have done this. There are no theistic claims that science as capitulated to. NONE. If you know of any, please state them. Meanwhile, get an education as to what atheism actually is and stop telling lies about it. We already know how stupid you are. You've shown it over and over again. We don't need to be constantly reminded of it every time you post. We will remember.

LL


>

[LL]

Wrong again, Toad. Neither atheists nor scientists believe in any theory of how the universe came into  existence, nor domthey need a mythical explanation.  Many atheists accept certain scientific theories as being logically sound--as do many theists.  That is not belief. It is acceptance of a theory until more evidence comes along. Your brain is apparently incapable of seeing the difference. In addition, your propensity to lie interferes with your ability to think rationally. Either get an eduction or give it up. You are fooling no one but yourself and other theistic dupes. 

LL

 

 

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.

[Answer_42]

On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 12:31:53 AM UTC-4, GT wrote:

On Saturday, September 12, 2015 at 5:57:44 AM UTC+10, Answer_42 wrote:

On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 3:16:14 AM UTC-4, GT wrote:

On Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 4:58:49 AM UTC+10, LL wrote:

On Sep 9, 2015, at 10:39 AM, "'Dingbat' via Atheism vs Christianity"<atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Instead, they argue that philosophical arguments leading to conclusions on subjects other than God's existence don't meet the standard of validity either:

Contemporary proponents of such arguments do not see theistic arguments as attempted “proofs,” in the sense that they are supposed to provide valid arguments with premises that no reasonable person could deny. Such a standard of achievement would clearly be setting the bar for success very high, and proponents of theistic arguments rightly note that philosophical arguments for interesting conclusions in any field outside of formal logic hardly ever reach such a standard.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/#GoaTheArg

If that's the case, why do they waste so much time and energy making theistic arguments? Whatever argument they advance has been shown to have no legs--they even admit it--yet they expect people to believe their premise. That sounds suspiciously like the definition of insanity. 

Theists assert their beliefs. They don't pretend their beliefs are factual.

 

So they are meaningless.

Beliefs can have value.

 

Only if they are based on objective facts.

 

You now, like, "I believe it will rain" said while looking at a dark horizon in the sky.

 

If that wasn't how it is, then 'all' beliefs would be delusions.

 

Only those based on subjective crap, like religions are.

 

They're not. Some turn out to be real.
 

 

And, an example of insane behavior would be atheism's non-belief. You people challenge theists, who at least have a belief of their own, but have no belief yourselves.

 

What would I need beliefs for?

You need an explanation as to how the universe came about.

 

No. I do not "need" such an explanation.

 

That is  your problem. You cannot face the unknown, so YOU need an explanation and you make one up, or adopt one that was made up by others.

 

I am perfectly fine with not knowing and saying "I do not know".

 

 

 

And, whatever you come up with is a belief still. It's something you can't prove.

This is why I do not have beliefs about it. 

 

[GT]

;

On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 3:18:08 PM UTC+10, LL wrote:

On Sep 13, 2015, at 9:27 PM, GT <greg....@gmail.com> wrote:

> Theists claims that a God exists are assertions of belief as well you know. For example 'God is real' is stating a belief. Where as atheists assert God as being a myth. "There is no God" for example.

Except that atheists don't say that, state that or  believe that. If you knew the first thing about atheism--and you prove every time you post here that you know absolutely nothing about atheism--you would know that there is nothing in atheism that says there is no god. Atheism is a statement on belief. That's all it is.

 
Atheists say it all the time. You mean atheism does not say it? Because even then it is being said whenever an individual declares their atheism. They are proclaiming their opposition to belief as they don't need to apply any label to what they don't believe in.

 

Atheists lack belief in a god of any description. He root of the word "atheism" proves that: a = without; theism = belief in god.

Yet they have singled out Christianity with this forum.
 

That's exactly what atheists' position is. They lack belief without evidence and there is no evidence.

Atheists deny the evidence. Existence is the evidence submitted by theists.

 

If atheists say god is a myth, it's because that's the only rational position to take given other people's beliefs without evidence. Absolutely nothing about the stories and  claims about god have any evidence, so what can they be but myths? It is a default. Atheism does not claim there is no god, it claims there is no evidence for a god, which is absolutely true. If an individual atheist claims there is no god, that person should be required to show evidence behind his claim that  there is no god, just as theists should be required to show their evidence behind their claim that there IS a god.

Then why don't you challenge Naturalists the same.

> And where are the facts when  it comes to how the universe came into existence.

What facts do you have and what evidence do you have to support any claim of how the universe came into existence?

Answer the question, not turn it around.
 

> And what facts do theists deny?

Many, though not all  theists deny all scientific facts that show the possibility of how the universe is likely to have come into existence. Scientists do have evidence for certain aspects of how the earth came into existence, theists have none for their myths. Atheists generally accept that science is telling the truth. Many theists deny it in favor of their completely unsupported myths. THAT is the difference between them.

A minority of theists deny what science presents as evidence. And science is not about telling the "truth" as it is not the purpose of science to be philosophical on any thing.

 

Meanwhile most theists--the more intelligent and sensible ones--have capitulated to known scientific facts, such as that the Earth revolves around the sun and that the earth is far older than 5,000 years. Most Christian religions have done this. There are no theistic claims that science as capitulated to. NONE.  If you know of any, please state them. Meanwhile, get an education as to what atheism actually is and stop telling lies about it. We already know how stupid you are. You've shown it over and over again. We don't need to be constantly reminded of it every time you post. We will remember.

LL

Science is not a philosophical position, it is in no position to capitulate despite your naive understanding of the situation.

 

>  

[GT]

On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 3:27:15 PM UTC+10, LL wrote:

On Sep 13, 2015, at 9:31 PM, GT <greg....@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, September 12, 2015 at 5:57:44 AM UTC+10, Answer_42 wrote:

On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 3:16:14 AM UTC-4, GT wrote:

On Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 4:58:49 AM UTC+10, LL wrote:

On Sep 9, 2015, at 10:39 AM, "'Dingbat' via Atheism vs Christianity"<atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Instead, they argue that philosophical arguments leading to conclusions on subjects other than God's existence don't meet the standard of validity either:

Contemporary proponents of such arguments do not see theistic arguments as attempted “proofs,” in the sense that they are supposed to provide valid arguments with premises that no reasonable person could deny. Such a standard of achievement would clearly be setting the bar for success very high, and proponents of theistic arguments rightly note that philosophical arguments for interesting conclusions in any field outside of formal logic hardly ever reach such a standard.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/#GoaTheArg

If that's the case, why do they waste so much time and energy making theistic arguments? Whatever argument they advance has been shown to have no legs--they even admit it--yet they expect people to believe their premise. That sounds suspiciously like the definition of insanity. 

Theists assert their beliefs. They don't pretend their beliefs are factual.

 

So they are meaningless.

Beliefs can have value. If that wasn't how it is, then 'all' beliefs would be delusions. They're not. Some turn out to be real.
 

 

And, an example of insane behavior would be atheism's non-belief. You people challenge theists, who at least have a belief of their own, but have no belief yourselves.

 

What would I need beliefs for?

You need an explanation as to how the universe came about. And, whatever you come up with is a belief still. It's something you can't prove.

Wrong again, Toad. Neither atheists nor scientists believe in any theory of how the universe came into  existence, nor domthey need a mythical explanation.  Many atheists accept certain scientific theories as being logically sound--as do many theists.  That is not belief. It is acceptance of a theory until more evidence comes along. Your brain is apparently incapable of seeing the difference. In addition, your propensity to lie interferes with your ability to think rationally. Either get an eduction or give it up. You are fooling no one but yourself and other theistic dupes. 

LL

You can point to one theory or another but still can't explain existence. And as long as that is the situation, you can't object to beliefs of others, and most can't certainly demand explanations from them.

And, when one day soon scientists acknowledge the possibility that the universe is only thousands of years old, atheism then will not be getting away with claiming this is then their position too. An atheist, literally and logical, or by any other definition is not a scientific position. It, as has been acknowledged (as you could hardly deny it) is not a philosophical position either.  You are an opposing force directed by the Left, itself acting under the influence of chromosomal pressure. Logic has no part in your decisions as a whole.
 

 

 

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Bob T.]

On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 5:27:18 PM UTC-7, GT wrote:

LL

You can point to one theory or another but still can't explain existence. And as long as that is the situation, you can't object to beliefs of others, and most can't certainly demand explanations from them.

And, when one day soon scientists acknowledge the possibility that the universe is only thousands of years old, atheism then will not be getting away with claiming this is then their position too.

And when scientists acknowledge no such thing, will you publicly apologize for being such an idiot?  I didn't think so.

 

An atheist, literally and logical, or by any other definition is not a scientific position. It, as has been acknowledged (as you could hardly deny it) is not a philosophical position either.  You are an opposing force directed by the Left, itself acting under the influence of chromosomal pressure. Logic has no part in your decisions as a whole.

Were you bitten by a liberal at an early age?  You have strange ideas about "the Left".

- Bob T 

[John Stockwell]

GT wrote:

And, when one day soon scientists acknowledge the possibility that the universe is only thousands of years old, atheism then will not be getting away with claiming this is then their position too.

-------------------------------------------

And what if it is the other way, that young earthism is so counter to physical evidence that there is no way that any scientist could consider the idea viable? What then,??

-John

[John Stockwell]

"Contemporary proponents of such arguments do not see theistic arguments as attempted “proofs,” in the sense that they are supposed to provide valid arguments with premises that no reasonable person could deny.".... Quod erat demonstrandum? These contemporary proponents are, on the Catholic view, fideists. For Vatican 1 teaches
The same Holy mother Church holds and teaches that God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason…

Now "with certainty" means it is not an hypothesis subject to correction by future facts, but a metaphysical demonstration from premises that no reasonable person can doubt.
-------------------------------------------------------

Total nonsense, of course.

[LL]

In fact young earth belief has already been countered by physical evidence. But fundamentalist believers won't accept it. They will even go so far as to claim that god created fossils that look older than a young earth just to test believers' faith. There is no way to get through to a true believer. They will come up with just the excuse they need at every turn, no matte how bizarre it is. There is no use trying to talk sense to a young-earth fundamentalist, or, in fact, to most theists.

LL

>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.

> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.

[GT]

On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 10:43:03 PM UTC+10, Bob T. wrote:

On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 5:27:18 PM UTC-7, GT wrote:

LL

You can point to one theory or another but still can't explain existence. And as long as that is the situation, you can't object to beliefs of others, and most can't certainly demand explanations from them.

And, when one day soon scientists acknowledge the possibility that the universe is only thousands of years old, atheism then will not be getting away with claiming this is then their position too.

And when scientists acknowledge no such thing, will you publicly apologize for being such an idiot?  I didn't think so.

An apology would not be necessary. If I'm wrong, then so what. Wasn't it you that was wrong about driverless cars?
 

 

An atheist, literally and logical, or by any other definition is not a scientific position. It, as has been acknowledged (as you could hardly deny it) is not a philosophical position either.  You are an opposing force directed by the Left, itself acting under the influence of chromosomal pressure. Logic has no part in your decisions as a whole.

Were you bitten by a liberal at an early age?  You have strange ideas about "the Left".

- Bob T 

I was once on the side of the left myself. But as we get older the natural course of events is that we acquire knowledge. And it's for that reason young people are more likely to be liberal, becoming more conservative as they age. Liberality is more a product of emotionality than reason.

 

[GT]

So what if that happens. Besides it's not the way things are trending.
 

"Figuring God into the world of science is a nebulous task. What happens when observers of the fact-based natural world must come to terms with the faith-based spirituality of the mystical world?

Over the centuries, scientists' opinions have varied—from a reconciliation of the two to a complete rejection of one or the other. These days, many scientists span a middle ground—admitting the possibility of an omnipotent force, but refusing to assert one exists because, well, "we just don't know."

And if you think this report is from a right-wing website, think again.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2012/01/03/science-and-religion-quotes-scientists-god_n_1182521.html?ir=Australia

[GT]

If there is a God, then the above makes sense. That is it should be within our capacity to reason that there is a God. And that any argument for there being a God should be of course irrefutable.  But to believe it would be easy to conclude there is a God wouldn't be correct. And regarding this, my argument (for the Bible's accuracy) although simple would not be any kind of obvious conclusion. This to me says there must be a purpose to the argument and a purpose for me being here. That purpose is I believe to put atheism on trial.

So, my mission here is to bring this about in some way. And, although it is no longer an issue relating to the forum itself, I as a 5 year member see it as my right to lobby particular individuals to assist bring about this result. What is needed is someone with sufficient credentials to set this going, as no-one is going to be interested in listening to someone so obviously uneducated as myself. Why I'm pointing this out here and now is that if no-one here has the backbone to put their claims to test, then discussion on this topic, at least as far as I'm concerned has come to an end.

I'm putting it to you, John, now, as I've got your attention for the moment, to play a part in letting the truth (what ever that may be) be known. So, it needs not to be pointed out that failing to do this on your part runs the risk of the label 'Dishonest John' being with you the rest of your days, that's even if it as a failing would be something only you would really be aware of.  So don't end up kicking yourself over not accepting this challenge, John. Rupert failed the test, putting his pride ahead of the pursuit of truth as he did. You being an American should find it less of an obstacle, that is when being prepared to seriously consider what a 'crackpot' may have to say, should come easier to someone from a more sophisticated culture. Will you show us an atheist can be honest is the question now. I'm saying no incidentally. But to the physicist this challenge is also being put.

[ravn]

On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 5:12:12 PM UTC-7, GT wrote:

Atheists deny the evidence. Existence is the evidence submitted by theists.

That's evidence that can be denied because that doesn't prove that what exists must be created. There's plenty of evidence of emergent order in nature. Oh, & by the way, if somebody says you're a crackpot,  calling that person crazy doesn't prove that you're not. The other  guy is probably on the proper meds. Are you? 



 

 

[GT]

On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 4:41:11 PM UTC+10, ravn wrote:

On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 5:12:12 PM UTC-7, GT wrote:

Atheists deny the evidence. Existence is the evidence submitted by theists.

That's evidence that can be denied because that doesn't prove that what exists must be created.

But atheist say there is no evidence for there being a God, but that's when out of necessity everything that exists would need to be evidence.
 

There's plenty of evidence of emergent order in nature.

What's that got to do with anything? We aren't debating Nature, are we.

 

Oh, & by the way, if somebody says you're a crackpot,  calling that person crazy doesn't prove that you're not. The other  guy is probably on the proper meds. Are you? 

It would be a doubt-able diagnosis coming from someone who is already confirmed as having 'issues', was the point. And you are calling me a crackpot too. Why the inconsistency? I make a claim the Bible is accurate, something pretty much necessary for a God to exist anyhow, and made at an atheism vs Christianity forum, where I've been a member for 5 years, then all of a sudden I'm the crackpot. No, it's you people being your same dishonest selves and hoping I will respond to what is an obvious challenge. Annoying isn't it, I make an 'outlandish' claim, but am not giving away anything. Well you had your chance. So, it's too bad for you now. 
 

 

 

[ravn]

On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 12:03:16 AM UTC-7, GT wrote:

But atheist say there is no evidence for there being a God, but that's when out of necessity everything that exists would need to be evidence.

You're trying to explain everything with something outside of everything which is *nothing*. It's just inconceivable like motion w/o matter. It's just nonsense.




 

 

There's plenty of evidence of emergent order in nature.

What's that got to do with anything?

It's got to literally do with everything. Everything appears to have come from the smallest things, not some big thing beyond everything else.



 

It would be a doubt-able diagnosis coming from someone who is already confirmed as having 'issues', was the point. And you are calling me a crackpot too.

What you propagate stands on its own merits & you went out of your way to propagate crackpot stuff. So, what are you going to do? Claim everyone is certifiable who points out that your arguments are illogical, unsound & demonstrably so? 


 

Why the inconsistency? I make a claim the Bible is accurate, something pretty much necessary for a God to exist anyhow,

So god's existence depends on what's written in a book? Don't you got that all ass-backwards? Or is that a tacit admission that god is just an idealist illusion in the first place? You're actually agnostic, oscillating between natural & supernatural notions. Your ideas are confused so don't blame other people for being confused by them.




 

I've been a member for 5 years, then all of a sudden I'm the crackpot.

That happens when you decide to jump the shark. Just don't do that;   you'll be fine. 

[Dingbat]

On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 3:03:16 AM UTC-4, GT wrote:

On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 4:41:11 PM UTC+10, ravn wrote:

On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 5:12:12 PM UTC-7, GT wrote:

Atheists deny the evidence. Existence is the evidence submitted by theists.

That's evidence that can be denied because that doesn't prove that what exists must be created.

But atheist say there is no evidence for there being a God, but that's when out of necessity everything that exists would need to be evidence.
 

There's plenty of evidence of emergent order in nature.

What's that got to do with anything? We aren't debating Nature, are we.

 

Oh, & by the way, if somebody says you're a crackpot,  calling that person crazy doesn't prove that you're not. The other  guy is probably on the proper meds. Are you? 

It would be a doubt-able diagnosis coming from someone who is already confirmed as having 'issues', was the point. And you are calling me a crackpot too. Why the inconsistency? I make a claim the Bible is accurate, something pretty much necessary for a God to exist anyhow,

The assertion that the Bible's accuracy is necessary for a God to exist is incorrect, since
1) for non-Biblical conceptions of God, such as Tutankhamun's God, to exist, the Bible's accuracy is not necessary, and
2) For a Biblical God to exist, the whole Bible's accuracy is not necessary; for example, if only 65 out of 66 books in the Protestant Bible are right, the Biblical God would exist. If you don't believe this, carefully note that the Protestants reject 17 of the books in the Ethiopian Bible but don't claim that this means the Ethiopian Christians' God doesn't exist.
 

[GT]

On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 6:18:13 PM UTC+10, ravn wrote:

On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 12:03:16 AM UTC-7, GT wrote:

But atheist say there is no evidence for there being a God, but that's when out of necessity everything that exists would need to be evidence.

You're trying to explain everything with something outside of everything which is *nothing*. It's just inconceivable like motion w/o matter. It's just nonsense.

The same argument applies to Nature. Only there needs to be an infinite amount of something outside of everything in that instance. 
 

 

 

There's plenty of evidence of emergent order in nature.

What's that got to do with anything?

It's got to literally do with everything. Everything appears to have come from the smallest things, not some big thing beyond everything else.

Sure, but the particular point relates to there being a God, not instead an argument for it being a natural universe.  You are trying to draw me into revealing what is my explanation as to how the Bible can be right. But if you want to find this out, then, unless you can contribute to the staging of the 'trial' idea, you'll otherwise have to wait.
 

 

It would be a doubt-able diagnosis coming from someone who is already confirmed as having 'issues', was the point. And you are calling me a crackpot too.

What you propagate stands on its own merits & you went out of your way to propagate crackpot stuff. So, what are you going to do? Claim everyone is certifiable who points out that your arguments are illogical, unsound & demonstrably so? 

You are here debating those you are now claiming are little better than crackpots. So then what would be the mental health status of those who choose to debate crackpots? And I don't see anyone at all here as being irrational in any particular way.
 

 

Why the inconsistency? I make a claim the Bible is accurate, something pretty much necessary for a God to exist anyhow,

So god's existence depends on what's written in a book?

If our existence is dependent on a God, then the observation a God exists was the only observation possible for those who wrote the book. Unfair, you say.  But aren't all of our observations limited to those things that are true anyhow?

 

Don't you got that all ass-backwards? Or is that a tacit admission that god is just an idealist illusion in the first place? You're actually agnostic, oscillating between natural & supernatural notions. Your ideas are confused so don't blame other people for being confused by them.

I'm too pessimistic to just believe there is a God. It's in fact people like yourself that are the idealists, something that does not make sense in a supposedly natural universe. And. it's my writing that's confusing, something that you should be used to by now.  It's a person's ability to understand what is being said that matters as a measure anyhow, and as I'd had no problems (eventually) understanding Observer Dave's most cryptic writings, I'm still thinking I've got this thing figured right.
 

 

I've been a member for 5 years, then all of a sudden I'm the crackpot.

That happens when you decide to jump the shark. Just don't do that;   you'll be fine. 

I'm not that crazy that I can't believe I might not be able to get something wrong in some way. And, having the ability to self-doubt would be a measure of someone's sanity.  

[lawrey]

                           GT,
                                     I can't know where you received any education you aspire to, but whatever you think you know on the subject of the bible is
                                     complete nonsense and rubbish and does not in any way shape or form measure up to scrutiny.

                                      The bible is a collection of stories headed up by the Jewish Torah, making up the first five books all supposedly written
                                       by one man over 140 years from 1657 - 1473 B.C. Even though we Know that the last book on his list was the book of Job
                                       which we know was not written until the second half of the 4th century in the Helenistic Era. But we'll let that minor
                                       exaggeration pass, even though we know that there is no record, either of the writer ever existing, and most of the
                                       characters mentioned are also not known to have existed. Even though we know and can prove that the NT was almost
                                       completely rewritten and none of the names given for the writers wrote any of it.

                                       The bible in its entirety is and was only intended for the Hebrew people and constitutes a
                              work of allegorical literature, concerning the times and lives of the Hebrews, for the Hebrews.

                              IT IS NOT A HISTORICAL RECORD OF ANYTHING....iT IS ALL STORY-LINE.

 

 

 

[Answer_42]

On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 3:03:16 AM UTC-4, GT wrote:

On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 4:41:11 PM UTC+10, ravn wrote:

On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 5:12:12 PM UTC-7, GT wrote:

Atheists deny the evidence. Existence is the evidence submitted by theists.

That's evidence that can be denied because that doesn't prove that what exists must be created.

But atheist say there is no evidence for there being a God, but that's when out of necessity everything that exists would need to be evidence.
 

There's plenty of evidence of emergent order in nature.

What's that got to do with anything? We aren't debating Nature, are we.

 

Oh, & by the way, if somebody says you're a crackpot,  calling that person crazy doesn't prove that you're not. The other  guy is probably on the proper meds. Are you? 

 

Want proof you are a crackpot? Sure, hold on...

 

It would be a doubt-able diagnosis coming from someone who is already confirmed as having 'issues', was the point. And you are calling me a crackpot too. Why the inconsistency? I make a claim the Bible is accurate,

 

Right here!

On one hand you proudly claim you are no a Christian and that you have not read the bible. On the other you always swear everything by the bible and continually claim it is accurate.

 

How can one who has not read a book claim it is accurate?

 

And resting that claim on hearsay about the book just makes you even more of a crackpot.

 

something pretty much necessary for a God to exist anyhow, and made at an atheism vs Christianity forum, where I've been a member for 5 years, then all of a sudden I'm the crackpot.

 

Oh, no, at first we were polite and gave you the benefit of the doubt, but a few weeks in we all now you were a crackpot. 

 

No, it's you people being your same dishonest selves and hoping I will respond to what is an obvious challenge. Annoying isn't it, I make an 'outlandish' claim, but am not giving away anything. Well you had your chance. So, it's too bad for you now. 

 

A true crackpot has spoken.

 

 

[ravn]

On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 4:05:08 AM UTC-7, GT wrote:

On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 6:18:13 PM UTC+10, ravn wrote:

You're trying to explain everything with something outside of everything which is *nothing*. It's just inconceivable like motion w/o matter. It's just nonsense.

The same argument applies to Nature. Only there needs to be an infinite amount of something outside of everything in that instance. 

If matter just exists,  that's the foundation of nature. That's not the equivalent of saying something outside of everything created everything.


 

 

 

 

There's plenty of evidence of emergent order in nature.

What's that got to do with anything?

It's got to literally do with everything. Everything appears to have come from the smallest things, not some big thing beyond everything else.

Sure, but the particular point relates to there being a God

The notion of god is superfluous if matter just exists & nature is the result of what's inherent in matter. You can't claim that's metaphysical because it's not beyond physics.



 

You are trying to draw me into revealing what is my explanation as to how the Bible can be right.

God's existence wouldn't depend on a book. & if you're worried about revealing your explanation as to why the bible is correct, then maybe what you don't want to reveal is
that explanation isn't justifiable even to yourself.


 

 

It would be a doubt-able diagnosis coming from someone who is already confirmed as having 'issues', was the point. And you are calling me a crackpot too.

What you propagate stands on its own merits & you went out of your way to propagate crackpot stuff. So, what are you going to do? Claim everyone is certifiable who points out that your arguments are illogical, unsound & demonstrably so? 

You are here debating those you are now claiming are little better than crackpots.

Do you want to defend your ideas or do you want to defend your ego? Make up your mind.


 

So then what would be the mental health status of those who choose to debate crackpots? And I don't see anyone at all here as being irrational in any particular way.

Then why did you make an issue about the mental health of another member here? You do recall doing that, right?


 

 

 

Why the inconsistency? I make a claim the Bible is accurate, something pretty much necessary for a God to exist anyhow,

So god's existence depends on what's written in a book?

If our existence is dependent on a God, then the observation a God exists was the only observation possible for those who wrote the book.

You're just begging the question. There is no observation of god. You're observing things that exist & making up an explanation for that.


 

Unfair, you say. 

These are the droids we're looking for, Obi Wan. Are you fooled by your own mind tricks? Conceptions are not observations.

 

 

Don't you got that all ass-backwards? Or is that a tacit admission that god is just an idealist illusion in the first place? You're actually agnostic, oscillating between natural & supernatural notions. Your ideas are confused so don't blame other people for being confused by them.

I'm too pessimistic to just believe there is a God. It's in fact people like yourself that are the idealists, something that does not make sense in a supposedly natural universe.

More confused expressions of denial & recriminations.    Physician,  heal thy self.


 

[LL]

On Sep 16, 2015, at 7:36 AM, Answer_42 <ipu.be...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 3:03:16 AM UTC-4, GT wrote:

On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 4:41:11 PM UTC+10, ravn wrote:

On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 5:12:12 PM UTC-7, GT wrote:

Atheists deny the evidence. Existence is the evidence submitted by theists.

That's evidence that can be denied because that doesn't prove that what exists must be created.

But atheist say there is no evidence for there being a God, but that's when out of necessity everything that exists would need to be evidence.
 

There's plenty of evidence of emergent order in nature.

What's that got to do with anything? We aren't debating Nature, are we.

 

Oh, & by the way, if somebody says you're a crackpot,  calling that person crazy doesn't prove that you're not. The other  guy is probably on the proper meds. Are you? 

 

Want proof you are a crackpot? Sure, hold on...

 

It would be a doubt-able diagnosis coming from someone who is already confirmed as having 'issues', was the point. And you are calling me a crackpot too. Why the inconsistency? I make a claim the Bible is accurate,

 

Right here!

On one hand you proudly claim you are no a Christian and that you have not read the bible. On the other you always swear everything by the bible and continually claim it is accurate.

 

How can one who has not read a book claim it is accurate?

 

And resting that claim on hearsay about the book just makes you even more of a crackpot.

Not only does he do all that, he claims to have secret evidence and a secret plan on how the bible should be taught--the sure sign of a mentally compromised person. He talks in circles and contradicts himself--more  symptoms of mental instability. He's lost touch with reality. The "crackpot" epithet was just a bit of verbal shorthand. 

Here's something every rational person on AvC should read, though I'm not sure it's worth the effort to try to deal with the Great Toad. He's too far gone. 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brettnelson/2013/01/15/seventeen-ways-to-work-with-irrational-people-and-stay-sane/

------------------------

 

something pretty much necessary for a God to exist anyhow, and made at an atheism vs Christianity forum, where I've been a member for 5 years, then all of a sudden I'm the crackpot.

 

Oh, no, at first we were polite and gave you the benefit of the doubt, but a few weeks in we all now you were a crackpot. 

 

No, it's you people being your same dishonest selves and hoping I will respond to what is an obvious challenge. Annoying isn't it, I make an 'outlandish' claim, but am not giving away anything. Well you had your chance. So, it's too bad for you now. 

 

A true crackpot has spoken.

 

 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.

[Dingbat]

On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 11:31:37 AM UTC-4, ravn wrote:

On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 4:05:08 AM UTC-7, GT wrote:

Sure, but the particular point relates to there being a God

You are trying to draw me into revealing what is my explanation as to how the Bible can be right.

God's existence wouldn't depend on a book.

Knowledge of God's existence would depend on a book if it contains all the observations that led to the inference that God exists and no further such observations can be made. This would, however, be knowledge of God's existence at the time the observations were made, not knowledge of God's current existence. If, OTOH, God's current existence can be inferred from current observations, then the purpose such a book would serve would be to confirm that God existed in the past too.

[GT]

Taking for granted everything you're saying maybe correct, the Bible still contains the observation that a God created the universe. And, this, as a theist, is what I'm interested in. Everything else is for the biblicists etc. OK!
 

 

 

 

[GT]

On Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 12:36:34 AM UTC+10, Answer_42 wrote:

On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 3:03:16 AM UTC-4, GT wrote:

On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 4:41:11 PM UTC+10, ravn wrote:

On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 5:12:12 PM UTC-7, GT wrote:

Atheists deny the evidence. Existence is the evidence submitted by theists.

That's evidence that can be denied because that doesn't prove that what exists must be created.

But atheist say there is no evidence for there being a God, but that's when out of necessity everything that exists would need to be evidence.
 

There's plenty of evidence of emergent order in nature.

What's that got to do with anything? We aren't debating Nature, are we.

 

Oh, & by the way, if somebody says you're a crackpot,  calling that person crazy doesn't prove that you're not. The other  guy is probably on the proper meds. Are you? 

 

Want proof you are a crackpot? Sure, hold on...

 

It would be a doubt-able diagnosis coming from someone who is already confirmed as having 'issues', was the point. And you are calling me a crackpot too. Why the inconsistency? I make a claim the Bible is accurate,

 

Right here!

On one hand you proudly claim you are no a Christian and that you have not read the bible. On the other you always swear everything by the bible and continually claim it is accurate.

I'm saying the Bible is accurate but am still denying being a Christian? Okay, that seems to be in order. So, let me see. At a glance, I must be either a poorly skilled liar, or a 'crackpot', even? OMG! But it can't be!  I'm not sure if even I would make such an obvious error? But, 'ang about now, there is another possibility that I've nearly overlooked, which is that I'm a 'theist', not a Christian, and for that reason the only aspect of the Bible 'I' need to find accurate is that which says there is a creative God. So, does that sound familiar? 'I'm' saying the Bible is accurate. Got it now?

So, go to hell, A42 you've got it wrong again listening to Satan as you always do.
 

 

How can one who has not read a book claim it is accurate?

I've never read 'Origin' but do believe it is accurate as theory.
 

 

And resting that claim on hearsay about the book just makes you even more of a crackpot.

 

something pretty much necessary for a God to exist anyhow, and made at an atheism vs Christianity forum, where I've been a member for 5 years, then all of a sudden I'm the crackpot.

 

Oh, no, at first we were polite and gave you the benefit of the doubt, but a few weeks in we all now you were a crackpot. 

Too bad you didn't say it then, as it's now making you look like the idiot you are,.
 

 

No, it's you people being your same dishonest selves and hoping I will respond to what is an obvious challenge. Annoying isn't it, I make an 'outlandish' claim, but am not giving away anything. Well you had your chance. So, it's too bad for you now. 

 

A true crackpot has spoken.

 

Wait and watch (your TV hopefully) for more updates.
 

 

[Dingbat]

On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 10:21:52 PM UTC-4, GT wrote:

On Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 12:36:34 AM UTC+10, Answer_42 wrote:

On one hand you proudly claim you are no a Christian and that you have not read the bible. On the other you always swear everything by the bible and continually claim it is accurate.

I'm saying the Bible is accurate but am still denying being a Christian?

That need not be paradoxical. There are presumably Jews who say the Bible is accurate and deny being Christians. I have heard at least one Jew use "Bible" to refer to their canon, not the Christian canon. Further, in a given context, it need not mean the whole canon, just that the relevant portions of the Bible are accurate. Still further, it need not mean it's proven accurate; it could mean "coincides with gut feeling," although this is a subjective judgement.

[lawrey]

                                   GT,

                                               Respecting your beliefs and your rights to believe as you will, I am loathe to try and dissuade you from what may be of paramount importance to you,
                                                to shatter as it were, some vastly important notion you may have and lovingly cling to and cherish. That is no part of my brief as a determined Atheist.

                                               As I think I think I may have mentioned on more than one occasion, I am interested only in truth and that which can within reason and with reason be
                                               justified and shown via demonstration and experience to be capable of the term Knowledge of truth and shown as such.

                                               With that in mind, all I wish to impart to you is that which I know to be true and that is that the god of biblical reference is a decreed god. A god of mans
                                               machinations, and we can prove it to satisfaction by relating to the well known historical events of 1375 B.C.

                                               The god of the bible is a notional god and bears no relation to reality.

 

 

 

 

[Answer_42]

On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 10:21:52 PM UTC-4, GT wrote:

On Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 12:36:34 AM UTC+10, Answer_42 wrote:

On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 3:03:16 AM UTC-4, GT wrote:

On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 4:41:11 PM UTC+10, ravn wrote:

On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 5:12:12 PM UTC-7, GT wrote:

Atheists deny the evidence. Existence is the evidence submitted by theists.

That's evidence that can be denied because that doesn't prove that what exists must be created.

But atheist say there is no evidence for there being a God, but that's when out of necessity everything that exists would need to be evidence.
 

There's plenty of evidence of emergent order in nature.

What's that got to do with anything? We aren't debating Nature, are we.

 

Oh, & by the way, if somebody says you're a crackpot,  calling that person crazy doesn't prove that you're not. The other  guy is probably on the proper meds. Are you? 

 

Want proof you are a crackpot? Sure, hold on...

 

It would be a doubt-able diagnosis coming from someone who is already confirmed as having 'issues', was the point. And you are calling me a crackpot too. Why the inconsistency? I make a claim the Bible is accurate,

 

Right here!

On one hand you proudly claim you are no a Christian and that you have not read the bible. On the other you always swear everything by the bible and continually claim it is accurate.

I'm saying the Bible is accurate

 

Which is a crackpot thing to say when you also admit not having read it.

 

but am still denying being a Christian? Okay, that seems to be in order. So, let me see. At a glance, I must be either a poorly skilled liar, or a 'crackpot', even?

 

How about both?

 

OMG! But it can't be!  I'm not sure if even I would make such an obvious error? But, 'ang about now, there is another possibility that I've nearly overlooked, which is that I'm a 'theist', not a Christian, and for that reason the only aspect of the Bible 'I' need to find accurate is that which says there is a creative God. So, does that sound familiar? 'I'm' saying the Bible is accurate. Got it now?

 

Yes, I get that what you are saying is totally ludicrous.

 

So, go to hell, A42 you've got it wrong again listening to Satan as you always do.

 

Bwahahahah, Satan? Bwahahahaha.

 

So, you are not a Christian, but you believe in Satan.

 

Bwahahahaha

 

I'll see your Satan and raise 2 Beelzebub.

 

 

 

How can one who has not read a book claim it is accurate?

I've never read 'Origin' but do believe it is accurate as theory.

 

Well, as a book, it is not accurate. There are many errors due to some information Darwin could not possibly have.

But if you had read it you would know that.

 

 

 

And resting that claim on hearsay about the book just makes you even more of a crackpot.

 

something pretty much necessary for a God to exist anyhow, and made at an atheism vs Christianity forum, where I've been a member for 5 years, then all of a sudden I'm the crackpot.

 

Oh, no, at first we were polite and gave you the benefit of the doubt, but a few weeks in we all now you were a crackpot. 

Too bad you didn't say it then,

 

I sure did, however I doubt I used "crackpot".

 

[Answer_42]

On Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 5:08:28 AM UTC-4, Dingbat wrote:

On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 10:21:52 PM UTC-4, GT wrote:

On Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 12:36:34 AM UTC+10, Answer_42 wrote:

On one hand you proudly claim you are no a Christian and that you have not read the bible. On the other you always swear everything by the bible and continually claim it is accurate.

I'm saying the Bible is accurate but am still denying being a Christian?

That need not be paradoxical. There are presumably Jews who say the Bible is accurate and deny being Christians.

 

Hmm, show me one Jew who claims the NT is accurate.

[Drafterman]

On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 1:46:10 AM UTC-4, GT wrote:

So, my mission here is to bring this about in some way. And, although it is no longer an issue relating to the forum itself, I as a 5 year member see it as my right to lobby particular individuals to assist bring about this result. What is needed is someone with sufficient credentials to set this going, as no-one is going to be interested in listening to someone so obviously uneducated as myself. Why I'm pointing this out here and now is that if no-one here has the backbone to put their claims to test, then discussion on this topic, at least as far as I'm concerned has come to an end.

I have but a vague recollection of you, but I'll admit I'm intrigued by this.

To address a few specific points:

"What is needed is someone with sufficient credentials to set this going."

You'll have to specific what constitutes "sufficient credentials." As it is, this statement is a warning sign. Any skeptic reading this will immediately have a red flag, a flag that says: "I'm about to waste my time refuting nonsense only to be dismissed as not having 'sufficient credentials.'" That is, it reads as a "Get out of debate" free card for you; you get to leave the debate at any time because your selected opponent doesn't meat some vague criteria. Define the criteria, explicitly and up front, and you'll get a better (though not necessarily satisfactory) response.

"Why I'm pointing this out here and now is that if no-one here has the backbone to put their claims to test"

I'm more interested in putting your claims to the test, and I certainly have the backbone to address anything you have to offer.

State your terms.

[John Stockwell]

If an institution requires  the existence of God as a basic tenet, then that is a required ontological component of "being Catholic". Any alleged "proof" for the existence of God in that context
is circular.  The argument is taken out of the context of a priori belief, such arguments all fail on the grounds that the basic assumptions of those arguments are false.

-John

[John Stockwell]

It's an out of context quote. If you actually read the quotes of the scientists, you won't find any friends there:

Neil deGrasse Tyson (1958-

"So you're made of detritus [from exploded stars]. Get over it. Or better yet, celebrate it. After all, what nobler thought can one cherish than that the universe lives within us all?"

--American astrophysicist and science commentator

Stephen Hawking (1942-)

"What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary."

--English physicist and cosmologist


"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light-years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual...The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both."

--American astrophysicist

Francis Collins (1950-)

"Science is...a powerful way, indeed - to study the natural world. Science is not particularly effective...in making commentary about the supernatural world. Both worlds, for me, are quite real and quite important. They are investigated in different ways. They coexist. They illuminate each other."

--American physician-geneticist and director of the National Human Genome Research Institute

Isaac Asimov (1920-1992)

"Emotionally, I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time"

--American biochemist and science fiction writer

Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

Clarification: While the New York Times noted that "Einstein consistently characterized the idea of a personal God who answers prayers as naive, and life after death as wishful thinking," he also "described himself as an 'agnostic' and 'not an atheist.'" One ambiguous quote, from Einstein's response to a letter from a sixth-grade student named Phyllis Wright, reads "Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive."

--German physicist, created theory of general relativity.

Max Planck (1858-1947)

"It was not by accident that the greatest thinkers of all ages were deeply religious souls."

--German physicist, noted for work on quantum theory

Erwin Schroedinger (1887-1961)

"I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives a lot of factual information, puts all our experiences in a magnificently consistent order, but is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, god and eternity."

--Austrian physicist, awarded Nobel prize in 1933

 Share

Rosalind Franklin (1920-1958)

"In my view, all that is necessary for faith is the belief that by doing our best we shall come nearer to success and that success in our aims (the improvement of the lot of mankind, present and future) is worth attaining...I maintain that faith in this world is perfectly possible without faith in another world."

--British biophysicist renowned for her work on X-ray diffraction.

William H. Bragg (1862-1942)

"From religion comes a man's purpose; from science, his power to achieve it. Sometimes people ask if religion and science are not opposed to one another. They are: in the sense that the thumb and fingers of my hands are opposed to one another. It is an opposition by means of which anything can be grasped."

--British physicist, chemist, and mathematician. Awarded Nobel Prize in 1915

Richard Feynman (1918-1988)

"God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand."

--American physicist, awarded Nobel Prize in 1965

Wernher Von Braun (1912-1977)

"I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science."

--German-American rocket scientist

Richard Dawkins (1941-)

"The more you understand the significance of evolution, the more you are pushed away from the agnostic position and towards atheism. Complex, statistically improbable things are by their nature more difficult to explain than simple, statistically probable things."

--British evolutionary biologist

Nevill Mott (1905-1996)

"Science can have a purifying effect on religion, freeing it from beliefs of a pre-scientific age and helping us to a truer conception of God. At the same time, I am far from believing that science will ever give us the answers to all our questions."

--English physicist, awarded Nobel Prize in 1977

 

Fred Hoyle (1915-2001)

"A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

--English mathematician and astronomer.

Sir Arthur C. Clarke (1917-2008)

"Science can destroy religion by ignoring it as well as by disproving its tenets. No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, the nonexistence of Zeus or Thor - but they have few followers now"

--British science fiction author and inventor

Walter Kohn (1923-)

"I am very much a scientist, and so I naturally have thought about religion also through the eyes of a scientist. When I do that, I see religion not denominationally, but in a more, let us say, deistic sense. I have been influence in my thinking by the writing of Einstein who has made remarks to the effect that when he contemplated the world he sensed an underlying Force much greater than any human force. I feel very much the same. There is a sense of awe, a sense of reverence, and a sense of great mystery."

--American theoretical physicist, awarded Nobel Prize in 1998

Sam Harris (1967-)

"Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious."

--American neuroscientist

Victor J. Stenger (1935-)

"With pantheism...the deity is associated with the order of nature or the universe itself...when modern scientists such as Einstein and Stephen Hawking mention 'God' in their writing, this is what they seem to mean: that God is Nature."

--American physicist

[GT]

A theist is defined as someone who believes there is a God. The Bible says there is God. It says a God created the world. It says a God created us and all of the other creatures. To consider the Bible 'accurate' all I need to be is a theist. 

[GT]

                                                to shatter as it were, some vastly important notion you may have and lovingly cling to and cherish. That is no part of my brief as a determined Atheist.t

A determined atheist you are, but as atheism is in opposition to theism, then you are also determined to destroy theism. Why? Because being here makes you feel good. Then there is the nationalism aspect, Britons being proud of their intellectuality, are naturals when it comes to becoming atheists. So, Lawrey, your disclaimer, sincere as it may be, is meaningless in effect. As long as your mind is closed on the subject of God you are still serving Satan. 
 

                                               As I think I think I may have mentioned on more than one occasion, I am interested only in truth and that which can within reason and with reason be
                                               justified and shown via demonstration and experience to be capable of the term Knowledge of truth and shown as such.

                                               With that in mind, all I wish to impart to you is that which I know to be true and that is that the god of biblical reference is a decreed god. A god of mans
                                               machinations, and we can prove it to satisfaction by relating to the well known historical events of 1375 B.C.

                                               The god of the bible is a notional god and bears no relation to reality.

You are wrong on that. And your mind is closed, so don't tell us you are searching for truth. Atheists, despite their disclaimers, are opposed to the concept of a God, that's in what ever form that it takes.
 

 

 

 

 

[ravn]

On Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 3:32:26 PM UTC-7, GT wrote:

A theist is defined as someone who believes there is a God. The Bible says there is God. It says a God created the world. It says a God created us and all of the other creatures. To consider the Bible 'accurate' all I need to be is a theist.

Or not.  A theist doesn't necessarily believe the Bible is accurate. The reality of god would be independent of any idea about god. God isn't dependent on the Bible. The Bible would be dependent on God.

 

[ravn]

On Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 3:49:50 PM UTC-7, GT wrote:

A determined atheist you are, but as atheism is in opposition to theism, then you are also determined to destroy theism. Why?

But nobody can destroy either atheism or theism.

 

Because being here makes you feel good. Then there is the nationalism aspect, Britons being proud of their intellectuality, are naturals when it comes to becoming atheists.

Racism nor nationalism are  integral to atheism or theism. So, whatever bone you have to pick with lawrey in regards to those issues  it doesn't have anything necessarily to do with either atheism or theism.


 

So, Lawrey, your disclaimer, sincere as it may be, is meaningless in effect. As long as your mind is closed on the subject of God you are still serving Satan. 

Or not. You're assuming that not giving lip service to god is evil, & that professing belief in god is necessarily good. But that's contingent,  not necessary.

[Dingbat]

On Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 6:32:26 PM UTC-4, GT wrote:

A theist is defined as someone who believes there is a God.

Actually, a theist is defined as one who believes in an arbitrary number of gods, not necessarily a God, although possibly a God.
 

The Bible says there is God. It says a God created the world. It says a God created us and all of the other creatures. To consider the Bible 'accurate' all I need to be is a theist. 

One who considers the Vedas accurate, especially the Rg Samhita, is a theist. Is it correct to say, "If you believe in the Vedic gods, you must consider the Bible accurate"? If not, you're talking rot when you claim that all that's needed to consider the Bible accurate is to be a theist.

More definitions for you:
The Naytheist is a theist who refuses to worship the gods/God he believes in. Perhaps he has some personal grudge against the gods for something they did (or didn't do); perhaps he refuses to accept the Gods' judgment because they don't measure up to his moral standards; perhaps he's just the independent type by nature; or perhaps he simply thinks there is Always a Bigger Fish, making the search for an "all powerful" creator a pointless venture. He may go through the motions of worship, but if so, it's only to avoid getting struck by lightning or stoned by an angry mob, not out of any sincere Religious feelings. The technical term for this position is alatrism, if the person believes in but does not worship god(s), and misotheism if the person believes in but hates god(s).

I ask: What do we call him if he believes in God/gods but finds no reason to suspect that he/they wants/want or needs/need to be worshiped?

[Bob T.]

On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 3:24:41 PM UTC-7, GT wrote:

On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 10:43:03 PM UTC+10, Bob T. wrote:

On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 5:27:18 PM UTC-7, GT wrote:

LL

You can point to one theory or another but still can't explain existence. And as long as that is the situation, you can't object to beliefs of others, and most can't certainly demand explanations from them.

And, when one day soon scientists acknowledge the possibility that the universe is only thousands of years old, atheism then will not be getting away with claiming this is then their position too.

And when scientists acknowledge no such thing, will you publicly apologize for being such an idiot?  I didn't think so.

An apology would not be necessary. If I'm wrong, then so what. Wasn't it you that was wrong about driverless cars?

You owe all of us an apology for writing such idiotic things!  And I've never commented on driverless cars, so you're wrong about that as well. 

 

 

An atheist, literally and logical, or by any other definition is not a scientific position. It, as has been acknowledged (as you could hardly deny it) is not a philosophical position either.  You are an opposing force directed by the Left, itself acting under the influence of chromosomal pressure. Logic has no part in your decisions as a whole.

Were you bitten by a liberal at an early age?  You have strange ideas about "the Left".

- Bob T 

I was once on the side of the left myself. But as we get older the natural course of events is that we acquire knowledge. And it's for that reason young people are more likely to be liberal, becoming more conservative as they age. Liberality is more a product of emotionality than reason.

Wrong again, Bozo.

- Bob T 

 

 

 

 

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Bob T.]

On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 12:03:16 AM UTC-7, GT wrote:

On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 4:41:11 PM UTC+10, ravn wrote:

On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 5:12:12 PM UTC-7, GT wrote:

Atheists deny the evidence. Existence is the evidence submitted by theists.

That's evidence that can be denied because that doesn't prove that what exists must be created.

But atheist say there is no evidence for there being a God, but that's when out of necessity everything that exists would need to be evidence.
 

There's plenty of evidence of emergent order in nature.

What's that got to do with anything? We aren't debating Nature, are we.

 

Oh, & by the way, if somebody says you're a crackpot,  calling that person crazy doesn't prove that you're not. The other  guy is probably on the proper meds. Are you? 

It would be a doubt-able diagnosis coming from someone who is already confirmed as having 'issues', was the point. And you are calling me a crackpot too. Why the inconsistency? I make a claim the Bible is accurate, something pretty much necessary for a God to exist anyhow, and made at an atheism vs Christianity forum, where I've been a member for 5 years, then all of a sudden I'm the crackpot.

No, no, no.  I've explained this before - you have been a crackpot all along!  Nothing sudden about it.

- Bob T

[lawrey]

                                     GT,
                                              You should try to bring your projecting under some control, you can hardly know what it is I am thinking and your presumption and assumptions,
                                              themselves are indicative of a completely closed mind on the issue. The only possible concept of a god you could have must be the god of bible
                                              infamy and since that god is no god at all, then you have no god. Neither are you able to demonstrate that one has ever existed.

                                              The case is categorically proven and there is no argument to be had. You can deny all you like, but you cannot know of any god, first it must be shown
                                               to exist. It has never existed and the bible god is known to be a decreed god. you cannot show a god in any shape or form.
                                               On the other hand and something that may irk you is that we can indeed prove that the bible god is non-existent.

                                              Demonstrate a god for us and we will talk. Failing that get used to it there isn't one known.






 

 

 

 

 

 

[e_space]

On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 12:27:27 AM UTC-4, GT wrote:

On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 8:27:31 PM UTC+10, e_space wrote:

On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 3:16:14 AM UTC-4, GT wrote:

On Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 4:58:49 AM UTC+10, LL wrote:

On Sep 9, 2015, at 10:39 AM, "'Dingbat' via Atheism vs Christianity"<atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Instead, they argue that philosophical arguments leading to conclusions on subjects other than God's existence don't meet the standard of validity either:

Contemporary proponents of such arguments do not see theistic arguments as attempted “proofs,” in the sense that they are supposed to provide valid arguments with premises that no reasonable person could deny. Such a standard of achievement would clearly be setting the bar for success very high, and proponents of theistic arguments rightly note that philosophical arguments for interesting conclusions in any field outside of formal logic hardly ever reach such a standard.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/#GoaTheArg

If that's the case, why do they waste so much time and energy making theistic arguments? Whatever argument they advance has been shown to have no legs--they even admit it--yet they expect people to believe their premise. That sounds suspiciously like the definition of insanity. 

Theists assert their beliefs. They don't pretend their beliefs are factual. And, an example of insane behavior would be atheism's non-belief. You people challenge theists, who at least have a belief of their own, but have no belief yourselves.

what is the value of having "beliefs"? ... why not rely on facts? ... i think it is okay for one to have beliefs as long as they do not preach them as the truth until they have the facts in hand ... atheists may consider something to be existent, and in that sense, they may hold a belief ... but they don't put it out there as if it were a fact ... the very reason that religious people refer to "faith in god" is because they don't have the facts ... if they actually knew that god, God or GOD existed, do you think the word "faith", "belief" or "hope" would be part of their rhetoric? 

Theists claims that a God exists are assertions of belief as well you know. For example 'God is real' is stating a belief.

sure sounds like someone stating a fact, not a belief ... 

 

Where as atheists assert God as being a myth. "There is no God" for example.

although some atheists may claim this, most just say they don't believe what they are being told about god, God or GOD ... 

 

And where are the facts when it comes to how the universe came into existence.

let me know when you find out ... 

 

And what facts do theists deny?

let me know when you find out ... 

[e_space]

or totally gullible ...  

[LL]

On Sep 18, 2015, at 6:31 AM, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 3:24:41 PM UTC-7, GT wrote:

On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 10:43:03 PM UTC+10, Bob T. wrote:

On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 5:27:18 PM UTC-7, GT wrote:

LL

You can point to one theory or another but still can't explain existence. And as long as that is the situation, you can't object to beliefs of others, and most can't certainly demand explanations from them.

And, when one day soon scientists acknowledge the possibility that the universe is only thousands of years old, atheism then will not be getting away with claiming this is then their position too.

And when scientists acknowledge no such thing, will you publicly apologize for being such an idiot?  I didn't think so.

An apology would not be necessary. If I'm wrong, then so what. Wasn't it you that was wrong about driverless cars?

You owe all of us an apology for writing such idiotic things!  And I've never commented on driverless cars, so you're wrong about that as well. 

 

 

An atheist, literally and logical, or by any other definition is not a scientific position. It, as has been acknowledged (as you could hardly deny it) is not a philosophical position either.  You are an opposing force directed by the Left, itself acting under the influence of chromosomal pressure. Logic has no part in your decisions as a whole.

Were you bitten by a liberal at an early age?  You have strange ideas about "the Left".

- Bob T 

I was once on the side of the left myself. But as we get older the natural course of events is that we acquire knowledge. And it's for that reason young people are more likely to be liberal, becoming more conservative as they age. Liberality is more a product of emotionality than reason.

Wrong again, Bozo.

- Bob T 

That's right. People have also gone from conservative to liberal. All political  positions have emotional aspects to them. To say that liberals are emotional and conservatives are not proves yet again the Great Toad's complete bias and lack of intelligence. There is no cure. You might as well save your energy and give up trying to have a rational conversation with him. It's impossible.

LL 

 

 

 

 

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.

[LL]

A better question to ask is if he thinks the bible is accurate why he isn't a Christian. The bible says Jesus was the son of god and rose into heaven. Does the Great Toad claim accuracy for the bible on one hand and deny parts of it on the other? A sure sign of a crackpot. 

I expect he question is far too complicated for the Toad to contemplate, anyway.

LL

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.

[John Stockwell]

Observation? Really. The Bible is a collection of texts of unknown provenance written by unknown authors, edited by unknown editors. The Bible contains a creation myth and
a character whose name is given alternately as "El", "YHVH" in the OT, and in the NT, these are associated with Jesus (Yeshua to be more precise).   So, basically, you would consider
any text that asserts that there is a God to be "valid".

Apparently, you are also a "Satan" believer, as well, so presumably a given text would have to have a Devil in it?

-John

 

 

 

 

 

[GT]

On Friday, September 18, 2015 at 3:57:41 AM UTC+10, Drafterman wrote:

On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 1:46:10 AM UTC-4, GT wrote:

So, my mission here is to bring this about in some way. And, although it is no longer an issue relating to the forum itself, I as a 5 year member see it as my right to lobby particular individuals to assist bring about this result. What is needed is someone with sufficient credentials to set this going, as no-one is going to be interested in listening to someone so obviously uneducated as myself. Why I'm pointing this out here and now is that if no-one here has the backbone to put their claims to test, then discussion on this topic, at least as far as I'm concerned has come to an end.

I have but a vague recollection of you, but I'll admit I'm intrigued by this.

And I recall you as being someone who enters into a discussion half way. Misunderstandings are to be expected if you haven't been following this closely, being the point.
 

To address a few specific points:

"What is needed is someone with sufficient credentials to set this going."

You'll have to specific what constitutes "sufficient credentials." As it is, this statement is a warning sign. Any skeptic reading this will immediately have a red flag, a flag that says: "I'm about to waste my time refuting nonsense only to be dismissed as not having 'sufficient credentials.'" That is, it reads as a "Get out of debate" free card for you; you get to leave the debate at any time because your selected opponent doesn't meat some vague criteria. Define the criteria, explicitly and up front, and you'll get a better (though not necessarily satisfactory) response.

In context, sufficient credentials would be what ever it takes to get the ear of a particular Physicist. Colin Humphreys is a theist, is British, and is a physicist. He has the qualifications that can then be used to get things really happening I believe. But first he needs to be convinced that what I'm planing is for real. That requires a middle-man. Someone who themselves knows a bit, enough to convince the next person and on and on from there. So, you are being cynical. As a skeptic would not stick his neck out this early in the conversation.
 

"Why I'm pointing this out here and now is that if no-one here has the backbone to put their claims to test"

I'm more interested in putting your claims to the test, and I certainly have the backbone to address anything you have to offer.

State your terms.

Evidence that the Bible is right is not something you just come across like you might find a piece of gold. And, so, consequently the argument for God I have must be put to best effect, something that would not happen if presented on an obscure Google group. And, you just believe you have what it takes to consider any claims made about a God's existence. For example, if God created the universe, then it follows that he must be external to it. So, the physical sciences are not in his domain.  

And, evidence, as the term suggests, should be presented in a court. A court trial being the best system ever devised for proving guilt. Debates, for example, can be won or lost by the best, or worst. They don't establish anything other than who is the best debater really.  William Lane Craig for example would win quit a few debates, that's whether he's right or wrong. And a television trial would maximize the number of people reached too.

So, there you have it, nothing underhanded at all happening with this. Disappointed? You thought this was going to provide you with some entertainment? I'm guessing from now on you'll be backing out of these engagements in they way 'Dishonest John Stockton' is now doing. He's out hunting true believers, as they are easy game, no chance he himself will end up being the hunted. But it's happened anyhow.

Atheists are here at places like this for only one reason, and that is because there in no venue where Christians are being thrown to the lions to be found.

[GT]

I'm not religious, Dishonest John. There is nothing circular to what are my understandings either. I was right, you have backed out as expected. You are a coward as well as being dishonest. 

[GT]

On Friday, September 18, 2015 at 4:38:02 AM UTC+10, John Stockwell wrote:

On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 4:39:45 PM UTC-6, GT wrote:

On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 5:19:37 AM UTC+10, John Stockwell wrote:

GT wrote:

And, when one day soon scientists acknowledge the possibility that the universe is only thousands of years old, atheism then will not be getting away with claiming this is then their position too.

-------------------------------------------

And what if it is the other way, that young earthism is so counter to physical evidence that there is no way that any scientist could consider the idea viable? What then,??

-John

So what if that happens. Besides it's not the way things are trending.
 

"Figuring God into the world of science is a nebulous task. What happens when observers of the fact-based natural world must come to terms with the faith-based spirituality of the mystical world?

Over the centuries, scientists' opinions have varied—from a reconciliation of the two to a complete rejection of one or the other. These days, many scientists span a middle ground—admitting the possibility of an omnipotent force, but refusing to assert one exists because, well, "we just don't know."

And if you think this report is from a right-wing website, think again.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2012/01/03/science-and-religion-quotes-scientists-god_n_1182521.html?ir=Australia

It's an out of context quote. If you actually read the quotes of the scientists, you won't find any friends there:

You are right, I did not bother to read, or watch the videos, till after posting the link. But that's fine, as there was me not believing I'd ever post a link to the mouthpiece of the Left, the Huffington Post, anyhow. It just goes to show how underhanded the Left can be setting up a trap like this for theist or those contemplating theism. Totally dishonest and unethical tactics. I want now more than ever to set up an opposing website, all I need to do would be to show the truth to out-do this misleading 'huff' approach.
 

As I said, a baited trap set by the left.  Think you are going to find anything near the truth from Huffington, think again.

[LL]

Save your energy, John. You will never make any headway in trying to get the Great Toad  to think rationally in any way.  He's  a hopeless case.

LL

--

[Dingbat]

On Friday, September 18, 2015 at 10:54:17 PM UTC-4, GT wrote:

On Friday, September 18, 2015 at 3:57:41 AM UTC+10, Drafterman wrote:

On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 1:46:10 AM UTC-4, GT wrote:

So, my mission here is to bring this about in some way. And, although it is no longer an issue relating to the forum itself, I as a 5 year member see it as my right to lobby particular individuals to assist bring about this result. What is needed is someone with sufficient credentials to set this going, as no-one is going to be interested in listening to someone so obviously uneducated as myself. Why I'm pointing this out here and now is that if no-one here has the backbone to put their claims to test, then discussion on this topic, at least as far as I'm concerned has come to an end.

I have but a vague recollection of you, but I'll admit I'm intrigued by this.

And I recall you as being someone who enters into a discussion half way. Misunderstandings are to be expected if you haven't been following this closely, being the point.
 

To address a few specific points:

"What is needed is someone with sufficient credentials to set this going."

You'll have to specific what constitutes "sufficient credentials." As it is, this statement is a warning sign. Any skeptic reading this will immediately have a red flag, a flag that says: "I'm about to waste my time refuting nonsense only to be dismissed as not having 'sufficient credentials.'" That is, it reads as a "Get out of debate" free card for you; you get to leave the debate at any time because your selected opponent doesn't meat some vague criteria. Define the criteria, explicitly and up front, and you'll get a better (though not necessarily satisfactory) response.

In context, sufficient credentials would be what ever it takes to get the ear of a particular Physicist. Colin Humphreys is a theist, is British, and is a physicist. He has the qualifications that can then be used to get things really happening I believe. But first he needs to be convinced that what I'm planning is for real. That requires a middle-man. Someone who themselves knows a bit, enough to convince the next person and on and on from there. So, you are being cynical. As a skeptic would not stick his neck out this early in the conversation.
 

"Why I'm pointing this out here and now is that if no-one here has the backbone to put their claims to test"

I'm more interested in putting your claims to the test, and I certainly have the backbone to address anything you have to offer.

State your terms.

Evidence that the Bible is right is not something you just come across like you might find a piece of gold. And, so, consequently the argument for God I have must be put to best effect, something that would not happen if presented on an obscure Google group. And, you just believe you have what it takes to consider any claims made about a God's existence. For example, if God created the universe, then it follows that he must be external to it. So, the physical sciences are not in his domain.  

And, evidence, as the term suggests, should be presented in a court. A court trial being the best system ever devised for proving guilt.

You would have to state your case to the court. That you can't or won't state it here is not encouraging. That you can't find an expert witness and have to trawl for witnesses such as roping in Rupert who doesn't believe your case is not encouraging either. That is, the signs are not encouraging that you could construct a case that a court can understand leave alone a case that can help you win. Suppose Dawkins were to counter-sue you for defamation and win. How would you pay damages?
 

[lawrey]

                         GT,
                                   From my experience of Drafterman, (which is quite some time), fools are not suffered gladly and your everything and nothing  nonsense comments will
                                    not warrant the waste of time in response. In short, you have in all probability, shot your bolt. Exaggeration and filibustering phantasies, won't cut it.

                                 There is no evidence that the bible is right that cannot immediately be debunked.  for starters, how do you account for the first five books and the book of Job?
                                  what evidence is there that Moses wrote them all? Please confirm. BTW, on just that one point, the bible is wrong, but further than that it is grossly and
                                  quite deliberately false and guilty of deceit and deception with its claims. I have no hesitation in stating the bible to be in every sense a false account, which
                                  I excuse by the realization that it is but an allegorical piece of badly written literature written by profuse numbers of unknown individuals who cannot be held
                                  to account; upon which circumstance religious sects generally, take deceitful and  unfair advantage of.

[Bob T.]

Yes, you are, Great Toad.  And a lying liar as well!

- Bob T

[LL]

Whether the Great Toad is religious or not has no bearing whatsoever on his arguments. If his intelligence had not been destroyed by irrational beliefs, he would know this at the outset. 

LL

 

There is nothing circular to what are my understandings either. I was right, you have backed out as expected. You are a coward as well as being dishonest. 

--

[LL]

On Sep 19, 2015, at 4:17 AM, "'Dingbat' via Atheism vs Christianity"<atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> You would have to state your case to the court. That you can't or won't state it here is not encouraging. That you can't find an expert witness and have to trawl for witnesses such as roping in Rupert who doesn't believe your case is not encouraging either. That is, the signs are not encouraging that you could construct a case that a court can understand leave alone a case that can help you win. Suppose Dawkins were to counter-sue you for defamation and win. How would you pay damages?

He would pray for money.

LL

[GT]

On Saturday, September 19, 2015 at 9:17:38 PM UTC+10, Dingbat wrote:

On Friday, September 18, 2015 at 10:54:17 PM UTC-4, GT wrote:

On Friday, September 18, 2015 at 3:57:41 AM UTC+10, Drafterman wrote:

On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 1:46:10 AM UTC-4, GT wrote:

So, my mission here is to bring this about in some way. And, although it is no longer an issue relating to the forum itself, I as a 5 year member see it as my right to lobby particular individuals to assist bring about this result. What is needed is someone with sufficient credentials to set this going, as no-one is going to be interested in listening to someone so obviously uneducated as myself. Why I'm pointing this out here and now is that if no-one here has the backbone to put their claims to test, then discussion on this topic, at least as far as I'm concerned has come to an end.

I have but a vague recollection of you, but I'll admit I'm intrigued by this.

And I recall you as being someone who enters into a discussion half way. Misunderstandings are to be expected if you haven't been following this closely, being the point.
 

To address a few specific points:

"What is needed is someone with sufficient credentials to set this going."

You'll have to specific what constitutes "sufficient credentials." As it is, this statement is a warning sign. Any skeptic reading this will immediately have a red flag, a flag that says: "I'm about to waste my time refuting nonsense only to be dismissed as not having 'sufficient credentials.'" That is, it reads as a "Get out of debate" free card for you; you get to leave the debate at any time because your selected opponent doesn't meat some vague criteria. Define the criteria, explicitly and up front, and you'll get a better (though not necessarily satisfactory) response.

In context, sufficient credentials would be what ever it takes to get the ear of a particular Physicist. Colin Humphreys is a theist, is British, and is a physicist. He has the qualifications that can then be used to get things really happening I believe. But first he needs to be convinced that what I'm planning is for real. That requires a middle-man. Someone who themselves knows a bit, enough to convince the next person and on and on from there. So, you are being cynical. As a skeptic would not stick his neck out this early in the conversation.
 

"Why I'm pointing this out here and now is that if no-one here has the backbone to put their claims to test"

I'm more interested in putting your claims to the test, and I certainly have the backbone to address anything you have to offer.

State your terms.

Evidence that the Bible is right is not something you just come across like you might find a piece of gold. And, so, consequently the argument for God I have must be put to best effect, something that would not happen if presented on an obscure Google group. And, you just believe you have what it takes to consider any claims made about a God's existence. For example, if God created the universe, then it follows that he must be external to it. So, the physical sciences are not in his domain.  

And, evidence, as the term suggests, should be presented in a court. A court trial being the best system ever devised for proving guilt.

You would have to state your case to the court. That you can't or won't state it here is not encouraging.

Atheists here back away from serious confrontations. Dawkins would do the same if he were confronted with a serious argument for the Bible. You would be like this too Blasphemer, only you are that arrogant you aren't aware you are losing so constantly. 

 

That you can't find an expert witness and have to trawl for witnesses such as roping in Rupert who doesn't believe your case is not encouraging either.

Your arrogance is showing. I don't need Rupert as a witness to anything. And, you are wrong as always, Rupert does suspect I have a case.

 

That is, the signs are not encouraging that you could construct a case that a court can understand leave alone a case that can help you win.

And it looks like (as a degree of desperation is apparent in your post) you are now having reservations about backing atheism. Too bad & too late I'm afraid. God has caught another opportunist out it looks like.

Suppose Dawkins were to counter-sue you for defamation and win. How would you pay damages?

So, Dawkins defames billions of people, and it's me that should get sued. Yeah right.

And, how very Indian of you to consider the financial aspects relating to this. I can just see you taking legal action against me one day, that is after this court thing happens. But, Blasphemer, being a thinking person, as I am, I'd realized when first coming here that those members using their real names do so at their own risk. Which means calling you for example, 'The Son of Satan', as you surely are, is in context, and so is not defamatory. So, nuffin you can do my greedy little Indian friend.  Ha ha!
 

[Bob T.]

On Saturday, September 19, 2015 at 4:13:13 PM UTC-7, GT wrote:

Atheists here back away from serious confrontations. Dawkins would do the same if he were confronted with a serious argument for the Bible. You would be like this too Blasphemer, only you are that arrogant you aren't aware you are losing so constantly.  

I know!  If only somebody with a serious argument for the Bible had confronted Dawkins, but unfortunately there are no serious arguments for the Bible.

 

That you can't find an expert witness and have to trawl for witnesses such as roping in Rupert who doesn't believe your case is not encouraging either.

Your arrogance is showing. I don't need Rupert as a witness to anything. And, you are wrong as always, Rupert does suspect I have a case.

Sure he does. 

 

That is, the signs are not encouraging that you could construct a case that a court can understand leave alone a case that can help you win.

And it looks like (as a degree of desperation is apparent in your post) you are now having reservations about backing atheism. Too bad & too late I'm afraid. God has caught another opportunist out it looks like.

And He will punish you for all eternity, and Great Toad knows this because he's not religious. 

- Bob T

[GT]

On Saturday, September 19, 2015 at 10:34:15 PM UTC+10, lawrey wrote:

On Saturday, 19 September 2015 03:54:17 UTC+1, GT wrote:

On Friday, September 18, 2015 at 3:57:41 AM UTC+10, Drafterman wrote:

On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 1:46:10 AM UTC-4, GT wrote:

So, my mission here is to bring this about in some way. And, although it is no longer an issue relating to the forum itself, I as a 5 year member see it as my right to lobby particular individuals to assist bring about this result. What is needed is someone with sufficient credentials to set this going, as no-one is going to be interested in listening to someone so obviously uneducated as myself. Why I'm pointing this out here and now is that if no-one here has the backbone to put their claims to test, then discussion on this topic, at least as far as I'm concerned has come to an end.

I have but a vague recollection of you, but I'll admit I'm intrigued by this.

And I recall you as being someone who enters into a discussion half way. Misunderstandings are to be expected if you haven't been following this closely, being the point.
 

To address a few specific points:

"What is needed is someone with sufficient credentials to set this going."

You'll have to specific what constitutes "sufficient credentials." As it is, this statement is a warning sign. Any skeptic reading this will immediately have a red flag, a flag that says: "I'm about to waste my time refuting nonsense only to be dismissed as not having 'sufficient credentials.'" That is, it reads as a "Get out of debate" free card for you; you get to leave the debate at any time because your selected opponent doesn't meat some vague criteria. Define the criteria, explicitly and up front, and you'll get a better (though not necessarily satisfactory) response.

In context, sufficient credentials would be what ever it takes to get the ear of a particular Physicist. Colin Humphreys is a theist, is British, and is a physicist. He has the qualifications that can then be used to get things really happening I believe. But first he needs to be convinced that what I'm planing is for real. That requires a middle-man. Someone who themselves knows a bit, enough to convince the next person and on and on from there. So, you are being cynical. As a skeptic would not stick his neck out this early in the conversation.
 

"Why I'm pointing this out here and now is that if no-one here has the backbone to put their claims to test"

I'm more interested in putting your claims to the test, and I certainly have the backbone to address anything you have to offer.

State your terms.

Evidence that the Bible is right is not something you just come across like you might find a piece of gold. And, so, consequently the argument for God I have must be put to best effect, something that would not happen if presented on an obscure Google group. And, you just believe you have what it takes to consider any claims made about a God's existence. For example, if God created the universe, then it follows that he must be external to it. So, the physical sciences are not in his domain.  

And, evidence, as the term suggests, should be presented in a court. A court trial being the best system ever devised for proving guilt. Debates, for example, can be won or lost by the best, or worst. They don't establish anything other than who is the best debater really.  William Lane Craig for example would win quit a few debates, that's whether he's right or wrong. And a television trial would maximize the number of people reached too.

So, there you have it, nothing underhanded at all happening with this. Disappointed? You thought this was going to provide you with some entertainment? I'm guessing from now on you'll be backing out of these engagements in they way 'Dishonest John Stockton' is now doing. He's out hunting true believers, as they are easy game, no chance he himself will end up being the hunted. But it's happened anyhow.

Atheists are here at places like this for only one reason, and that is because there in no venue where Christians are being thrown to the lions to be found.

                         GT,
                                   From my experience of Drafterman, (which is quite some time), fools are not suffered gladly and your everything and nothing  nonsense comments will
                                    not warrant the waste of time in response. In short, you have in all probability, shot your bolt. Exaggeration and filibustering phantasies, won't cut it.

I don't expect to hear much more from Drafterman to be honest. His arrogance is not going to help win him this battle.  Atheists are fickle people, backing down from serious confrontations. You're not like this Lawrey, as you don't really follow any of it, your mind being made up long ago that there can be no God. It's not being British to believe in a God after-all.

                                 There is no evidence that the bible is right that cannot immediately be debunked.  for starters, how do you account for the first five books and the book of Job?
                                  what evidence is there that Moses wrote them all? Please confirm. BTW, on just that one point, the bible is wrong, but further than that it is grossly and
                                  quite deliberately false and guilty of deceit and deception with its claims. I have no hesitation in stating the bible to be in every sense a false account, which
                                  I excuse by the realization that it is but an allegorical piece of badly written literature written by profuse numbers of unknown individuals who cannot be held
                                  to account; upon which circumstance religious sects generally, take deceitful and  unfair advantage of.

What's this got to do with me?  I'm a theist.  Why do I have to show any of this is true?

[lawrey]

                                              GT,

                                                       I am following up your admitting to being a theist and the comment you made as follows:  " You are trying to draw me into revealing what is my explanation
                                                       as to how the Bible can be right. But if you want to find this out, then, unless you can contribute to the staging of the 'trial' idea, you'll otherwise have to wait."
                                                        OK!

[Drafterman]

On Friday, September 18, 2015 at 10:54:17 PM UTC-4, GT wrote:

In context, sufficient credentials would be what ever it takes to get the ear of a particular Physicist. Colin Humphreys is a theist, is British, and is a physicist. He has the qualifications that can then be used to get things really happening I believe. But first he needs to be convinced that what I'm planing is for real. That requires a middle-man. Someone who themselves knows a bit, enough to convince the next person and on and on from there. So, you are being cynical. As a skeptic would not stick his neck out this early in the conversation.

I don't know Colim Humphreys, so I don't meet your credentials. I don't see where you've ever stated this requirement (a search on this forum didn't turn up anything immediate). Since this is a rather narrow requirement, my recommendation would be that you be more upfront about this "credential" as to not waste people's times with claims of "backing out" and "dishonesty" when they never met your baseline requirements to begin with.

State your terms.

Evidence that the Bible is right is not something you just come across like you might find a piece of gold. And, so, consequently the argument for God I have must be put to best effect, something that would not happen if presented on an obscure Google group. And, you just believe you have what it takes to consider any claims made about a God's existence. For example, if God created the universe, then it follows that he must be external to it. So, the physical sciences are not in his domain.  

If you do not wish a debate on an obscure Google group, then you should cease issuing challenges in said group, nor gripe when members of said group are not (in your opinion) up to the challenge. On a side note, if God is not in the domain of physical sciences, then it is odd that you seek the attention of a physicist.

 

And, evidence, as the term suggests, should be presented in a court. A court trial being the best system ever devised for proving guilt. Debates, for example, can be won or lost by the best, or worst. They don't establish anything other than who is the best debater really.  William Lane Craig for example would win quit a few debates, that's whether he's right or wrong. And a television trial would maximize the number of people reached too.

This is all rubbish. A court (of law) is designed to settle matters of law, not matters of fact. As such, it can come to rather silly, counter-factual rulings, such as a tomato not being a fruit, or atheism being a religion, or a corporation being a person. They are hardly perfect and the claim that they are "the best system ever" is meaningless since you haven't specified which court system you'd want to use. USA? Norway? Germany? China? National? Local? Judge? Jury? Criminal? Civil? Who would be the prosecutor in this "trial?" The defendant? Will the normal rules of court work? (The entire BIble is heresay, for example).

Furthermore, it is an unrealistic goal. No court (at least in the US) would hear such a trial. There is no grounds or standing, as people have tried, only to have such cases dismissed. Again, this is a requirement you should be upfront about, since it is so strict. No one here could possibly make that happen.

So, there you have it, nothing underhanded at all happening with this. Disappointed? You thought this was going to provide you with some entertainment? I'm guessing from now on you'll be backing out of these engagements in they way 'Dishonest John Stockton' is now doing. He's out hunting true believers, as they are easy game, no chance he himself will end up being the hunted. But it's happened anyhow.

Atheists are here at places like this for only one reason, and that is because there in no venue where Christians are being thrown to the lions to be found.

"Backing out?" I haven't accepted or agreed to anything. I said I was interested and asked you for details. I'm still interested in hearing your arguments and evidence, but I don't meet your requirements. So it's up to you to continue with the challenge or to continue looking for someone that does meet your rather unusual and strict credentials.

To set the bar so high, then to accuse other people of "backing out" or call them dishonest is by very definition an underhanded tactic. Either make your requirements more reasonable or acknowledge that most others, through no fault of their own, wont' be able to meet them.

[LL]

I almost wish the Great Toad could put Dawkins on trial. The Toad would  be dismembered and eaten alive within minutes. Then we wouldn't have to hear anything more about his insane ideas. 

LL

--

[lawrey]

On Sunday, 20 September 2015 16:58:03 UTC+1, LL wrote:

I almost wish the Great Toad could put Dawkins on trial. The Toad would  be dismembered and eaten alive within minutes. Then we wouldn't have to hear anything more about his insane ideas. 

LL

                                     LL,
                                               I think we both know that we are seeing what we have all seen before.....Huff & Puff.....I am only interested to see how he ducks out.
                                               More than a case of a few screws loose. I think the welt has detached on this one, he's dropped off his trolley.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[LL]

On Sep 20, 2015, at 10:39 AM, lawrey <lawre...@btinternet.com> wrote:

On Sunday, 20 September 2015 16:58:03 UTC+1, LL wrote:

I almost wish the Great Toad could put Dawkins on trial. The Toad would  be dismembered and eaten alive within minutes. Then we wouldn't have to hear anything more about his insane ideas. 

LL

                                     LL,
                                               I think we both know that we are seeing what we have all seen before.....Huff & Puff.....I am only interested to see how he ducks out.
                                               More than a case of a few screws loose. I think the welt has detached on this one, he's dropped off his trolley.

Indeed!

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.

[GT]

Sure. The Bible is right from 'my' perspective as a theist. 

[GT]

On Sunday, September 20, 2015 at 10:29:36 PM UTC+10, Drafterman wrote:

On Friday, September 18, 2015 at 10:54:17 PM UTC-4, GT wrote:

In context, sufficient credentials would be what ever it takes to get the ear of a particular Physicist. Colin Humphreys is a theist, is British, and is a physicist. He has the qualifications that can then be used to get things really happening I believe. But first he needs to be convinced that what I'm planing is for real. That requires a middle-man. Someone who themselves knows a bit, enough to convince the next person and on and on from there. So, you are being cynical. As a skeptic would not stick his neck out this early in the conversation.

I don't know Colim Humphreys, so I don't meet your credentials. I don't see where you've ever stated this requirement (a search on this forum didn't turn up anything immediate). Since this is a rather narrow requirement, my recommendation would be that you be more upfront about this "credential" as to not waste people's times with claims of "backing out" and "dishonesty" when they never met your baseline requirements to begin with.

You have backed out: "I don't know (Sir) Colin Humphreys", is a poor excuse. So, we'll leave it at that.
 

State your terms.

Evidence that the Bible is right is not something you just come across like you might find a piece of gold. And, so, consequently the argument for God I have must be put to best effect, something that would not happen if presented on an obscure Google group. And, you just believe you have what it takes to consider any claims made about a God's existence. For example, if God created the universe, then it follows that he must be external to it. So, the physical sciences are not in his domain.  

If you do not wish a debate on an obscure Google group, then you should cease issuing challenges in said group, nor gripe when members of said group are not (in your opinion) up to the challenge. On a side note, if God is not in the domain of physical sciences, then it is odd that you seek the attention of a physicist.

It should be obvious that just about any argument no matter if it were significant or not, will be pretty much ignored when posted on a Google Group. And I'd made it clear to those here that this trial thing no longer has an association with this forum, whereas I as a member am still free to lobby as I like (while here) to make it happen it which ever way I can.
 

 

And, evidence, as the term suggests, should be presented in a court. A court trial being the best system ever devised for proving guilt. Debates, for example, can be won or lost by the best, or worst. They don't establish anything other than who is the best debater really.  William Lane Craig for example would win quit a few debates, that's whether he's right or wrong. And a television trial would maximize the number of people reached too.

This is all rubbish. A court (of law) is designed to settle matters of law, not matters of fact. As such, it can come to rather silly, counter-factual rulings, such as a tomato not being a fruit, or atheism being a religion, or a corporation being a person. They are hardly perfect and the claim that they are "the best system ever" is meaningless since you haven't specified which court system you'd want to use. USA? Norway? Germany? China? National? Local? Judge? Jury? Criminal? Civil?

Of course it's about law.  It's God's law that Dawkins (I believe) has broken. And I had specified a system. It would be a television 'court-room' trial, as I'd said. It would hardly be a legal trial as there would be nowhere in the US that charges could be made? Besides, it just would not work out in a way that had the desired effect if it were 'legal'. And, It would need to be held in the USA as this would be the only appropriate place for it happen.
 

  Who would be the prosecutor in this "trial?" The defendant? Will the normal rules of court work? (The entire BIble is heresay, for example).

 I've been over this before, Ann Coulter, acting on behalf of theists, would be the prosecutor. Richard Dawkins as defendant. And the normal rules apply. I don't know how to decide a jury, never figured that one, as these will be made up of biased persons regardless it seems. It might be an equal mix of 'non-believers' and believers. That is leave those with an agenda (atheists and religious zealots) out.
 

Furthermore, it is an unrealistic goal. No court (at least in the US) would hear such a trial. There is no grounds or standing, as people have tried, only to have such cases dismissed. Again, this is a requirement you should be upfront about, since it is so strict. No one here could possibly make that happen.

It would be a television trial, not a 'televised' trial.
 

So, there you have it, nothing underhanded at all happening with this. Disappointed? You thought this was going to provide you with some entertainment? I'm guessing from now on you'll be backing out of these engagements in they way 'Dishonest John Stockton' is now doing. He's out hunting true believers, as they are easy game, no chance he himself will end up being the hunted. But it's happened anyhow.

Atheists are here at places like this for only one reason, and that is because there in no venue where Christians are being thrown to the lions to be found.

"Backing out?" I haven't accepted or agreed to anything. I said I was interested and asked you for details. I'm still interested in hearing your arguments and evidence, but I don't meet your requirements. So it's up to you to continue with the challenge or to continue looking for someone that does meet your rather unusual and strict credentials.

But, you have backed out: "but I don't meet your requirements". As for presenting evidence here, that would be like showing blueprints of a new weapon to a bunch of spies. You people are from the perspective of a theist, Satanists, is what I'm saying. There is no way Dawkins would show up at a trial if he knew before hand he was about to lose. And it does look like I've found someone qualified sufficiently.
 

To set the bar so high, then to accuse other people of "backing out" or call them dishonest is by very definition an underhanded tactic. Either make your requirements more reasonable or acknowledge that most others, through no fault of their own, wont' be able to meet them.

You have came in late on this, and that is your problem. So, stop blaming me for your ignorance on the subject.

[GT]

 Sorry, I might have got this wrong, but does this mean you accept the challenge? That is, do you have the back-bone to do what no atheist has ever done before and commit yourself to the pursuit of truth? If so, then I figure it's that you are so sure the Bible is wrong you just can't lose? So just in case, I should warn you that as atheists some of the others here are a bit more wary. They are not about taking chances lest their evil is exposed of course. So, commit or chicken out? You still have time. And keep in mind that a mathematician and a physicist have both backed away from this. Being honest is risky stuff for any atheist let's face it.

You know, I figure you will back out. But, Ravn maybe won't though. So, here is your last chance at this.

[lawrey]

                                                            GT,
                                                                       I will make the same request as Drafterman, so without any further grand-standing on your part please detail you proposals.
                                                                       Telling the truth comes naturally to most "ATHEISTS" in my experience. I am not aware that Drafterman backed down at all
                                                                       like me he asked for details. I do not speak for ravn, but I see no reason why any "ATHEIST" should balk at debunking  the
                                                                       accuracy of the bible, we know its content better than most theists. BTW I note you did not respond to my question as to the
                                                                       authorship of the Torah and Book of Job. Are you about to back off?

[Drafterman]

On Sunday, September 20, 2015 at 10:17:59 PM UTC-4, GT wrote:

On Sunday, September 20, 2015 at 10:29:36 PM UTC+10, Drafterman wrote:

On Friday, September 18, 2015 at 10:54:17 PM UTC-4, GT wrote:

In context, sufficient credentials would be what ever it takes to get the ear of a particular Physicist. Colin Humphreys is a theist, is British, and is a physicist. He has the qualifications that can then be used to get things really happening I believe. But first he needs to be convinced that what I'm planing is for real. That requires a middle-man. Someone who themselves knows a bit, enough to convince the next person and on and on from there. So, you are being cynical. As a skeptic would not stick his neck out this early in the conversation.

I don't know Colim Humphreys, so I don't meet your credentials. I don't see where you've ever stated this requirement (a search on this forum didn't turn up anything immediate). Since this is a rather narrow requirement, my recommendation would be that you be more upfront about this "credential" as to not waste people's times with claims of "backing out" and "dishonesty" when they never met your baseline requirements to begin with.

You have backed out: "I don't know (Sir) Colin Humphreys", is a poor excuse. So, we'll leave it at that.

Then why haven't you gotten in contact with him, yet? What do you need us schlubs for?

 

 

State your terms.

Evidence that the Bible is right is not something you just come across like you might find a piece of gold. And, so, consequently the argument for God I have must be put to best effect, something that would not happen if presented on an obscure Google group. And, you just believe you have what it takes to consider any claims made about a God's existence. For example, if God created the universe, then it follows that he must be external to it. So, the physical sciences are not in his domain.  

If you do not wish a debate on an obscure Google group, then you should cease issuing challenges in said group, nor gripe when members of said group are not (in your opinion) up to the challenge. On a side note, if God is not in the domain of physical sciences, then it is odd that you seek the attention of a physicist.

It should be obvious that just about any argument no matter if it were significant or not, will be pretty much ignored when posted on a Google Group. And I'd made it clear to those here that this trial thing no longer has an association with this forum, whereas I as a member am still free to lobby as I like (while here) to make it happen it which ever way I can.

So you are deliberately making unreasonable challenges to an audience and across a medium you admit is unsuitable for your needs... just because?

 

 

 

And, evidence, as the term suggests, should be presented in a court. A court trial being the best system ever devised for proving guilt. Debates, for example, can be won or lost by the best, or worst. They don't establish anything other than who is the best debater really.  William Lane Craig for example would win quit a few debates, that's whether he's right or wrong. And a television trial would maximize the number of people reached too.

This is all rubbish. A court (of law) is designed to settle matters of law, not matters of fact. As such, it can come to rather silly, counter-factual rulings, such as a tomato not being a fruit, or atheism being a religion, or a corporation being a person. They are hardly perfect and the claim that they are "the best system ever" is meaningless since you haven't specified which court system you'd want to use. USA? Norway? Germany? China? National? Local? Judge? Jury? Criminal? Civil?

Of course it's about law.  It's God's law that Dawkins (I believe) has broken. And I had specified a system. It would be a television 'court-room' trial, as I'd said.

"Television court-room trial" isn't a system of justice I'm aware of.

 

It would hardly be a legal trial as there would be nowhere in the US that charges could be made? Besides, it just would not work out in a way that had the desired effect if it were 'legal'. And, It would need to be held in the USA as this would be the only appropriate place for it happen.

The US Court System is reserved for US legal issues (when I said "matters of law" I meant those of the United States, not any god's law). There isn't anyone on the planet that can make this happen.

 

 

  Who would be the prosecutor in this "trial?" The defendant? Will the normal rules of court work? (The entire BIble is heresay, for example).

 I've been over this before, Ann Coulter, acting on behalf of theists, would be the prosecutor. Richard Dawkins as defendant. And the normal rules apply. I don't know how to decide a jury, never figured that one, as these will be made up of biased persons regardless it seems. It might be an equal mix of 'non-believers' and believers. That is leave those with an agenda (atheists and religious zealots) out.

So, let me get this straight:

1. You are issuing challenges to an audience and through a medium you agree is unsuitable for your needs;

2. Requiring the participation of specific individuals that no one here knows how to contact;

3. Require the use of the United States Court system and public television;

4. Abiding by a system of rules you have yet to decide upon;

What is it you expect anyone here to do to help you see this out?

 

 

Furthermore, it is an unrealistic goal. No court (at least in the US) would hear such a trial. There is no grounds or standing, as people have tried, only to have such cases dismissed. Again, this is a requirement you should be upfront about, since it is so strict. No one here could possibly make that happen.

It would be a television trial, not a 'televised' trial.

That doesn't change anything. No one here can make this happen.

 

 

So, there you have it, nothing underhanded at all happening with this. Disappointed? You thought this was going to provide you with some entertainment? I'm guessing from now on you'll be backing out of these engagements in they way 'Dishonest John Stockton' is now doing. He's out hunting true believers, as they are easy game, no chance he himself will end up being the hunted. But it's happened anyhow.

Atheists are here at places like this for only one reason, and that is because there in no venue where Christians are being thrown to the lions to be found.

"Backing out?" I haven't accepted or agreed to anything. I said I was interested and asked you for details. I'm still interested in hearing your arguments and evidence, but I don't meet your requirements. So it's up to you to continue with the challenge or to continue looking for someone that does meet your rather unusual and strict credentials.

But, you have backed out: "but I don't meet your requirements". As for presenting evidence here, that would be like showing blueprints of a new weapon to a bunch of spies. You people are from the perspective of a theist, Satanists, is what I'm saying. There is no way Dawkins would show up at a trial if he knew before hand he was about to lose. And it does look like I've found someone qualified sufficiently.

I can't back out if I was never in.

 

 

To set the bar so high, then to accuse other people of "backing out" or call them dishonest is by very definition an underhanded tactic. Either make your requirements more reasonable or acknowledge that most others, through no fault of their own, wont' be able to meet them.

You have came in late on this, and that is your problem. So, stop blaming me for your ignorance on the subject.

You just admitted you're deliberately keeping aspects of this whole affair secret. So, yes, I'm going to blame you for my ignorance about stuff you are deliberately keeping people ignorant about. 

[Rupert]

It would be really awesome if you could stop lying about me. I did not "back away". I waited for you to start presenting your case with quite extraordinary patience and you never started.