Members banned from this thread: Pragmatist


Page 169 of 171 FirstFirst ... 69119159167168169170171 LastLast
Results 1,681 to 1,690 of 1703
Thanks Tree261Thanks

Thread: Atheist answer to the 10 Commandments: 10 Rational positions.

  1. #1681
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    66,605
    Thanks
    34209

    From
    Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael J View Post
    The entire Holy Bible was written by people a minimum of forty years after those events allegedly took place.
    You are referring, of course, to the Xian "New Testament," rather than the Tanakh, which was written well before the former.

  2. #1682
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    56,332
    Thanks
    3105

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael J View Post
    Just because something is believable doesn't mean it is true.

    They aren't in agreement. There are numerous logical contradictions in the Holy Bible. Read the link I posted.
    The Bible needs to be studied in context. You can basically make the Bible say God kills innocent children and spupports Gay Marriage if you took it out of context

  3. #1683
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    56,332
    Thanks
    3105

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael J View Post
    The pictures and footage of man landing on the moon are direct evidence of the landing. There is footage of them from the space ship landing on the moon. There are pictures and footage of them walking around on it, and there are numerous rocks that they brought back for geological research. They are primary, not secondary, sources that were produced at the time by the astronauts. Those are all external corroborations.

    The Holy Bible has no external corroborations. There is no archaeogical evidence for Christ's tomb, and there is no way to prove a supernatural event like Christ's resurrection. Literal interpretations of the Genesis creation story are objectively false because Adam and Eve's fossil remains aren't at the bottom of the fossil record like they are supposed to be. God didn't create the Sun and stars after he created the Earth. The Earth formed itself from the Sun's energy particles, and the stars existed well before the Earth did. The entire Holy Bible was written by people a minimum of forty years after those events allegedly took place. In other words, it is a secondary historical source that doesn't draw its analytical arguments from any primary sources, and it is supposed to.

    You don't understand your own logical fallacies because you're uneducated.
    Ianís going to spank you on tha 40 year remark lol

  4. #1684
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    56,332
    Thanks
    3105

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael J View Post
    Belief is always held without proof. Look up the word in the English dictionary.
    I donít. I believe because of proof. My faith is reinforced because of the proof.

  5. #1685
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    66,605
    Thanks
    34209

    From
    Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    I don’t. I believe because of proof. My faith is reinforced because of the proof.
    No, you have belief and faith and call it proof. That does not make it proof.

    "[T]hat which we call a rose / By any other name would smell as sweet." Shakespeare, William, Romeo and Juliet, Act Two, Scene 2.

  6. #1686
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    35,477
    Thanks
    17710

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    Then neither is pictures of the moon landing proof that man was there.
    The difference is that the pictures of the moon landing have other collaborative evidence to support them. hat non-biblical collaborative evidence does the Bible have that the things written therein happened? Oh, that's right. NONE. When you can collaborate that the events recorded in the bible actually happened, then, by all means you can use the bible as evidence. Until then, you don't get to use a source to confirm itself:

    PREMISE: God Exists.
    PREMISE God Wrote the Bible.
    Evidence: The Bible says that God wrote it.
    CONCLUSION: God exists, and wrote the Bible.

    Hate to tell you sparky, that is textbook (literally, as in they actually use this as an example of the logical fallacy in text books) case of a Circular argument.

    So, it doesn't matter how many times you insist that the bible is 'evidence" of the existence of God, until you can confirm the accuracy of the Bible from a second collaborative source, it isn't evidence of anything except your beliefs.

  7. #1687
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    35,477
    Thanks
    17710

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    I donít. I believe because of proof. My faith is reinforced because of the proof.
    Except your proof is fallacious, because the only "proof" you have offered is personal experience, which is unreliable, and the Bible which is unreliable. Ergo you "proof" is unreliable. See, this is why the rational atheist doesn't simple ask for "proof". We ask for a very specific sort of proof: objective, verifiable evidence.

  8. #1688
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    35,477
    Thanks
    17710

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    Ianís going to spank you on tha 40 year remark lol
    How about instead of deflecting by trying to incite a fight with Ian, you stick with acknowledging the fact that we have logically demonstrated the difference between the direct evidence of the moon landing combined with collaborative reinforcement, and the indirect, inconsistent account of the bible, with no collaborative reinforcement at all. The Bible is. Not. Evidence. Moving on...

  9. #1689
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,337
    Thanks
    323

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Oh, I understand. You simple dismiss any hypotheses that disagrees with your position.
    No, it was dismissed by E. I. Lashin on may 14, 2015 via a paper submitted to arvix.org -- the same site where ali and das submitted their paper.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    At best we have a hypothesis, and a dissent. Again, the best we can say, currently, about the origin of the universe is we're not really sure. We. don't. Know.
    LOL. You over-estimate your chances here.

    You have a hypothesis with very dubious premises, methodology and conclusions.

    Black holes cannot exist in your hypothesis. Objective evidence says that they do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    For you to insist that you do is arrogant, and unfounded.
    It is not arrogant at all. I base my argument on accepted scientific facts.

    The universe began from a finite point. I am merely telling you what such a conclusion philosophically implies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    I demonstrated that there are models that disagree with the one that you assert to a certainty.
    You posted one model (singular) that turns out to be scientifically dubious. What I am asserting is supported by accepted science.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    So instead of just being so dogmatic, and arrogant, why don't you just admit that we don't really know how the universe first formed.
    There you go. It was 'first formed'. And because it was 'first formed', the universe isn't infinitely old -- along with all the philosophical implications that goes with that statement.

    You see, you started out with a claim that your atheism is more rational and ended up conceding (albeit begrudgingly) that atheism, in fact, is the most irrational and untenable. The more rational position, the position that is supported by science, is my position.

  10. #1690
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,337
    Thanks
    323

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael J View Post
    A more germane question: Let's assume that matter, energy and the universe really aren't eternal and God created them, but what God did it?
    I actually do not find such questions 'germane' to the argument. As I have said many times before -- all religions are merely human affirmations of a fundamental truth -- that god exists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael J View Post
    Zeus? Apollo? A bunch of Pagan Gods?
    I do not even have an issue with pagan gods. Pagan gods are themselves, manifestations of the semina verbi that binds everything that is good in all religions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael J View Post
    Zeno from the Dragonball Super cartoons?
    You wish to reduce my argument to an inanity? You only make yourself appear inane for the effort.

    It doesn't matter by what name you refer to the creator. If zeno speaks to you spiritually, then by all means, you are free to call him your god.

Similar Threads

  1. Rational reason to believe in God?
    By Communist Rationalist in forum Philosophy and Religion
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 26th July 2013, 09:01 PM
  2. Ask the Last Rational Man
    By JayMick in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 3rd February 2012, 04:41 PM
  3. Is there a Rational Ground for Morality?
    By coberst in forum Philosophy and Religion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10th April 2009, 12:20 AM
  4. Belief in God is rational
    By Vetruvius in forum Philosophy and Religion
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 18th February 2009, 07:56 AM

Search tags for this page

Click on a term to search for related topics.

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed