Originally posted by kd2aczSorry, I just don't appreciate disingenuous persons who pretend to be interested in some intellectual inquiry when actually they have no interest in educating themselves.
Are you really whining because I have not PM'ed you? No disrespect, but I think you need to get out more! 🙄
I've bothered to educate myself on the arguments for and against your theistic position in an intellectually honest manner. Why not try to do the same for yourself?
And I also lack respect for those who belittle the arguments on the other side of the fence without even being smart enough to understand that there is a basic dialectic symmetry that leaves them in precisely the same position. After all, you're an atheist with respect to all sorts of god concepts. That's why FMF's observation was apropos.
02 Apr 13
Originally posted by kd2aczAs twhitehead said thats what you wanted as an answer.
Thanks Wolfie, that's all I was asking.
But it is a trivial answer to a trivial question.
(eg Prove that there are no invisible fairies at the bottom of my garden)
The question and my answer (the one you liked) are pointless.
Unless you can prove the non-existance of all other gods what is special about
your "god of the bible"? (To make it more fun let's start with disproving just
one other god.)
02 Apr 13
Originally posted by kd2aczTo get some atheist to give you the answer you wanted - that he cannot prove the non-existence of any gods. You are not interested in any discussion around it, or what conclusions may be drawn, or even actual answers that do not conform to the above. This suggests you have some further plan for utilizing your desired answer for something. What is it?
What's my plan?
02 Apr 13
Originally posted by wolfgang59The point is...
As twhitehead said thats what you wanted as an answer.
But it is a trivial answer to a trivial question.
(eg Prove that there are no invisible fairies at the bottom of my garden)
The question and my answer (the one you liked) are pointless.
Unless you can prove the non-existance of all other gods what is special about
your "god of the bible"? (To make it more fun let's start with disproving just
[b]one other god.)[/b]
With all the debating that goes on about God, mainly the God of the Bible... you folks (atheists) dismiss anything and everything that a Christian puts forth to his existence, it doesn't matter what it is. In the OP question 'Prove there is no God', you can't prove he does not exist, and that is ok.
When you put the burden of proof on anybody to prove a thing, it requires nothing of yourself... you just wait... for the 'proof' and dispel as you see fit, as I have seen countless times, and sometimes you degrade. As I previously stated, I wanted to flip the tables and put the burden of proof on you (atheists) to prove there is no God, and you can't.
If there was a thing I would want one to take away from this OP, it's this... I would hope that in the future there would be a little more respect towards we who call ourselves Christians, or anybody that adheres to a faith for that matter on the part of the atheist rather than diving in and castigating the individual for their beliefs, just because you believe differently (or don't believe).
02 Apr 13
Originally posted by kd2aczThe point is...
The point is...
With all the debating that goes on about God, mainly the God of the Bible... you folks (atheists) dismiss anything and everything that a Christian puts forth to his existence, it doesn't matter what it is. In the OP question 'Prove there is no God', you can't prove he does not exist, and that is ok.
When you put the burden of proof on ...[text shortened]... individual for their beliefs, just because you believe differently (or don't believe).
With all the debating that goes on about God, mainly the God of the Bible... you folks (atheists) dismiss anything and everything that a Christian puts forth to his existence, it doesn't matter what it is. In the OP question 'Prove there is no God', you can't prove he does not exist, and that is ok.
We cannot prove, on the same terms as you expect from us here, that gravity exists! As such are we then wrong to claim we know anything about gravity also!???
When you put the burden of proof on anybody to prove a thing, it requires nothing of yourself... you just wait... for the 'proof' and dispel as you see fit, as I have seen countless times, and sometimes you degrade. As I previously stated, I wanted to flip the tables and put the burden of proof on you (atheists) to prove there is no God, and you can't.p
Stop doling out crappy proofs then!
If there was a thing I would want one to take away from this OP, it's this... I would hope that in the future there would be a little more respect towards we who call ourselves Christians, or anybody that adheres to a faith for that matter on the part of the atheist rather than diving in and castigating the individual for their beliefs, just because you believe differently (or don't believe).
You have failed! Indeed at best you've guaranteed some of us will treat you with slightly less respect ;]
Originally posted by kd2aczThe real point is that atheists (in general) say you cannot prove gods, you
The point is...
With all the debating that goes on about God, mainly the God of the Bible... you folks (atheists) dismiss anything and everything that a Christian puts forth to his existence, it doesn't matter what it is. In the OP question 'Prove there is no God', you can't prove he does not exist, and that is ok.
When you put the burden of proof on individual for their beliefs, just because you believe differently (or don't believe).
cannot disprove gods, but I choose not to believe in their existance.
When a theist says "I believe in Odin" the atheist says "fine ... that's your belief not mine"
When a theist says "I have proof that the SkyGod is real!" ... that;s when the
debate starts! The "proof" is debunked. The theist loses and shouts foul or goes off and sulks.
In general the burden of proof is with those making extraordinary claims. It is
not extraordinary to say Zeus does not exist. It is not extraordinary to say Isis
does not exist. The god of the bible is no different and has no special status.
It is not extraordinary to say god does not exist
In general I have seen more respect from atheists than theists, in general it is
the atheists who stand up for minority religions and I myself have on occassion
defended Muslims, JWs and Jews.
I have along with other atheists shown contempt for those that are ignorant,
bigoted or just plain rude, but in general I hope I respect people's faith.
If there was a thing I would want you to take away from this thread is this;
give the same scrutiny to your own religion as you do to that of others.
02 Apr 13
Originally posted by LemonJelloYou prove my point.
Nonsense. Give me your attempts at refutation and I will give them a fair reading. Unfortunately, your professed refutations usually fail to make much (or any) sense. Case in point: your failed theodicial attempts in the past to refute the GAFE.
GAFE was exposed for the gaffe that it is, despite its pretenses of illumination.
Because your tortured renditions of concepts are required to keep the argument in tact, you blanch at their undoing.
But undone they are, and undone they remain.
Unlike you, I have no agenda.
My salvation does not require my continued belief in God, any more than my salvation was dependent upon that belief in the first place.
If God doesn't exist, I've got nothing to lose.
If He does, I have everything to gain.
Ironically, we are both known on the basis of the same entity: you on one end of Him, me on the other.
03 Apr 13
Originally posted by kd2aczI did prove it, yet you ignored my posts. And you expect more respect?
With all the debating that goes on about God, mainly the God of the Bible... you folks (atheists) dismiss anything and everything that a Christian puts forth to his existence, it doesn't matter what it is. In the OP question 'Prove there is no God', you can't prove he does not exist, and that is ok.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThat's some take on it, there Freaky. I suggest you go back and re-read our threads on the GAFE. If you haven't bothered to notice, I presented arguments that show, in detail, how your supposed refutations fail.
You prove my point.
GAFE was exposed for the gaffe that it is, despite its pretenses of illumination.
Because your tortured renditions of concepts are required to keep the argument in tact, you blanch at their undoing.
But undone they are, and undone they remain.
Unlike you, I have no agenda.
My salvation does not require my continued belief in Go ly, we are both known on the basis of the same entity: you on one end of Him, me on the other.
Now I see you're shifting to Pascal's wager, which is about as outrageously bad as theistic arguments come.
03 Apr 13
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloI'm shifting nowhere.
That's some take on it, there Freaky. I suggest you go back and re-read our threads on the GAFE. If you haven't bothered to notice, I presented arguments that show, in detail, how your supposed refutations fail.
Now I see you're shifting to Pascal's wager, which is about as outrageously bad as theistic arguments come.
Instead, I'm pointing out that I literally have no skin in the game, agenda-wise.
You seem to be laboring under the false concept that belief in God's existence
which, by nature of the name the atheist has given themselves, appears to be a non sequitur of the highest order. "I choose to be known by the thing which I am also declaring doesn't exist." Kinda silly, really.
is what confers salvation.
It doesn't.
I lose nothing if God doesn't exist, therefore, I can have an open and intellectually honest perspective of the situation.
Some have donned the religious aspects and requirements thereof in an effort to work their way to heaven, and these same have a vested interest in knowing their work will not go unrewarded.
These same have an agenda, and truly cannot see the issues without that taint.
I am not part of that group, legion as they may be.
The atheist has an agenda as well.
He needs for life to end at death, for there to be no accounting of his time on earth before an all-powerful God, else his life was wasted in stubborn rejection.
Because salvation is an instantaneous act of thought ascension--- without any other price tag associated for admission--- the only one who can lose is the one who refuses to accept the gift.
You may consider such a perspective as a lapse into the famous wager, but really my only intent is to reveal which camp operates under an agenda, and which camp can truly be considered motive-free.
As far as the rest of it goes, I read the exchanges and my mind is the same.
You hold the argument to have some magical power, and simply fail to see the man behind the curtain, or to acknowledge its dependence on such faulty grounds logically.