(September 30, 2009 at 5:48 am)fr0d0 Wrote: His logic is screwey because[...]

My point is that you are saying that if his logic is screwy then 'atheist logic' is screwy...I asked how non-belief in God is 'screwy logic', and you argued back against that. You are making an ad-hom argument, because you are saying that because he is using screwy logic according to you, then that makes the arguments of all atheists screwy...which is a fallacy because, however much you dislike his 'screwy logic', that doesn't make all atheistic logic screwy...just because he's an atheist and you think his logic is screwy, doesn't make atheism's logic screwy. That does not follow. You haven't substantiated your claim that 'atheist logic' is screwy.

Quote:Atheist argument relies on screwey logic.. cherry picking as with denying philosophy with science.

(my bolding).

Substantiate this claim. How does non-belief in God make you rely to screwy logical arguments? It's not part of the definition of atheism, which is mere non-belief...so the arguments entirely vary. So please substantiate that claim.

Quote:It makes logically sound claims. Other logical claims can stand against it. I have never seen, and you haven't presented anything that comes close.

And I haven't seen any of these 'logically sound claims' you are speaking of.

Quote:There is reason and logic in the bible, and it does explain God, deal with reality and it can be studied. You refuse to consider it is because you don't understand the evidence. That's a different thing.

Saying that there is reason and logic in the Bible that explains God, doesn't make it so. I have no idea what you are talking about...where does the Bible give evidence that there is a "God" that exists, and that it is specifically that God?

You say I refuse to consider it because I don't understand the evidence. But that's just from your point of view, and it does no help to just tell me that I don't understand. The fact that I have found no evidence doesn't mean that I don't understand it, it just means that whether there is evidence or not, I...just haven't found any. You think there is evidence that I haven't found, and I think that the reason I haven't found any, is that there isn't any...there's no reason for me to believe there's any, until I know of any.

You say I don't understand. But I say that you have failed to demonstrate such evidence, and I have no reason to believe that there is any until I know of any.

EvF

Oh so JP is the authority on Christianity and apologetics now? Of course they are going to agree with you because they are all apolgists.Not Christians in the traditional sense!Like minds create like opinions.

God is shown to change many times in the bible whether you like to admit it or not.Too bad I don't have a copy of the standard revised fr0d0 version of scriptures.By the way when do you plan on publishing that?

Fr0d0,

How to you explain my quotes then?

Rhizo

Rhizo those quotes as well as mine are invalid because they have not been revised and edited according to fr0d0 in his own personal version of the bible.A copy of which only he seems to own and we have no access to.

(September 30, 2009 at 1:34 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: 'atheist logic' is screwy.

IMO it is as it never ties up logically for me. I see no one counter the logic only dodge and avoid. I'm no authority on this.. I just say what I see. You come out with your ignorant statements on Christianity (check the blaspheming day thread for example) so I'm merely doing the same.

(September 30, 2009 at 1:07 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

Quote:Atheist argument relies on screwey logic.. cherry picking as with denying philosophy with science.

(my bolding).

Substantiate this claim. How does non-belief in God make you rely to screwy logical arguments? It's not part of the definition of atheism, which is mere non-belief...so the arguments entirely vary. So please substantiate that claim.

You ignored the bit where I did.

(September 30, 2009 at 1:07 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

Quote:It makes logically sound claims. Other logical claims can stand against it. I have never seen, and you haven't presented anything that comes close.

And I haven't seen any of these 'logically sound claims' you are speaking of.

You have, you replied to them! LOL ...oh - you mean 'see' as in understand.. yeah I agree then - you haven't understood - I've witnessed that

(September 30, 2009 at 1:07 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

Quote:There is reason and logic in the bible, and it does explain God, deal with reality and it can be studied. You refuse to consider it is because you don't understand the evidence. That's a different thing.

Saying that there is reason and logic in the Bible that explains God, doesn't make it so. I have no idea what you are talking about...where does the Bible give evidence that there is a "God" that exists, and that it is specifically that God?

From beginning to end I'm afraid.

(September 30, 2009 at 1:07 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: You say I refuse to consider it because I don't understand the evidence. But that's just from your point of view, and it does no help to just tell me that I don't understand. The fact that I have found no evidence doesn't mean that I don't understand it, it just means that whether there is evidence or not, I...just haven't found any. You think there is evidence that I haven't found, and I think that the reason I haven't found any, is that there isn't any...there's no reason for me to believe there's any, until I know of any.

Well we're talking about that in our debate. Care to continue?

(September 30, 2009 at 1:07 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: You say I don't understand. But I say that you have failed to demonstrate such evidence, and I have no reason to believe that there is any until I know of any.

Of course not. That is entirely rational. Well it would be more plausible if you didn't approach it from a position of not wanting to understand it.

---

(September 30, 2009 at 1:34 pm)chatpilot Wrote: Oh so JP is the authority on Christianity and apologetics now? Of course they are going to agree with you because they are all apolgists.Not Christians in the traditional sense!Like minds create like opinions.

God is shown to change many times in the bible whether you like to admit it or not.Too bad I don't have a copy of the standard revised fr0d0 version of scriptures.By the way when do you plan on publishing that?

LOL

JP is the authority on the words of JP I think. Of course I know you read things your way tho'

JP is not agreeing with me - he agrees that my statement is correct. There's a difference.

So.. as you're such a bible maven - care to show me where God changes definition in the bible?

Fr0d0,

AGAIN you ignore my post!

Pardon us if we don't just take your word for it. I would need to see your correspondance with him to make sure that you presented your argument the same way you did here and that his words actually agree with you. It would be better if he were to come on and explain it himself.

Rhizo

(September 30, 2009 at 10:42 am)chatpilot Wrote: Numbers 23:19
19.God is not man, that he should lie,or a son of man, that he should (change his mind).Has he said, and will he not do it?Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?

Genesis
6.And it (repented) the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his (heart).

Repent:to feel sorry, self-reproachful, or contrite for past conduct; regret or be conscience-stricken about a past action, attitude, etc.

It surely sounds like the Lord changed his mind to me.

The Numbers verse is saying God doesn't change His mind like a man. Does that mean He can change His mind in a different way from a man?

When God said He was sorry He made man I believe He is sorry in the same way a parent is sorry when they have to punish their child which makes the child annoyed at the parent. They are sorry that the child is annoyed with them, but reguardless they know it was right to punish the child and would do it again if they had to. In this way God can be sorry in the short term (that made in sinning) but happy in the long term (that man is worth making).

(September 30, 2009 at 3:13 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: Fr0d0,

AGAIN you ignore my post!

Pardon us if we don't just take your word for it. I would need to see your correspondance with him to make sure that you presented your argument the same way you did here and that his words actually agree with you. It would be better if he were to come on and explain it himself.

Indeed, but it's typical to be ignored when they don't have an answer and we refuse to let them get away with a bad argument.

Oh quit it Eillonwy - and you Rhiz - FFS is a person not allowed a reasonable time to respond!!! What IS IT with you guys!!!

---

This is the convo Rhiz.

Quote:(18:04:42) fr0d0: Someone is quoting your argument on AF and I wondered if you'd mind lending a hand?
(18:05:06) fr0d0: the post is here: http://atheistforums.org/thread-2027-pos...l#pid35995
(18:07:20) Jon Paul: well, lets just say that pure actuality transcends causality
(18:07:26) Jon Paul: so the argument doesn't rely on one cause
(18:07:46) Jon Paul: pure actuality could be the direct cause of a million internal effects in the universe, whose cause we have no clue about.
(18:08:10) Jon Paul: it has nothing to do with whether it is both first, or second, or tenth, or eleventh
(18:08:21) Jon Paul: pure actuality is not reducible to any single cause
(18:08:39) Jon Paul: but is wholly beyond all causes
(18:08:55) Jon Paul: we can say that the causes are simply operations of pure actuality
(18:09:23) Jon Paul: but anyway, man.. you are wasting your time.
(18:09:27) fr0d0: was my previous comment correct in any way?
(18:09:36) fr0d0: well yes I accept that!
(18:09:44) Jon Paul: it was correct, yes

(September 30, 2009 at 3:20 pm)solarwave Wrote:

(September 30, 2009 at 10:42 am)chatpilot Wrote: Numbers 23:19
19.God is not man, that he should lie,or a son of man, that he should (change his mind).Has he said, and will he not do it?Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?

Genesis
6.And it (repented) the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his (heart).

Repent:to feel sorry, self-reproachful, or contrite for past conduct; regret or be conscience-stricken about a past action, attitude, etc.

It surely sounds like the Lord changed his mind to me.

The Numbers verse is saying God doesn't change His mind like a man. Does that mean He can change His mind in a different way from a man?

When God said He was sorry He made man I believe He is sorry in the same way a parent is sorry when they have to punish their child which makes the child annoyed at the parent. They are sorry that the child is annoyed with them, but reguardless they know it was right to punish the child and would do it again if they had to. In this way God can be sorry in the short term (that made in sinning) but happy in the long term (that man is worth making).

Gods idea of punishment in those days was physical death.In the verse I cited in Genesis our loving God decided to spare Noah and his family and some of the Earths animal life and destroyed the rest of mankind.Just like some angry brat with a magnifying glass over an ant hill.LOL