(September 19, 2013 at 3:25 pm)John V Wrote: A circular claim isn't necessarily nonsensical. It's unsupported. You can accept it or reject it as you like. That's why I don't bring perfection into debates - I actually know what the Biblical claims are, and there's not much to discuss about them.

True, but why make the claim that god is perfect if it isn't supported?

(September 19, 2013 at 3:25 pm)John V Wrote:

(September 19, 2013 at 3:19 pm)Faith No More Wrote: Then the claim can be dismissed as nonsensical, yes?

A circular claim isn't necessarily nonsensical. It's unsupported. You can accept it or reject it as you like.A circular claim isn't necessarily nonsensical- I actually know what the Biblical claims are, and there's not much to discuss about them.

Quote:A circular claim isn't necessarily nonsensical

Then

Quote: It's unsupported

WHICH SHOULD GIVE YOU A CLUE!

Quote:I actually know what the Biblical claims are, and there's not much to discuss about them.

No there is not much to discuss when you deal with a comic book. The pain in the ass for us is listening to believers claim it proves the existence of their pet deity.

(September 19, 2013 at 3:31 pm)max-greece Wrote: No - we did establish it clearly - you just don't/won't get it.

No, you haven't. You take your opinions as to what perfection should be and apply them. That's fine for purposes of your own beliefs, but I don't need to agree.

(September 19, 2013 at 3:22 pm)John V Wrote: Heck, if you guys aren't claiming that god is immoral or imperfect, I guess we're done.

Which god? Zeus? We can certainly claim that of the mythological character as depicted in the ancient stories about him but we don't particularly believe Zeus exists unless there is evidence he does. If someone came along and claimed that Zeus existed we would say "That's an interesting claim lets see the evidence." and when the evidence for Zeus is presented we can decide whether to believe it or refute it. If the evidence is that Zeus was written about in the Iliad that that doesn't really cut it because we have Harry Potter books these days and they aren't evidence for anything.

(September 19, 2013 at 2:37 pm)John V Wrote:

(September 19, 2013 at 2:28 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Our standard is universal, your standard is merely swallowing first and retrofitting after the fact.

Your standard isn't universal. Guess you missed the pages on how we kill animals but don't call it murder due to our greater mental capacity.

Sorry your mental masturbation is NOT a lab setting nor is it a science class.

We kill animals because we EVOLVED to do so.

You will never be able to treat that bible as a science textbook, much less one about evolutionary biology. It is a comic book, not a science textbook.

Science is universal, holy books are mere reflections of humans superstitious desires. Hardly universal.

(September 19, 2013 at 3:32 pm)Faith No More Wrote: True, but why make the claim that god is perfect if it isn't supported?

You tell me. You guys are the ones always bringing up something which can't be evaluated.

Actually I do know why most of you do it. You don't really know much of the Bible, so it's easier to derive arguments from concepts like perfection or the omnis. However, since you don't really know what the Bible says, the arguments are straw men.

(September 19, 2013 at 3:07 pm)Zone Wrote: But then the God of the Old Testament commanded the Jews to kill every last, man, woman, child, baby, dog and anything that moved. If God says it then it has to be good and you can't disagree.

Now you're getting it.

(September 19, 2013 at 3:41 pm)John V Wrote:

(September 19, 2013 at 3:32 pm)Faith No More Wrote: True, but why make the claim that god is perfect if it isn't supported?

You tell me. You guys are the ones always bringing up something which can't be evaluated.

Actually I do know why most of you do it. You don't really know much of the Bible, so it's easier to derive arguments from concepts like perfection or the omnis. However, since you don't really know what the Bible says, the arguments are straw men.

STOP USING THE WORD "EVALUATED"

You have no fucking clue what that means.

Swallowing first is not evaluating. Swallowing first is gullibility, that is what you are doing.

To "evaluate" something objectively you start with prior data, plug it into an established formula with control groups to compare the data to. Deity claims are merely pulling shit out of your ass and holy books are merely myths reflecting cultural traditions.

We did evaluate the bible which is why we are atheists. Swallowing first and looking for excuses to cling to absurd claims is what you are doing.

(September 19, 2013 at 3:41 pm)John V Wrote: You tell me. You guys are the ones always bringing up something which can't be evaluated.

If it can't be evaluated, why make the claim?

(September 19, 2013 at 3:41 pm)John V Wrote: Actually I do know why most of you do it. You don't really know much of the Bible, so it's easier to derive arguments from concepts like perfection or the omnis. However, since you don't really know what the Bible says, the arguments are straw men.

What the bible says is up for interpretation.

(September 19, 2013 at 3:53 pm)Faith No More Wrote: If it can't be evaluated, why make the claim?

God's free to make proclamations if he wants.

Quote:What the bible says is up for interpretation.

Sure - but to interpret, you have to start with what it actually says.

---

(September 19, 2013 at 3:36 pm)Zone Wrote: Which god?

Whiskey tango foxtrot...another one? We're on the Christianity board, moron. Unless specified otherwise, a reference to god on the Christian board would be to the Christian god.