rjh4 said: "a position that could only be held with any certainty by an all knowing being, i.e., by God himself. Seems pretty irrational and nonsensical to me. Wink"

I love the way you continually shoot yourself in the foot. So what you are saying is that since god is all knowing according to your bible only he can assert his non-existence? Circular reasoning at it's best keep it up I need a little cheering up today.

Besides the bible, where do you get your concept or notion of god? What I am getting at is that if there was never a bible written would you still be so sure of the existence of a being of whom you knew absolutely nothing about? I highly doubt it. I don't need to get into why agnosticism is irrational since the above quote sufficiently explains that. EvF there is nothing ironic with my position as compared to the assertions of the christians. God is the result of mans ignorance and nothing more, to assert that you are not sure if he exists or not based on all of religious history and its origins is ridiculous. Man created religions, gods, worship, rituals ad infinitum. That is the most logical conclusion if one were to study the origins of world religions and myths unbiased by reverence and majority opinion.

(February 9, 2010 at 6:49 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Exodus 33:20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
Exodus 33:23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

It's all over the bible. Show me one place where it says God is verifiable

Haha, nice demo of self-refutation.

"And he said" so already his attributes are:
1) it is male
2) he can speak

"thou canst not see my face"
3) so he has a face that is hidden from us

"for there shall no man see me, and live."
4) he really is horrifying ugly and he dislikes inquisitiveness

"And I will take away mine hand,"
5) He has at least one hand

"and thou shalt see my back parts:"
6) nice one to share with us: he has back parts

"but my face shall not be seen."
7) confirmation of 3

A lot of attributes in two sentences already. I guess the only thing left to do now is to declare 'm metaphorical. So slither back with your god in the metaphorical Caves of The Great Dodger. If he can slither that is, 'cause strictly speaking that attribute was not in the sentences.

Careful PR! Those christians are a wily bunch the next thing that they will say is that all of those assertions of gods unknowability are metaphorical or allegorical take your pick my friend.

(February 10, 2010 at 4:42 pm)chatpilot Wrote: rjh4 said: "a position that could only be held with any certainty by an all knowing being, i.e., by God himself. Seems pretty irrational and nonsensical to me. Wink"

I love the way you continually shoot yourself in the foot. So what you are saying is that since god is all knowing according to your bible only he can assert his non-existence. Circular reasoning at it's best keep it up I need a little cheering up today.

Circular reasoning??? You must be kidding. The "by God himself" was not really part of the argument, i.e., it was not necessary for my argument to be sufficiently made. I could have said other things. How about: Strong atheism, a position that could only be held with any certainty by an all knowing being, which you are not, CP. How is that? Less circular? Or how about simply: Strong atheism, a position that could only be held with any certainty by an all knowing being. (of course the implication is still there that you, CP, are not all knowing) No matter how you say it it does not become less irrational and nonsensical to me.

(February 10, 2010 at 4:42 pm)chatpilot Wrote: Besides the bible, where do you get your concept or notion of god? What I am getting at is that if there was never a bible written would you still be so sure of the existence of a being of whom you knew absolutely nothing about?

Don't know...but your question is moot since we have the Bible.

and then this one aswell "for man was created in the image (or likeness) of god"

rjh4: "Don't know...but your question is moot since we have the Bible"

Typical christian response; total avoidance of the question which I personally find relevant to this discussion. You don't need to be all knowing ( to smell the bullshit) to see that the so called god you speak of as unknowable is an absurd position to maintain. There is only one way to know god and that is to accept the myriad of lies and myths in the bible as true and to submit ones will to this invisible creation of your imagination entirely on faith. Seems far from logical to me.

(February 10, 2010 at 5:02 pm)chatpilot Wrote: Careful PR! Those christians are a wily bunch the next thing that they will say is that all of those assertions of gods unknowability are metaphorical or allegorical take your pick my friend.

Might be chatpilot.

But to argue that god is not verifiable must mean that the bible does not count as verification. To follow up with bible quotes leads to self refutation.

I call that a comedy routine PR not a refutation.

(February 10, 2010 at 5:14 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I call that a comedy routine PR not a refutation.

In that case, I like your self-comedy routine.

PR said: "But to argue that god is not verifiable must mean that the bible does not count as verification. To follow up with bible quotes leads to self refutation."

Exactly my point PR! As an atheist I don't accept the bible as the word of god or any other so called deity. What they know about their god comes from the bible and their own acceptance of what is written there as proof of his/her/its existence. Other peoples so called revelations in my view are not a valid method of truth finding.