How do you know God isn't dead?

[Statler Waldorf]

Logic is ONLY a process. P1 and P2 must be demonstrably and observably correct before there are any "therefores."

That’s actually incorrect, in deductive logic there is no obligation for a person to demonstrate that their premises are true, premises are assumed to be true unless otherwise refuted.

You'd have a great point if it weren't for a litte thing people call "context". Look it up, review your analisys, tuck your tail between your legs. You know the routine.

I did look it up, and the definition is exactly what I said it was. Definitions matter.

Blah blah blah... you got nothing.

Are you serious? You’re not sophisticated enough to realize that a sound deductive proof always trumps inductive reasoning? I bet illusionists love having you in their audience.

God is supposed to be flawless, and yet almost everything that he allegedly created is flawed.

Have you never read Genesis? There’s this thing Christians like to call “the Fall.”

Is that like self mutilation or something?

Nope, it’s just a creature in rebellion against his creator.

Sounds like I need a whoopin. And yet I won't get one!

That depends. It’s interesting you admit you deserve one though.

I guess you missed the part where myself, and most other people on this forum, do not accept that premise.

The truth of a premise is in no way dependent upon who accepts it. Premises are assumed to be true until otherwise refuted.

If I make up a character, and I assign the attribute of unquestioned leader of all people, I suspect many will challenge that attribute, both in word and action.

Of course, you just admitted that you made him up. I in no way made up Yahweh so that’s a fallacious analogy.

I assigned myself to the quote.

No you did not. Why would you fix one of your own quotes for yourself? They’re very strict about that rule here, which is a very good thing about this forum.

And you claim an above average IQ.

No, you implied my IQ is above average. I’ve never tested it.

You my be beat to hell after 15 rounds, but you'll go the 15 and be ready for more of your own blood!

You mean “may”?

Studid is as stupid does

You know people’s actions are necessarily consistent with what they really believe because of what Forrest Gump says in a movie?

They either do or they don't, agreed?

Yes.

So, with that, which way does the evidence point?

That they do.

If you invent your own methods of interpretation and comminication, of course you are going to struggle to have fluid interaction with people.

I do not struggle to interact with anyone.

I've been around enough religion to see a lot. Most of the religious people I've been around are mostly irreverent. And, considering the "stakes", I'd say that action speaks loud and clear.

That’s the fallacy of the hasty generalization. There are 2.3 billion Christians in the World, how many have you been around?

You mean like asking him to fix my head on backward. Yeah, that's really the kind of challenge a believer would issue to god!

No, like the fact that you claim that once we’re dead we’re gone, and therefore this is all the time we have, and yet you sit there and waste all of this time on an internet forum. If you really believed in annihilation there’s no way you’d be sitting there wasting your time debating the existence of something that you claim to know doesn’t exist with people who do believe it exists. Talk about a person’s actions not matching up with claimed beliefs. Not only this, but if you indeed knew that God didn’t exist why are you so horrible at backing this claim up? Surely you’ve got at least a half-way decent argument to support this claim, and yet all you present is a multitude of logically fallacious arguments, incoherent statements, total arbitrariness, and personal attacks; it’s all very underwhelming.

The same thing you seem so offended by in this thread was a trademark of the writings of Mark Twain, who used rhetoric and parody to great effect.

Mark Twain is a theist now.

Might I be so bold as to assume that you and SW have some history here, and that maybe, just maybe, you feel he's gotten the better of you?

You’re really not going to make many friends here if you keep this sort of childish behavior up. Pocaracas and I have had a few debates, but I would not say I have ever necessarily gotten the better of him, he’s just a very intellectually honest and rather sophisticated poster on here, and that’s why he’s willing to call you out on your mistakes.

Aye, I see the irony.
The theists, on the other hand, can come up with convoluted ways to make it work.... I've heard of Jesus riding dinos, so there you have one option.

I am not aware of any theist that believes Jesus rode dinosaurs, where did you hear that?

From where I stand, both you and SW are equally new here, to me, both are equally anonymous, except that you are here as an atheist, and he is here as a theist.

Yup, I think you signed up during my hiatus away from the forum.

If there is one thing I've learned in this forum, it's that, if you use the supposition that their god exists, then you better be ready to follow through with their definition of the god, not yours... sometimes, the difference is subtle, but they'll latch on to that difference and keep banging you on the head with it.
Is it worth it?

You’re absolutely right, like I said earlier, once smax granted us Yahweh’s existence this debate was over, well at least should have been ten pages ago, but he’s persistent.

[pocaracas]

Aye, I see the irony.
The theists, on the other hand, can come up with convoluted ways to make it work.... I've heard of Jesus riding dinos, so there you have one option.

I am not aware of any theist that believes Jesus rode dinosaurs, where did you hear that?

Don't know, exactly....

If there is one thing I've learned in this forum, it's that, if you use the supposition that their god exists, then you better be ready to follow through with their definition of the god, not yours... sometimes, the difference is subtle, but they'll latch on to that difference and keep banging you on the head with it.
Is it worth it?

You’re absolutely right, like I said earlier, once smax granted us Yahweh’s existence this debate was over, well at least should have been ten pages ago, but he’s persistent.

Yep... I tried a thread that started with "If god exists" and then got pummeled, and rightfully so... live and learn.

I then proceeded to use my favorite method... goes something like this:
"
If the world is as I see it (and I assume most humans see the world in the same manner), how did anyone come to get access to the information about any god in a way that enabled them to document so much information regarding such a god?
"
"
And why did different people in different places get different information?
"


Theists keep away from these questions, for some reason...

[Joel]

I am not aware of any theist that believes Jesus rode dinosaurs, where did you hear that?

I know Ken Ham [claims he] believes humans rode on dinosaurs, and that they co-existed with us - even roamed the garden of Eden.
I'm not sure about Jesus riding dinosaurs, though.

[ThomM]

That one is easy

Gods are FICTIONAL characters created by humans - mostly ancient superstitions and myths and legends

Since a "real" god was NEVER proven to be alive - god's only exist in the minds and the imagination of the humans that created them

And that is where they are ALIVE - nothing more real than Leprechauns or Santa Claus - but they exist in those humans minds.

Fictional characters do not have one real characteristic - LIFE - so death is a meaningless term to apply

[Esquilax]

You're really just going to stop your imagination dead at the point that agrees with your beliefs? That's not how this works. We're already basically talking fanfiction with your god anyway, and since it's all unverifiable nonsense to begin with, what's to stop one from just saying that, I dunno, an even more omnipotent magical being suddenly popped into existence and killed your god with his double magic powers? Or that god tried his hand at creation again, fucked it up again, and ended up making something powerful enough to kill him?

You’re not using the word omnipotence correctly. It’s not logically possible for God to make a being more powerful than He is because ontologically He is by definition the most powerful being possible. Why is it so difficult for you all to formulate a question that even makes logical sense?

I hate going back multiple pages for this stuff, but my point here was that since we're just making claims without any recourse to anything verifiable, then anything we can imagine is free game. When you say god's logically the most powerful thing evar... you have absolutely no way of demonstrating that, let alone proving that it's literally true. So... since from my perspective we're all just making shit up, I'll continue to do so until you can prove the truth of your claim to the exclusion of mine.

No, unlike the existence of God, your hypotheticals are logically impossible.

Okay, so what if god got bored and decided to kill himself? Bam.

That’s interesting considering the fact that you do not know how I logically arrived at the conclusion that Thor does not exist now do you?

You didn't logically arrive at any conclusion, you just asserted it. Having seen your eventual reasoning, my thoughts on this were only confirmed.

Laughing at someone is an irrational response, so thank you for supporting my claim. It’s like we planned that.

You would need to have made a rational original claim if you were expecting a rational response.

Thomas Jefferson: “Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.”

The first part should be of particular interest to you.

[smax]

Offend me? no, nothing of the sort... I just got tired of reading the same thing over and over again...

If you were simply tired, why not simply dismiss yourself? Why the hostility?

Last I heard, rhetorical questions didn't get many replies.... this one got over 10 pages of them...

You heard wrong. Rhetorical questions may not be designed to get an answer, but they are very often used to provoke discussion.

Most of them, theists say "you start off by claiming there is a god, but you then misrepresent the god"
And you reply something like "but there is no god!!!, can't you see it?!"

And then repeat... ad nauseum...

It's not that simple for me. We are dealing with mental illness here. You can't simply call a mentally disturbed person "mentally ill" and expect them to accept that. You have to carefully expose the obvious folly in their delusion. It's a process of breaking them down, and it's far from foolproof. But a few nuts have been cracked.

Aye, I see the irony.
The theists, on the other hand, can come up with convoluted ways to make it work.... I've heard of Jesus riding dinos, so there you have one option.

I wouldn't make that same concession. No matter what you tell the mentally ill, they will have some deluded retort. Their response is not nearly as important as the seed being planted.

You see, just by affiliation, religious people have already proven that they can easily be persuaded. The challenge is finding a way to pursuade them with reality.

Starting plainly with reality is sure way to fail because the mentally ill are typically trying to avoid reality in the first place.

From where I stand, both you and SW are equally new here, to me, both are equally anonymous, except that you are here as an atheist, and he is here as a theist.

Just an observation, probably one I should have kept to myself. Sorry.

If there is one thing I've learned in this forum, it's that, if you use the supposition that their god exists, then you better be ready to follow through with their definition of the god, not yours... sometimes, the difference is subtle, but they'll latch on to that difference and keep banging you on the head with it.
Is it worth it?

Anyone who thinks any method of approach toward the mentally ill yield instant or immediately satisfying results is in for a rude awakening. It's a process.

What I hoped to accomplish with this thread has and is being accomplished, and that goal was never openly stated.

I leave it to you, if you care to, to figure that out.

[smax]

I did look it up, and the definition is exactly what I said it was. Definitions matter.

Basically, you've conceded that you couldn't figure it out, even though almost everyone else did right away.

If that makes you feel smart, more power to you little buddy!

Are you serious? You’re not sophisticated enough to realize that a sound deductive proof always trumps inductive reasoning? I bet illusionists love having you in their audience.

Sound?

Have you never read Genesis?

We've covered this. Do you have short term memory in addition to your obvious issues with mental illness?

There’s this thing Christians like to call “the Fall.”

Yeah, and there's this thing people who live in reality like to call "Manufacturer's defect."

Nope, it’s just a creature in rebellion against his creator.

And a creator powerless to do anything about it?

That depends. It’s interesting you admit you deserve one though.

Not nearly as interesting as the fact that I wont get one.

The truth of a premise is in no way dependent upon who accepts it. Premises are assumed to be true until otherwise refuted.

You have a ton to learn about proof, and what it actually it is. I'll help you along here by actually proving you wrong right now so that you will have a much better understand of what proof actually is.

A false antecedent is a premise known to be false, fictional, imaginary, or unnecessary. In a conditional sequence, a false antecedent may be the basis for any consequence, true or false.

The subjects of literature are sometimes false antecedents. For example, the contents of false documents, the origins of stand-alone phenomena, or the implications of loaded words. Also, artificial sources, personalities, events, and histories. False antecedents are sometimes referred to as "nothing", or "nonexistent", whereas nonexistent referents are not referred to.

Art and acting often portray scenarios without any antecedent except an artist's imagination. For example, mythical heroes, legendary creatures, gods, and goddesses.

I shouldn't take too much credit, as another poster tried to explane this to you several pages ago to no avail.

And, in your defense, we all have to excercise a greater degree of patience with you. You are suffering a mental illness, and as such, your ability to distinguish between fictional and actual characters is significantly compromised.

It's okay, the problem is being worked on.

I in no way made up Yahweh.

That's true, you didn't invent the pet rock, you just bought one. True story.

No you did not. Why would you fix one of your own quotes for yourself? They’re very strict about that rule here, which is a very good thing about this forum.

Is your name attached to the quote, yes or no?

I rest my case.

You know people’s actions are necessarily consistent with what they really believe because of what Forrest Gump says in a movie?

Some wars require weapons of mass destruction, others require nothing more than sling shots. Pretty obvious what this one is.

That they do.

Do you even try to be objective at all or ever? I'm just trying to figure out what kind of patient I've got on my hands here.

I do not struggle to interact with anyone.

Gary Busey says that same thing all the time.

That’s the fallacy of the hasty generalization. There are 2.3 billion Christians in the World, how many have you been around?

2.29 billion. Prove I haven't.

No, like the fact that you claim that once we’re dead we’re gone, and therefore this is all the time we have, and yet you sit there and waste all of this time on an internet forum. If you really believed in annihilation there’s no way you’d be sitting there wasting your time debating the existence of something that you claim to know doesn’t exist with people who do believe it exists. Talk about a person’s actions not matching up with claimed beliefs.

Every word of that response was completely subjective. And, without any objective appeal, you have no point whatsoever.

Not only this, but if you indeed knew that God didn’t exist why are you so horrible at backing this claim up? Surely you’ve got at least a half-way decent argument to support this claim, and yet all you present is a multitude of logically fallacious arguments, incoherent statements, total arbitrariness, and personal attacks; it’s all very underwhelming.

First of all, I've yet to attack anything so general as "The existence God". My aims have clearly attacked the inventions of religion.

The truth is, I don't care much for the subject of "God's existence". I see no real point in that discussion.

That said, I couldn't disagree with you more about the merits of my arguments so far. Since I've joined this forum, I've challenged the existence of a PERSONAL GOD with the following:

1. I've asked for verifiable action to prove god is real and active. None has been provided.

2. I've pointed out scientific impossibilties in the Bible, and I'll admit, I'm no scientist.

3. I've pointed out inconsistencies in the Bible.

4. I've mocked god and lived to tell about it. (The Bible says "God cannot be mocked..." --- Gal 6:7)

5. I've challenged believers to prove that prayer is effective. They have not.

I'm sure none of these points are new, but that makes them no less valid. And more are to come. Many more.

You’re really not going to make many friends here if you keep this sort of childish behavior up. Pocaracas and I have had a few debates, but I would not say I have ever necessarily gotten the better of him, he’s just a very intellectually honest and rather sophisticated poster on here, and that’s why he’s willing to call you out on your mistakes.

Something's very fishy here. Haven't quite put my finger on it, but I suspect I will. It's all a little convenient, that's all I'll say for now.

You’re absolutely right, like I said earlier, once smax granted us Yahweh’s existence this debate was over, well at least should have been ten pages ago, but he’s persistent.

Us?

[pocaracas]

Offend me? no, nothing of the sort... I just got tired of reading the same thing over and over again...

If you were simply tired, why not simply dismiss yourself? Why the hostility?

Hostility?
What on Earth gave you the notion that I had any hostility in my post?
I was just trying to make you see that you were having a fallacious illogical argument... and were being trolled big time by SW... apparently, you still haven't noticed that.
me sad...

---

Most of them, theists say "you start off by claiming there is a god, but you then misrepresent the god"
And you reply something like "but there is no god!!!, can't you see it?!"

And then repeat... ad nauseum...

It's not that simple for me. We are dealing with mental illness here. You can't simply call a mentally disturbed person "mentally ill" and expect them to accept that. You have to carefully expose the obvious folly in their delusion. It's a process of breaking them down, and it's far from foolproof. But a few nuts have been cracked.

Aye, I see the irony.
The theists, on the other hand, can come up with convoluted ways to make it work.... I've heard of Jesus riding dinos, so there you have one option.

I wouldn't make that same concession. No matter what you tell the mentally ill, they will have some deluded retort. Their response is not nearly as important as the seed being planted.

You see, just by affiliation, religious people have already proven that they can easily be persuaded. The challenge is finding a way to pursuade them with the reality.

Starting plainly with reality is sure way to fail because the mentally ill are typically trying to avoid reality in the first place.

If there is one thing I've learned in this forum, it's that, if you use the supposition that their god exists, then you better be ready to follow through with their definition of the god, not yours... sometimes, the difference is subtle, but they'll latch on to that difference and keep banging you on the head with it.
Is it worth it?

Anyone who thinks any method of approach toward the mentally will yield instant or immediately satisfying results is in for a rude awakening. It's a process.

What I hoped to accomplish with this thread has and is being accomplished, and that goal was never openly stated.

I leave it to you, if you care to, to figure that out.

---

The seed you're trying to plant here will not take.... it just fell on bad soil, shrivels up and dies and never gets a chance to become a fossil.
Let me try to illustrate what you've done
YOU - If there is a god....

Theist - great, this guy says there's a god, my god! My concept of god: immortal, creator of the cosmos, omni-whatever I want and is written.

YOU - ... then bla bla bla god is dead.

Theist - but, but, but god is defined as immortal, as in, cannot die, how can you claim he's dead? Doesn't add up... Illogical argument in the bla bla bla. You make no sense, go back to the drawing board.


See? It's like you state "here's a square".... and then bla bla bla and the square has 5 sides!

It doesn't work...

[smax]

Hostility?
What on Earth gave you the notion that I had any hostility in my post?

Oh, I don't know....

Given that... please, just stop posting on this god-forsaken thread.

I was just trying to make you see that you were having a fallacious illogical argument... and were being trolled big time by SW... apparently, you still haven't noticed that.
me sad...

On the contrary, I counted on SW to take part in this discussion. As I said, there's a hidden agenda here. Apparently, you still haven't noticed.

Here's a clue:

That’s funny; God’s existence makes it possible for you to make the statement above. You’re like the little child slapping her father in the face and thinking she is in charge all the while sitting on his lap and being held in his arms.

Can you read between the lines?

The seed you're trying to plant here will not take.... it just fell on bad soil, shrivels up and dies and never gets a chance to become a fossil.

Instead of starting an entirely new debate about the merits of my approach, please, share yours and please provide links demonstrating the clear effectiveness of it?

[pocaracas]

Hostility?
What on Earth gave you the notion that I had any hostility in my post?

Oh, I don't know....

Given that... please, just stop posting on this god-forsaken thread.

hehe... that's a was me trying and failing hard (as usual) to be witty... god doesn't exist, hence god-forsaken. It wasn't meant as a hostile remark.

I was just trying to make you see that you were having a fallacious illogical argument... and were being trolled big time by SW... apparently, you still haven't noticed that.
me sad...

On the contrary, I counted on SW to take part in this discussion. As I said, there's a hidden agenda here. Apparently, you still haven't noticed.

Here's a clue:

That’s funny; God’s existence makes it possible for you to make the statement above. You’re like the little child slapping her father in the face and thinking she is in charge all the while sitting on his lap and being held in his arms.

Can you read between the lines?

SW wrote that, clearly pointing at the fact that you are enabling the existence of god in the argument.
I'm utter shit at reading between the lines... always have been.

The seed you're trying to plant here will not take.... it just fell on bad soil, shrivels up and dies and never gets a chance to become a fossil.

Instead of starting an entirely new debate about the merits of my approach, please, share yours and please provide links demonstrating the clear effectiveness of it?

My approach? No approach works.
No argument is possible. That's why I'm in this forum and not in one of the thousands of religious fora out there.
I'm not looking to change other people's beliefs.... just understand why it is that they believe.
Deconversion is a process each person undergoes on his/her own when they see the world failing to meet the expectations set by their religions.

We may make it easier for those who leave religion, but only by pointing out that it's not the end of the world, there is no hell to go to, etc... life goes on, regardless of religious belief.