A good case against God

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

Wow, you can tell they are x-tards by their love. Funny how you went from Miss Goody Two Shoes straight to anal fisting in a few posts. I am sure your pastor would be proud. And, oh, Baby Jeebus...he's crying in the manger.

I've already pointed out the ways you have misrepresented what I said, and any further discussion is simply redundant. The mods have spoken. No more whining, Miss Priss.

[Faith No More]

Can I say things like "Blow it out your fucking ass", or "Nice straw man, fuckwit"? That was the response to my first post in this thread. Not to mention being called things like 'x-tard' the whole time.

Yes, insults are allowed to a degree as long as they are sprinkled inbetween an actual debate. What we don't allow, however, is this immature back and forth flame-war that you two are engaging in.

Not that I mind, I like insult fights. But if you guys are taking it seriously, why does it only get reined in when the theists start dishing back? All in fun, of course...

Playing the martyr card, eh? I've got news for you, we warn atheists for insulting much more than we warn theists here.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

How can you say there is a God that intervenes in this plane of reality if you also say that there is no eivdence whatsoever that he does?
How much sense do you think you are making, on a scale of 1-10?
I'd give you a 3. 2 and 1 are saved for Creationists.

How much of what occurs is detectable by humans? Even on a quantum scale, there's information that we literally cannot know. There are states that we know exist, but that we also know that we can't know.

Do you even know anything about fucking anything? Do you know science? Do you know what a measurement is? Do you even know the fucking algebra needed to know the basics of quantum measurements?

The human knowledge of anything doesn't even amount to a pimple on the universe's ass. And you don't even know that much. Your knowledge is just a pimple on the ass of the pimple. And you're gonna talk about what's possible and impossible in the universe? You're gonna talk about what's observable and what isn't?

LOL still desperately flailing to carve a gap to hide your gawd in, I see.

[Jeffonthenet]

Arguments are not evidence, whelp. And the arguments you reference -- the kalam and the moral, along with hundreds of other similar abortions -- are long-debunked laughing stock. The fact that you consider them to be valid, along with the fact that you think any such arguments can replace evidence, tells us the level of self-delusion you are willing to inflict upon yourself in order to cling onto your silly superstitions.

The arguments I mentioned use evidence. It seems to me sort of like a prosecutor who argues that a person is guilty based on the evidence of the person being found with a gun, etc… I don't think they have been debunked, as you say. I believe they are still debated in professional philosophy journals.

Then why are they debated in professional philosophical journals by world class philosophers, some of them atheists, who take them seriously?

Because there are still plenty of idiots like you who cling to their superstitions and delusions so hard that, lackiog even a shred of evidence to support their fantastical assertions of any sort of deity, they convince themselves that those pieces of shit could be convincing.

---

They are debated between atheists and theists, not two theists.

To everyone who answered by saying that the burden of proof is on the theist, rather than repeating myself five more times, I would direct you to post #3 where I replied to this point.

That verbose bit of word salad does nothing to address your responsibility -- and your deceitful, dishonest, disingenuous attempt to shirk your responsibility -- to the burden of proof.

I am sorry you feel that way about me. I am really trying to respond to people's points with fairness, reason, and respect.

[frankiej]

Arguments are not evidence, whelp. And the arguments you reference -- the kalam and the moral, along with hundreds of other similar abortions -- are long-debunked laughing stock. The fact that you consider them to be valid, along with the fact that you think any such arguments can replace evidence, tells us the level of self-delusion you are willing to inflict upon yourself in order to cling onto your silly superstitions.

The arguments I mentioned use evidence. It seems to me sort of like a prosecutor who argues that a person is guilty based on the evidence of the person being found with a gun, etc… I don't think they have been debunked, as you say. I believe they are still debated in professional philosophy journals.

There is a lot of shit that is discussed in philosophy journals, but that doesn't mean anything. Things like that are just arseholes jacking themselves off with their mind.

[Jeffonthenet]

It suggests that when we consider God and when we consider goblins we find ourselves in a very different epistemic situation.

Not really. Both are beings of the supernatural and neither can be proven to exist.

Granted that they have similarities. They also have significant differences such that brilliant people believe the former and no intelligent people believe the latter.

There are things, such as I mentioned, that suggest that God cannot be written off simply apriori as if it was self-evidently a children's fable.

You ever read some of the stories in the Babble? Noah's Ark, the Garden of Eden, Samson and Delilah, Jonah and the Whale.... the thing has stuff in it that belongs in a Hans Christian Andersen book.

That would, at most, be something against Christianity, and not God. Or could perhaps be against the belief that the bible is without error, and not against Jesus. I consider it possible that God used stories with some elements of fiction to teach us important things. Why would ever let such a situation come to pass? I wrote about it here,

http://sententias.org/2012/01/04/evoluti...ar-violin/

Darwin didn't believe in children's fables and neither did Einstein.

I would agree. So.....?

The both believed in God. Again it suggests that God is not the same as these fables.

In fact, I can reason as follows,

1. Darwin and Einstein would not seriously believe a children's fable is true
2. Darwin and Einstein seriously believed God existed
3. Therefore God is not a children's fable

Even if this path of logic holds water (it doesn't) all it proves is that "God" is not a children's fairy tale. It does nothing to prove that "God" is in any way real. Just like Roman mythology is not a children's fable, but it doesn't prove that Apollo is real.

People keep saying God is just like a children's fable and this is the reason they believe he doesn't exist without evidence or argument. However, I think I could make the same argument about roman mythology today.

[FallentoReason]

The both believed in God. Again it suggests that God is not the same as these fables.

I don't usually say these sorts of things, but you're being intellectually dishonest. Personally I think that means it's not worth discussing anymore because the discussion doesn't progress any further, as you have just demonstrated.

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954) From Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press

The man himself disproves your baseless assertion. I know you ignored my post, but that doesn't mean you've altered reality somehow. The reality is that Einstein was not the theist you're hoping he was. End of story.

I'll also repeat myself:

Also, one man's belief doesn't prove anything. Your line of argumentation is a non sequitur.

[LastPoet]

People keep saying God is just like a children's fable and this is the reason they believe he doesn't exist without evidence or argument. However, I think I could make the same argument about roman mythology today.

The reason your god isn't believed is because none of you sheep ever presented a shred of evidence of such an extraordinary being. You yourselves believe it by third person accounts, even a book! This is no different of any old religion you deem a myth.

Your religion is a myth, a cultural pestilence that thrives on fear and despair, people do suffer. If you had any honesty left , you would at least acknowledge that you believe it on faith, probably because you were born into it.

Yet, as science rages on by your ignorance, you stand by the bullsit fed to you, as of an old iron age tale served some purpose these days. You stand on your pride as the valiant christian that really believes... IMO this is the ultimate surrender.

As a human being, I suffer for alot of things, but it pains me more you are living in such blissfull ignorance.

[Simon Moon]

The both believed in God. Again it suggests that God is not the same as these fables.

It may not be the same in regards to the details of the beliefs, but the fact that neither has any demonstrable evidence nor reasoned argument to support them make them pretty much the same.

I'm pretty sure there were some brilliant people that lived in Greece in the 4the century BCE that believed in the existence of Zeus and Athena.

People keep saying God is just like a children's fable and this is the reason they believe he doesn't exist without evidence or argument. However, I think I could make the same argument about roman mythology today.

Einstein in 1954 - "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this"

[Thor]

Granted that they have similarities. They also have significant differences such that brilliant people believe the former and no intelligent people believe the latter.

And a lot of dumbasses believe the former as well. Your point?

I consider it possible that God used stories with some elements of fiction to teach us important things.

Then why not clearly indicate the story is a fable? Why leave it open so we can have Babble thumping retards claiming that Noah's Ark is a true story?

People keep saying God is just like a children's fable and this is the reason they believe he doesn't exist without evidence or argument.

The reason most of us don't believe your invisible friend is real is because there is no evidence to indicate such a thing. It has nothing to do with being "like a children's fable". Although there are similarities. You find lots of magical bullshit in fairy tales. Your deity is the same way.