How to tell a real freethinker

[radorth]

Interesting! Your god is all good all the time, but he has no reason to help people unless they grovel? Isn't it amazing how such a hyper-benevolent being apparently needs either a reason or abasement in order to help people, and yet I, a flawed and less moral being, am going to do charity work tomorrow for no reason other than to help people? Wow, what a great god you have!

As for the rest... can you say No True Scotsman, everyone?

The "no true Scotsman" fallacy was invented out of thin air by Anthony Flew and has never been accepted as a logical fallacy by any real thinker.

I don't even make the argument that God is always good. I do argue that he has no particular reason to speak to anybody on this planet but a praying grandmother. Yet he is good enough to do so, and you have greatly benefitted from the words Jesus spoke, before you stood silently (in effect) as evil men got rid of him. Beyond that your argument is a straw man.

Speaking of fallacies, here is one that unbelievers do every day. It's called "false in one part, therefore false in all." Ever assume the Bible is all suspect because part of it is false? That seems to be a surprisingly common logical error on sites like this, no?

I have a list of logical fallacies committed by "freethinkers" every day, if you are interested in seeing it.

[Foxaèr]

Speaking of fallacies, here is one that unbelievers do every day. It's called "false in one part, therefore false in all."

I do not think that only parts of the bible are false. I know that the entire book is fictitious.

[radorth]

Yeah, and the moment christians get into power they hardly do better.

Admmitedly. BTW, doesn't that prove their God is surprisingly tolerant of sin? I keep hearing he isn't.

Your entire argument for why the burden of proof is on we nonbelievers is the argument from authority?

Nope, it's a legal tenent used every day in courts.

No, you listed a bunch of names and then decided that because those certain intelligent people were theists, your god is proven. And this is wrong, because even the smartest of individuals can be wrong, and just because a belief is held by a certain group of smart people, does not make it true.

No, but you ignored the argument that their beliefs led to your freedom, and I would further say that where the teachings of Jesus were hidden, the Dark Ages returned, as in Communist countries. (There were no Bibles to read in the Dark Ages BTW) I also argued that only a fraction of people can be shown to have ever done what Jesus said, indicating that even a tiny amount of his "sublime and benevolent" wisdom has great benefits.

Given that the bible has some very clear rules regarding how one should keep their slaves, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that ol' Wesley probably didn't derive his position on slavery from biblical sources. Just saying.

He did a whole lot better in his time than Voltaire did. BTW, the first people to free their slaves en masse were the early Christians. They did it so often that Constantine was compelled to make laws concerning where and how it was to be done.

The law also requires that something be proved to have happened before it's even entered into the record as factual. For example, I can't be sued for defamation if I say something defamatory about a fictional character. See where I'm going with this? Before you can say my lack of belief is "defamatory" then you must prove the thing I have defamed exists.

I see, so the NT writers didn't exist? Maybe you should re-read the point and who I was talking about.

And if you want to go that route, then fine: your bible calls us nonbelievers fools, and also calls for us to be killed. All terribly defamatory; now prove that there is a god, because otherwise all those calls to murder are utterly unjustified.

Yeah I don't like that punishment. I think you should have the last thing you thought you needed, forever. Like getting rid of all the Christians. One day God will do that for you, I am quite certain.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Lets say you could prove that Jesus really was raised from the dead. So what? How does that prove Christianity?

[Ryantology]

They realize that the burden is on the critic to prove they are false.

The First Commandment places upon the Christian the burden of proof that all other Gods are false and all other religions are fraudulent in addition to placing upon the Christian a burden to prove the existence of their god.

Good luck.

[Kayenneh]

I have a list of logical fallacies committed by "freethinkers" every day, if you are interested in seeing it.

Tu quoque, and that's a 'real' fallacy

[Esquilax]

The "no true Scotsman" fallacy was invented out of thin air by Anthony Flew and has never been accepted as a logical fallacy by any real thinker.

Oh, you said it, so it must be true!

I also find it hilarious that you employed the No True Scotsman in order to discredit the No True Scotsman.

I don't even make the argument that God is always good. I do argue that he has no particular reason to speak to anybody on this planet but a praying grandmother. Yet he is good enough to do so, and you have greatly benefitted from the words Jesus spoke, before you stood silently (in effect) as evil men got rid of him. Beyond that your argument is a straw man.

You do understand that Jesus lived and died- if he existed at all- long before I was born, right?

And that I've benefited from good words that Jesus happened to say, and then theists like you decided to co-opt and claim exclusive credit for. People have been saying the things that Jesus said before the man himself- assuming he existed- and they will for many centuries to come. It's merely your own ignorance of history that makes you think that Jesus was the sole provider of anything he-supposedly- said.

Speaking of fallacies, here is one that unbelievers do every day. It's called "false in one part, therefore false in all." Ever assume the Bible is all suspect because part of it is false? That seems to be a surprisingly common logical error on sites like this, no?

Well, considering that you guys claim the book is inerrant and perfect and the word of an all knowing creator god, it shouldn't have any errors, now should it?

And believe me, the ratio of incorrect things to correct ones is way, way tilted toward the incorrect side.

I have a list of logical fallacies committed by "freethinkers" every day, if you are interested in seeing it.

If your other postings are representative of the quality of these fallacies, then I'll pass.

---

Admmitedly. BTW, doesn't that prove their God is surprisingly tolerant of sin? I keep hearing he isn't.

Well, it seems to swing pretty wildly. The moment we gained the ability to properly record god's supposed presence in the world, he sort of stopped doing things. Before that he was smiting left and right. Seems like Merciful God only appeared when Vengeful God would be seen, huh?

Nope, it's a legal tenent used every day in courts.

What the fuck are you even talking about?

No, but you ignored the argument that their beliefs led to your freedom, and I would further say that where the teachings of Jesus were hidden, the Dark Ages returned, as in Communist countries.

Their beliefs led to no such thing, their actions did. Oh, and being that I'm not American, their actions didn't even lead to my freedom, but that's beside the point.

And even if you're right- and I dispute that utterly because if that were true we'd still own slaves- it says nothing about the existence of your god. Seriously, the moral tenets written in the bible, even the good ones, are not original; other people have been using them long before your damn good book. These things aren't exclusively christian no matter how you scramble to claim ownership of basic moral decency. That alone proves they aren't divine, but even if they were exclusively christian you've got no way of proving that the bible is divinely inspired. After all, it has human authors.

(There were no Bibles to read in the Dark Ages BTW) I also argued that only a fraction of people can be shown to have ever done what Jesus said, indicating that even a tiny amount of his "sublime and benevolent" wisdom has great benefits.

Or, it shows that people tend to understand how to be decent and empathetic human beings without the aid of your holy book. Ever think of that?

He did a whole lot better in his time than Voltaire did. BTW, the first people to free their slaves en masse were the early Christians. They did it so often that Constantine was compelled to make laws concerning where and how it was to be done.

Yeah, and in freeing those slaves they would have been acting in a decidedly unchristian manner. All you're proving is that occasionally the moral thing to do is to work against the bible.

I see, so the NT writers didn't exist? Maybe you should re-read the point and who I was talking about.

Which still doesn't say a single solitary goddamn word about the existence of your god, and thus doesn't change my point. You keep trying to foist the burden of truth onto us using this bizarre logic, merely because you know you can't demonstrate even a single facet of your omnipresent god. Don't then be surprised when I turn your kindergarten logic back on itself.

Yeah I don't like that punishment. I think you should have the last thing you thought you needed, forever. Like getting rid of all the Christians. One day God will do that for you, I am quite certain.

So you're just going to throw in the towel? Your answer to my serious point regarding the flaw in your logic is going to be presuppositions and meaningless smarm?

Okay, if you must...

[Something completely different]

[Angrboda]

[Tonus]

I could go on, but the point is that real freethinkers include many highly intelligent and skeptical people who became Christians. They believe partly because they are skeptical of mindless skepticism, of the simplistic, illogical and gratuitous arguments that the Gospels are false records. They realize that the burden is on the critic to prove they are false. Calling people deluded or dishonest requires proof, especially when they had nothing to gain but persecution. (A historic fact).

If a person making a claim does not offer any proof and makes claims of "evidence" that are specious at best and utterly ridiculous at worst and wraps it all in a mess of confusing and/or idiotic rationalizations, then I think that's plenty of proof that they are either deluded or dishonest.

I readily admit that I cannot disprove god. I spent decades believing in god wholeheartedly, but never managed to scrounge up any proof, just the awkward "evidence" and unconvincing "arguments" that so many theists tend to throw up as a shield. If he's out there and you can prove it, that's great. If your argument is that, 'gosh... he's too darned clever to be found' then we're back at square one.