Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: June 27, 2022, 7:31 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10 Questions Biblical Literalists Cannot Honestly Answer
RE: 10 Questions Biblical Literalists Cannot Honestly Answer
(July 18, 2017 at 1:11 am)Godscreated Wrote:
(July 17, 2017 at 10:37 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Clearly there is no reason for the statement 'God doesn't exist' except as a response to the claim 'God does exist'. 'God doesn't exist' is the null hypothesis that needs to be disproven before acceptance of the hypothesis 'God does exist' can be rationally justified.

Same with Shiva, Yetis, ghosts, deep lake monsters, alien abductions, and so on. The null hypothesis must be disproven before it becomes reasonable to believe the hypothesis that they are real. Anecdotes are not sufficient support for things that can't be otherwise observed to exist. If you say ghosts are real and we say 'nuh uh, prove it!' the ball is in your court. We are perfectly justified in rejecting your claim until you adequately support it. You wouldn't buy 'I know it in my heart' for Krishna as proof that Krishna is real, (else you would believe that Krishna is real and who Krishna is claimed to be, because Krishna believers offer that exact same support for Krishna), so why would you expect it to carry water for us? It only works on people who already agree with you. It's a useless apologetic that Jesus was never recorded as using. I mean seriously, how would Jesus have acted online? According to the Gospels he would demonstrate his love and trustworthiness and not worry about those of us who don't decide to follow him. But evangelists never follow the advice of Jesus on how to win converts. They go with 'indoctrinate kids as young as you can get 'em' and 'preach at people into you're blue in the face'.

 You are so wrong in several ways. First he didn't say what I've bold above. He made the positive statement that God doesn't exist and never said anything about me proving God does exist. I can say Krishna doesn't exist because I know God does exist, (even if I can't prove it to your satisfaction) God says there are no other gods but Me. Since I know Him and I know Him not to lie I know there's no other gods. I've never tried to pressure anyone into believing, that would defeat what I believe and what Christ taught, I've known Christians who did and that just doesn't cut it. Your indoctrination statement is a slap in the face to all those great Sunday school teachers that present the Bible to children in a simple way to teach them what it says. I know many who never pressure children and do you know why, because they believe as I do, forcing a decision is not a decision for Christ thus no salvation and it could eventually end up causing them to reject the Bible and the God who gave it. I was never pressured by anyone to believe and I grew up in a old time Southern Baptist church.

GC 

GC

If I ever made the positive statement that god does not exist, then I am sorry. I should have worded it more clearly. I don't believe god exists because I have not seen evidence of his existence. In the same way I don't believe unicorns exist because I have not seen evidence of their existence. Until I receive this evidence, I simply can't believe it. If you have the evidence present it. Otherwise, you do not know god exists, you simply believe god exists.
Being careful is for people who can't handle surprises.
Reply
RE: 10 Questions Biblical Literalists Cannot Honestly Answer
(July 17, 2017 at 11:39 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:
(July 17, 2017 at 10:25 pm)Astonished Wrote: GC, if you're genuinely hearing voices in your head, I'll tell you what, I can't prove your god doesn't exist, but I can almost certainly prove that you're schizophrenic.

If a person is schizophrenic then the person can tickle himself.

No, that's not true. My wife and I care for a young lady who is schizophrenic and she can not tickle herself as a matter of fact it's hard to tickle her period. Before you say she's not schizophrenic she was diagnosed when she was 30 years old and institutionalized soon after because she became uncontrollable, she also was born mentally disabled. Her overall mental age is about four to five years old. 

@ Astonished, you can't even prove to me you're a decent person, your post show the truth about you.

GC

(July 18, 2017 at 1:17 am)Inkfeather132 Wrote:
(July 18, 2017 at 1:11 am)Godscreated Wrote:  You are so wrong in several ways. First he didn't say what I've bold above. He made the positive statement that God doesn't exist and never said anything about me proving God does exist. I can say Krishna doesn't exist because I know God does exist, (even if I can't prove it to your satisfaction) God says there are no other gods but Me. Since I know Him and I know Him not to lie I know there's no other gods. I've never tried to pressure anyone into believing, that would defeat what I believe and what Christ taught, I've known Christians who did and that just doesn't cut it. Your indoctrination statement is a slap in the face to all those great Sunday school teachers that present the Bible to children in a simple way to teach them what it says. I know many who never pressure children and do you know why, because they believe as I do, forcing a decision is not a decision for Christ thus no salvation and it could eventually end up causing them to reject the Bible and the God who gave it. I was never pressured by anyone to believe and I grew up in a old time Southern Baptist church.

GC 

If I ever made the positive statement that god does not exist, then I am sorry. I should have worded it more clearly. I don't believe god exists because I have not seen evidence of his existence. In the same way I don't believe unicorns exist because I have not seen evidence of their existence. Until I receive this evidence, I simply can't believe it. If you have the evidence present it. Otherwise, you do not know god exists, you simply believe god exists.

 I accept all but your last sentence. I do have knowledge of God, I live in a relationship with Him and He has proven to me time and again he 's real, sorry if you can't accept or understand this. Everyone who comes to accept Christ into their lives as savior can know God and the NT teaches this. God's not hiding, but He want give you the personal knowledge I and other Christians have because that would be interfering in your free choice of Him. I do not believe in unicorns either and it's for the same reason you posted, that's not the same for God, I saw evidence of Him before I became a Christian.

GC
God loves those who believe and those who do not and the same goes for me, you have no choice in this matter. That puts the matter of total free will to rest.
Reply
RE: 10 Questions Biblical Literalists Cannot Honestly Answer
(July 18, 2017 at 1:23 am)Godscreated Wrote:
(July 17, 2017 at 11:39 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: If a person is schizophrenic then the person can tickle himself.

No, that's not true. My wife and I care for a young lady who is schizophrenic and she can not tickle herself as a matter of fact it's hard to tickle her period. Before you say she's not schizophrenic she was diagnosed when she was 30 years old and institutionalized soon after because she became uncontrollable, she also was born mentally disabled. Her overall mental age is about four to five years old. 

@ Astonished, you can't even prove to me you're a decent person, your post show the truth about you.

GC

(July 18, 2017 at 1:17 am)Inkfeather132 Wrote: If I ever made the positive statement that god does not exist, then I am sorry. I should have worded it more clearly. I don't believe god exists because I have not seen evidence of his existence. In the same way I don't believe unicorns exist because I have not seen evidence of their existence. Until I receive this evidence, I simply can't believe it. If you have the evidence present it. Otherwise, you do not know god exists, you simply believe god exists.

 I accept all but your last sentence. I do have knowledge of God, I live in a relationship with Him and He has proven to me time and again he 's real, sorry if you can't accept or understand this. Everyone who comes to accept Christ into their lives as savior can know God and the NT teaches this. God's not hiding, but He want give you the personal knowledge I and other Christians have because that would be interfering in your free choice of Him. I do not believe in unicorns either and it's for the same reason you posted, that's not the same for God, I saw evidence of Him before I became a Christian.

GC

Then what is the evidence?
Being careful is for people who can't handle surprises.
Reply
RE: 10 Questions Biblical Literalists Cannot Honestly Answer
(July 17, 2017 at 10:37 am)Inkfeather132 Wrote:
(July 17, 2017 at 12:55 am)Godscreated Wrote:  It doesn't matter whether I believe in those things or not, I'm neither trying to prove or disprove them and I've said many times that I can not prove God to an atheist's satisfaction. Neither can an atheist disprove God to my satisfaction. There is a huge difference in the two though. I know that God exist and so an atheist could never disprove that which exists regardless of what the atheist thinks. Those who say that God doesn't exist make a positive statement, it then becomes their responsibility to prove the statement they made, it isn't nor ever has been the responsibility of the other person to disprove the statement in any type of argument. Because the atheists can't disprove God they want to move the responsibility of their doubt on the Christian, only in an argument about God does the burden of the atheist's belief become the responsibility of the Christian. I've been here a lot longer than you have and have every right to be here, so just calm down or just quit reading my posts.

You're the only one getting worked up here, maybe you should take your own advice and stop reading my posts? In the post I was responding to, you said I had no proof that god didn't exist. My point about the leprechauns is that you don't need evidence of non-existence to be pretty positive that something doesn't exist. There is no evidence for the existence of leprechauns or unicorns so I am confident in saying that I don't believe they exist. You keep saying that you know god exists, but you provide zero evidence to back up that claim. So until someone can provide evidence of god's existence, I can't believe he exists.

 I'm not getting worked up and I'm not sure why you think that. Like I said in my post above I see no evidence of unicorns or leprechauns and thus do not believe in them. I have and do see evidence of God in creation and the more I learn about the creation the more I see Him. I know that atheist believe in evolution and thus reject God through this belief, however there's so much about animals that is impossible for evolution to be involved. For one, some animals according to evolutionary science haven't changed in many millions of years. What happened to the process in them?  I see no evidence for evolution and would have a hard time trusting the science because the definition of evolution changes when it's convenient to rebut science that is contrary to what is believed by evolutionary science, so I can't believe in it.

GC
God loves those who believe and those who do not and the same goes for me, you have no choice in this matter. That puts the matter of total free will to rest.
Reply
RE: 10 Questions Biblical Literalists Cannot Honestly Answer
(July 18, 2017 at 1:51 am)Godscreated Wrote:
(July 17, 2017 at 10:37 am)Inkfeather132 Wrote: You're the only one getting worked up here, maybe you should take your own advice and stop reading my posts? In the post I was responding to, you said I had no proof that god didn't exist. My point about the leprechauns is that you don't need evidence of non-existence to be pretty positive that something doesn't exist. There is no evidence for the existence of leprechauns or unicorns so I am confident in saying that I don't believe they exist. You keep saying that you know god exists, but you provide zero evidence to back up that claim. So until someone can provide evidence of god's existence, I can't believe he exists.

 I'm not getting worked up and I'm not sure why you think that. Like I said in my post above I see no evidence of unicorns or leprechauns and thus do not believe in them. I have and do see evidence of God in creation and the more I learn about the creation the more I see Him. I know that atheist believe in evolution and thus reject God through this belief, however there's so much about animals that is impossible for evolution to be involved. For one, some animals according to evolutionary science haven't changed in many millions of years. What happened to the process in them?  I see no evidence for evolution and would have a hard time trusting the science because the definition of evolution changes when it's convenient to rebut science that is contrary to what is believed by evolutionary science, so I can't believe in it.

GC

Which animals haven't evolved? How has the definition changed? Sources please because I know very little about evolution. Why don't I learn about it? Because it's meaningless to me. I want evidence that god exists, not evidence for whether or not evolution happened.
Being careful is for people who can't handle surprises.
Reply
RE: 10 Questions Biblical Literalists Cannot Honestly Answer
(July 18, 2017 at 12:03 am)Astonished Wrote: Oh, that is horseshit. I can tickle my feet easily.

You must be a schizophrenic.
Reply
RE: 10 Questions Biblical Literalists Cannot Honestly Answer
You'd be better off trying to herd cats than break through GCs head. As an indicator of his inability to accept being wrong about something, no matter how trivial, I've pointed out to him several times that he continues to use the word '"want" instead of "won't". He knows this is wrong, but is unable to correct it because of his extremely high self perception of being absolutely right about every fucking thing known to man.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Reply
RE: 10 Questions Biblical Literalists Cannot Honestly Answer
(July 18, 2017 at 4:18 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:
(July 18, 2017 at 12:03 am)Astonished Wrote: Oh, that is horseshit. I can tickle my feet easily.

You must be a schizophrenic.

When they say that's a symptom, what do they mean by tickle themselves, do they mean being able to constantly keep at it without forcing themselves to stop because it's an irritating sensation otherwise? I can only handle a few seconds' worth of tickling my feet before I have to pull my foot away from my fingers, and the rest of my body can't be tickled by me, but I know others are able to. Or do they mean they can tickle themselves without having to use a physical touch?
Religions were invented to impress and dupe illiterate, superstitious stone-age peasants. So in this modern, enlightened age of information, what's your excuse? Or are you saying with all your advantages, you were still tricked as easily as those early humans?

---

There is no better way to convey the least amount of information in the greatest amount of words than to try explaining your religious views.
Reply
RE: 10 Questions Biblical Literalists Cannot Honestly Answer
Godscreated Wrote:
Mister Agenda Wrote:Clearly there is no reason for the statement 'God doesn't exist' except as a response to the claim 'God does exist'. 'God doesn't exist' is the null hypothesis that needs to be disproven before acceptance of the hypothesis 'God does exist' can be rationally justified.

Same with Shiva, Yetis, ghosts, deep lake monsters, alien abductions, and so on. The null hypothesis must be disproven before it becomes reasonable to believe the hypothesis that they are real. Anecdotes are not sufficient support for things that can't be otherwise observed to exist. If you say ghosts are real and we say 'nuh uh, prove it!' the ball is in your court. We are perfectly justified in rejecting your claim until you adequately support it. You wouldn't buy 'I know it in my heart' for Krishna as proof that Krishna is real, (else you would believe that Krishna is real and who Krishna is claimed to be, because Krishna believers offer that exact same support for Krishna), so why would you expect it to carry water for us? It only works on people who already agree with you. It's a useless apologetic that Jesus was never recorded as using. I mean seriously, how would Jesus have acted online? According to the Gospels he would demonstrate his love and trustworthiness and not worry about those of us who don't decide to follow him. But evangelists never follow the advice of Jesus on how to win converts. They go with 'indoctrinate kids as young as you can get 'em' and 'preach at people into you're blue in the face'.

 You are so wrong in several ways. First he didn't say what I've bold above. He made the positive statement that God doesn't exist and never said anything about me proving God does exist. I can say Krishna doesn't exist because I know God does exist, (even if I can't prove it to your satisfaction) God says there are no other gods but Me. Since I know Him and I know Him not to lie I know there's no other gods. I've never tried to pressure anyone into believing, that would defeat what I believe and what Christ taught, I've known Christians who did and that just doesn't cut it. Your indoctrination statement is a slap in the face to all those great Sunday school teachers that present the Bible to children in a simple way to teach them what it says. I know many who never pressure children and do you know why, because they believe as I do, forcing a decision is not a decision for Christ thus no salvation and it could eventually end up causing them to reject the Bible and the God who gave it. I was never pressured by anyone to believe and I grew up in a old time Southern Baptist church.

GC 

GC

Gotta love people who start their replies with 'You're wrong'.

What you bolded above was not a quote, so I don't know what you think you gain by pointing out that it's not a quote. That although those weren't the exact words, they can still be taken as an expression of the null hypothesis was my point. No one says 'ghosts aren't real' until someone, somewhere, sometime, has said 'ghosts are real'. The people who don't believe in ghosts either didn't come up with the concept or understand that if they happened to originate the idea of ghosts on their own, it's just an idea. No one says 'Ghosts aren't real' in a conceptual vacuum. No one says 'God isn't real' in a conceptual vacuum. It's always a response to the claim that God really exists, even if no one said those actual words before the other person said 'God isn't real'. The burden of proof doesn't shift that easily. If the Defense speaks first, they don't have to suddenly prove their client is innocent, the prosecution still has the burden to show that the person is guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt for very serious crimes.

Your story about really knowing God exists is just a story. The same way a Hindu could say the Christian God doesn't exist (or more likely, that Christians are way off base about the nature of the godhead) because they already know that Brahma is real. They know Brahma doesn't lie. The problem with your argument is that a believer in any other deity or any other version of a creator can make the same argument. It's weightless and worthless. It's like saying 'I like peas'. It informs us of something about you, but it doesn't mean that peas are better than carrots, objectively. We're all well aware that you believe in God. Repeating yourself doesn't add any new information and telling us that you really believe it because of spiritual experiences leaves you with the problem that spiritual experiences aren't proof of anything but your internal brain state, because anyone can have them about any god or spirit or afterlife or nature or animal if they enter or cultivate a conducive mental state. Online, your personal experience of God is just a story, especially since even if it's true, God doesn't give you anything to say here that's at all convincing to a skeptic. Just a story like other believers in other religions also have. They can't all be right, but they CAN all be wrong.

Your 'slap in the face' remark is a fallacious appeal to emotion. Whether it offends you or would offend any Sunday School teachers you want to share with is irrelevant to whether it's true. Young children are not capable of critically evaluating the information given to them by adults. No matter how good the intentions of your emotionally fragile Sunday School teachers, what they are doing is indoctrination. It's indoctrination whether Muslims do it, Hindus do it, Catholics do it, Evangelicals do it, or Yazidis do it. You don't have to pressure children for it to be indoctrination. You just have to make sure they hear your religion first. If such indoctrination were neglected and the only thing taught children were established facts, I have no doubt that theistic religion would decline rapidly, because indoctrinating the next generation is how religions perpetuate themselves.

There's a reason why there's no major religion that believes in letting children discover the true religion for themselves, in confidence that it will always lead them back to the religion of their parents.

And to make sure you're not confused by the word 'indoctrination' again:

in·doc·tri·na·tion
/inˌdäktrəˈnāSHən/
noun
noun: indoctrination

the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.

Inkfeather132 Wrote:Then what is the evidence?

His feelers! Only a recalcitrant atheist determined to believe God isn't real would not just take his word for it! If someone really believes something is true and has spiritual experiences that confirm it, well, it HAS to be true and that makes it knowledge! Unless the person who really believes something is true and has spiritual experiences to confirm it isn't Christian. Angel

Godscreated Wrote:I'm not getting worked up and I'm not sure why you think that. Like I said in my post above I see no evidence of unicorns or leprechauns and thus do not believe in them. I have and do see evidence of God in creation and the more I learn about the creation the more I see Him. I know that atheist believe in evolution and thus reject God through this belief, however there's so much about animals that is impossible for evolution to be involved. For one, some animals according to evolutionary science haven't changed in many millions of years. What happened to the process in them?  I see no evidence for evolution and would have a hard time trusting the science because the definition of evolution changes when it's convenient to rebut science that is contrary to what is believed by evolutionary science, so I can't believe in it.

GC

I know someone who says they saw a leprechaun. I believe they are truly sincere and they actually experience seeing a leprechaun that demonstrated magical powers.

Now you have evidence of leprechauns equivalent to the evidence that you've given us for God. Do you believe in leprechauns now? If not, why not?

Not all atheists believe in evolution and I don't know of any who rejected God based on evolution. Although if any did, I would suppose it would be because their religious teachers taught them that evolution was false and unsupported and when they investigated the matter they found that evolution was misrepresented. Hundreds of millions of theists accept evolution. Evolution is a red herring when it comes to discussing atheism and theism.

Organisms continue to evolve, you being under the impression that the process has somehow stopped is an example of the kind of misinformation that creationists spread about evolution.

And I don't think you would see evidence for evolution if you were buried in it up to your neck. That's the power of indoctrination, no pressure needed. If people were as determined not to believe the germ theory of disease as they are to reject evolution, a lot of us wouldn't be here, because the same kinds of objections that creationists raise about evolution can be raised about any biological theory. 'This scientist is using a word differently than that scientist! Were you there? No one's ever made a germ from scratch in a lab! Just because a certain kind of bacteria is present when people have a certain disease doesn't mean the bacteria caused the disease! Viruses are just too small to cause diseases! Lung cancer is caused by carcinogens, not germs, so the theory is disproven! You can't trust germ scientists because they're too invested in the theory being true!'
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
Reply
RE: 10 Questions Biblical Literalists Cannot Honestly Answer
(July 18, 2017 at 1:51 am)Godscreated Wrote: I know that atheist believe in evolution and thus reject God through this belief, however there's so much about animals that is impossible for evolution to be involved. For one, some animals according to evolutionary science haven't changed in many millions of years. What happened to the process in them?  I see no evidence for evolution and would have a hard time trusting the science because the definition of evolution changes when it's convenient to rebut science that is contrary to what is believed by evolutionary science, so I can't believe in it.

GC

Really? I reject god because I believe in evolution? This is why I have to roll my eyes every time you use the word "know".  Because you don't know shit.  I don't believe in evolution.  I accept the theory because the facts support it.  I don't believe in god because there are no facts that support it. So something is impossible because you don't know how it's done?  Incredulous idiocy. You see no evidence for evolution?  You're a willfully blind idiot.  Theories change, so they can't be true? You're a science-ignorant idiot.
"The last superstition of the human mind is the superstition that religion in itself is a good thing."  - Samuel Porter Putnam
 
           

Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Evolution cannot account for morality chiknsld 333 7535 June 8, 2022 at 8:59 am
Last Post: Mister Agenda
  Am I right to assume, that theists cannot prove that I am not god? Vast Vision 116 25084 March 5, 2021 at 6:39 am
Last Post: arewethereyet
  Being cannot come from Non-being Otangelo 147 7595 January 7, 2020 at 7:08 am
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Why Creationists don't realize the biblical Creation is just jewish mythology? android17ak47 65 5302 July 27, 2019 at 9:03 pm
Last Post: Haipule
  God is not the answer Foxaire 47 3848 October 31, 2018 at 1:25 pm
Last Post: Drich
  Why religious cannot agree. Mystic 46 4832 July 6, 2018 at 11:05 pm
Last Post: warmdecember
  When does biblical history begin ? possibletarian 59 18924 November 24, 2017 at 1:27 am
Last Post: possibletarian
  Why as an Atheist I Cannot Sin Rhondazvous 35 6167 September 17, 2017 at 7:42 am
Last Post: Brian37
  Our theists of all labels please answer.... Brian37 92 10127 April 25, 2017 at 11:33 am
Last Post: Brian37
  The Biblical Account of the Creation - A new look RonaldMcRaygun 10 2436 March 31, 2017 at 5:47 pm
Last Post: Brian37



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)