This is Thunderdome, the unmoderated open thread on Pharyngula. Say what you want, how you want.
Status: UNMODERATED; Previous thread
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
This is Thunderdome, the unmoderated open thread on Pharyngula. Say what you want, how you want.
Status: UNMODERATED; Previous thread
erichovind
I see you haven’t answered my return-question from the other thread.
What ultimate purpose does glorifying a deity serve?
If you’re going to denigrate atheists’ self-chosen purposes, you need to show that your own is somehow not a choice.
And here’s some fun for you: if it’s not a choice, how can it be considered moral?
octopod
Where do you get your arguments if you do not base it on authority?
@thebackrowstudents
This is Bayesian Reasoning. Look up Bayes’ Theorem if you really need to. Laplace called it Inductive Probability. If all you have ever seen is 700 houses on the road, the chances are very high that the next house will be red. That is not begging the question. It is using prior experience to base next experience.
Your brain is specifically designed to do this as cognitive shortcuts. It is not only how practical cognition works, it is also the basis of all empiricism.
Yee-haw! Another step towards artificial chromosomes.
So you guys have asked this question “Are you perfectly sure?” “Could you be wrong about everything?” etc. a lot of times in various ways, and received a lot of answers that all boil down to more or less the same thing: “Nope, not sure”. Or a little less concisely: “I’m uncertain, and so are you, and I’m OK going on with my life accepting that while you apparently aren’t.”
So my question, now: Where are you going with this line of questioning, exactly? Please continue with your argument before we all die of boredom.
Right and wrong have been defined by humans for 200,000 years, or older if you include Homo erectus.Where do you get your
truth>/strike [TRUTH] then?I don’t get absolute truth, which doesn’t exist, as your deity doesn’t exist. I’m a scientist, and get my conclusions of what is true from evidence. Your deity is superfluous to any rational endeavor.Eric,
If the Bible teaches such glorious morals why is your dad in prison? Isn’t he that fraud who isn’t smart enough to figure out 8th grade science?
Jackie
Could you be wrong about everything you think you know?
Concerning the Romans verse you cited, so since the bible says so, you agree we don’t need God’s authority for morality. After all, the law comes from our heart and blah blah blah boring bible blabbing. See? Two can play this game!
Gack, borked the tags in #6, should read:
Right and wrong have been defined by humans for 200,000 years, or older if you include Homo erectus.
I don’t get absolute truth, which doesn’t exist, as your deity doesn’t exist. I’m a scientist, and get my conclusions of what is true from evidence. Your deity is superfluous to any rational endeavor.
Nope, there’s some important differences between basic brain morality and your bible’s opinion: they’re the product of evolution, not handed down by an external force – and like any product of evolution, they’re kludgy, imperfect and just good enough for survival. Cooperative ape mores are a starting point, but they’re NOT sufficient for civilization.
@erichovind
So how are things going? Release any new creationist propaganda movies lately?
#5 – octopod
The point is that you have made an absolute statement by saying you are uncertain. You are certain, that you are uncertain.
Here’s a sweet bible story about rape, from Judges:
Now mind, there’s no mention as to whether or not the gang-raped woman was dead prior to being divided up into pieces to become rotting parcel post. You are, however, told to consider this and take advice from it. Nice, eh?
God getting all pissy with David, so he decides that to punish him, he’ll have his wives raped by a neighbour!
Oh, but that isn’t the kicker! The ‘neighbour’ God chooses to rape those women is Absalom, David’s son. That God, sure has a sense of humour, eh?
That’s not all, by a longshot. As usual, none of you have read your own damn book of myths.
impact
Constantly repeating inane questions here will just get you ignored. They aren’t funny, and they most certainly aren’t clever.
Unlikely, as if humans weren’t able to reason that leopard is lurking behind a bush they are dinner. Evolution makes reasoning work, and reliable.
How do you KNOW you aren’t wrong about your imaginary deity. There is no evidence for it whatsoever?
consciouness razor
This principle proves nothing. By saying “we think”, it already assumes that we exist, thereby proving nothing. The rest of your argument for right and wrong is then irrelevant. So here’s my question. Where do you get truth without God?
Jackie:
Well, y’see, God told Daddy Hovind he didn’t really have to pay taxes. I guess God forgot the bit about prison and stuff.
Only to a delusional like you trying to score sophistry points using weasel words.
We are certain about Heisenberg’s uncertainty principal. It works, unlike your imaginary deity.
student11: Whoops, posted before I saw your first reply — sorry!
To your first question: I get my arguments from my admittedly limited and incomplete understanding of the universe, and from the ethics (basically all consequentialist and largely utilitarian, fwiw) that I’ve managed to reason out for myself. That’s why they change when I encounter new information. Now, I do have to accept limited authority on a lot of topics, because there’s not enough time to be the world expert on anything. (I’m working on just one, and that’s plenty enough work for me!) But notice that I say LIMITED authority. That is, if the authorities disagree, I have a personal intellectual responsibility to evaluate their arguments before acting on any of their recommendations; I am unwilling to say “I’m only ever going to listen to this one source ever again”, because I think that would lead to me taking harmful actions more often.
To your second: well, yes, is that a problem? I don’t see any inherent contradiction in the statement “The only thing I’m certain about is that I don’t know everything”.
What? Where do you get truth with God? Is God incapable of lying? What does one have to do with the other? Truth has to deal with reality, not God.
There’s a word for this. It comes from the bible, actually. You’re babbling.
Since you deity doesn’t exist, where do you get your truth? You only presume you know the TRUTH.
Truth comes through evidence, not imaginary deities.
sanekids3 @ 17
Are you suggesting that it’s possible to have thoughts without a thinker? Or are you challenging the assertion that there exists at least one thought?
Where do you get your arguments if you do not base it on authority?
Evidence.
Just to add my thoughts, but the problem with the “what is your authority” nonsense isn’t only the failure to recognize that morality doesn’t have to come from taking dictation, but to recognize that it can’t.
If I had the ability to make a universe full of thinking, feeling beings, and told them it was right to rape and kill and hurt each other….it would be wrong. I could announce I would reward the ones who hurt the most others, and torture anyone who was nice forever, and hurting would still be wrong. It would make me an evil god, and even if it were impossible to escape my punishments, it would still be right to defy my will.
But it seems some people are entirely beyond such conception. Do they count themselves lucky their god has commanded things that don’t bring misery and suffering to them personally? Or do they really claim to think it makes no difference, because if it had ordered for them to be miserable then somehow that would become a good thing?
Impact,
I’m not here to answer your questions. Where did you get the idea that I was?
I’m just here to watch you godbotherer’s flounder, but flounder as pompously as you possibly can.
That’s a great point. Jesus says to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and that is usually interpreted as a call to pay taxes. So refusing taxes is breaking biblical law per Jesus. If some people are exempt from Jesus’ teachings, what proof do individual Christians have to offer anybody else that God is really behind their own actions to undermine the one instruction set (Bible) they pretend to revere?
Yes, as evidenced by things like people thanking god for answering their prayer that an approaching hurricane wouldn’t hit where they live with no thought for the fact that they prayed for the hurricane to hit other people.
@Tomas C
Your view does not match reality.
Private charities have a few massive disadvantages in relation to tax-funded social work.
The first one is that private charity just cannot provide on the scale needed to affect change in society. Especially not in a society driven by libertarian bootstraps ideals, where people are driven to think the poor are just lazy and thus are discouraged to give. After all, it was because of those darned welfare queens that government was abolished, right?
The second problem is that, without some form of centralized planning and budgeting, the money won’t go to those who need it most, but to whoever the private citizens like most or to whoever can sell themselves better. Private charity money in the real world is grossly unequal in distribution.
The last, and most important disadvantage is that, because it’s largely dependent on the disposable income of individuals, private charity money dwindles in times of economic downturn – precisely when people are most in need of charity!
Further to my #28: or that their god chose to send the hurricane at other people instead of out to sea where it couldn’t hurt anyone.
Oh God dammit! I spent ages writing a reply to that backrowwankers person, and by the time I’m done PZ shut the thread. I’ve lost the whole damn thing!
How to comment:
Nym + comment-number
<blockquote>Paste quoted words here if needed</blockquote>
Produces:
Reply goes here.
It isn’t an assumption that Descartes just dreamed up one day. It’s an observation — one which he made, which I’ve made, and which you can also make. That’s how you know lots of things: by experiencing them.
You tell me what’s irrelevant about the thoughts and feelings of human beings, when it comes to how human beings ought to act toward each other. I’m not seeing it.
Of course, if we don’t exist, then sure, why not? In that case, how we act isn’t an issue. I have no idea what the hell you think you’re going to accomplish by poking at that premise, though.
How do you get truth without God? The same way I do. By observing the world, reasoning about objects and concepts I have, listening to other people to find out if they know anything I don’t.
@sanekids:
I’m sorry, what? Have you never heard of Decartes? The point is that when you recognize “we think,” (since nobody can deny the experience of thinking) you don’t have to assume we exist; the conclusion is inescapable. It cannot be the case that we do not exist, because something that cannot exist cannot think. It’s not circular, it’s just so strong that it seems almost true by definition.
The rest of the argument doesn’t hinge on the first part (notice the use of the word “and”), so really you’re just looking for some small part to dismiss (sloppily) so that you don’t have to address the part that matters.
Thumper #31
If you’re on Firefox, here’s how to never lose a “failed-send” comment.
wow this place moves fast…
Chris J @ 34
Oh, I don’t know. I’m beginning to have my doubts about some people.
Observation, both of the natural world, and the results of experiments formed in that world.
My morality comes from empathy tempered by observation. I do not want to be harmed. I do not want to harm others. By working together, we build a society capable of far greater than anything we can do alone. By evidence and observation, we can determine the most effective and efficient policies to minimize harm to others, and provide the greatest benefit to all.
That’s a really good point, consciousnessrazor, and I’d like to use it to append the following to my post above:
Presumably the Bible does not have any opinion whether it’s raining in your present location today (March 28th, 2014). How would you describe your source of knowledge for whether or not it is raining?
Now, take that answer you just gave. That’s how we know things “without authority”.
Snoof @ 37:
True, probably should have said “self-thought” or something.
They’re chat-bots, ffs. Or they’re indistinguishable from chat-bots.
.
Hovindians, your god doesn’t actually exist, you know (well, you don’t, of course. You prefer to live in fantasy-land) and your bible is a work of fiction written by people (lots of different people at different times).
If you want anyone to take you seriously, start by providing some evidence your god exists. Then you can tell us why there’s more evidence for your god than for any of the thousands of other gods. I’ll make it easy for you: provide evidence that your god out-exists Allah, Shiva or Zeus. Come on, it can’t get much easier than that, surely!?
…. crickets ….
Oh, have they taken their ball and gone home?
@vaiyt
You missed my part about mutual aid societies and everyone being able to participate in the free market.
Is extracting money from people with the threat of violence really a civilized answer though?
you seem knowledgeable about the Bible. Where does the Bible get it authority?
Thomas C:
You ever stop to consider why governments of the first world started aid to the poor? First, the private charities couldn’t provide aid to the level needed to keep the poor healthy. And their aid often came with terrible strings attached. And the governments needed healthy cannon fodder for their wars. So the dole was started to make children healthier, and health care also provided to do the same. As a side effect they had healthier recruits for the next war.
The second problem is that donations to charities rise and fall with the economy. But when a recession hits, it turns into a depression because the poor have nothing to spend. Money stops circulating. If they have unemployment insurance and food stamps, money gets spent and circulates in the economy. The recession stays a recession, and can recover faster. Think about the difference between positive re-enforcement for a spring. It moves further and further. That is liberturdism. Whereas with negative re-enforcement, the swings dampen. That is Keynesian economics, used by all first world countries.
#15-Daz: Experiencing A Slight Gravitas Shortfall
they are pretty simple questions aren’t they! and you can’t answer them! what is that saying?
Yes. We’ve already gone through this. Your theology is not on any better ground than the theists’.
In mathematics and logic. Everything else comes with a dollop of uncertainty and a smidgen of subjectivity, but it’s the best we’ve got and we have to work at it, generation after generation, rather than blindly take refuge in a book containing a few stories from 3000 years ago which some idiot decided were The Absolute Unchanging Truth.
Something in here is simple, alright.
Tomas C #42
Is allowing people to starve for lack of money, while others stockpile it, really a civilised answer?
Under my own definition of “civilised,” no. The purpose of a society should, first and foremost, be to protect all members of that society, not just those who are lucky enough to be able to protect themselves.
Finishing my post #46
I fail to comprehend how paying your taxes in a society is done by threats of violence? Your assertion without evidence is continually dismissed, until you provide something other than an OpEd type of piece. Real academic evidence. Which, so far, is MIA from all you posts.
Spiderman?
BatmanThe Batman*?really?
Aren’t there any other Dr. Strange people here?
(no?)
*not that there’s anything wrong with that
Tomas C. @ 42
And you missed my part about what happens when the only grocery store in town has a “No blacks allowed” sign. It’s perfectly possible to be excluded from the free market by non-government actors. See also: company towns, women in the UK prior to the Married Women’s Property Act…
(Also… a mutual aid society does not in any significant way differ from a charity when it comes to the consequences of an economic downturn. In fact, they generally handle themy worse since charities are usually patronised by the wealthy upper classes who’ll retain a degree of disposable income during a depression, whereas a mutual aid society depends on funding from the same people who are going to need it.)
impact @ 43:
From people with authority who also believe the Bible matters. Otherwise it has none.
@erichovind
lol
Did anyone watch the Ray Comfort video he linked?
I love the part where Ray goes up to the geologist and asks him inane questions. When the geologists is like WTF , Ray acts like he’s proved something.
Also I like the manly beard Ray Comfort has?
@Daz #35
Thanks, but I’m not. The work comp only has IE :(
Speaking of which, though, have you heard the hoo-haa about Firefox recently? Apparently some horrific homophobe became CEO of Mozilla, and all the Firefox developers downed tools in protest :)
impact #45
Impact, you’re doing nothing but play “gotcha.”
Can I know, absolutely, that everything I think I know is true? Of course not. This furthers the discussion how, exactly?
^That wasn’t mean to be a question mark above. Its a better look for him.
Is it just me, or is sanekids3 some sort of solipsist theocrat? Aren’t those things contradictory? *ponders*
@ Tomas C. #42:
This is such a strangely dishonest way of describing things like taxes.
All conceptions of property depend on some way to enforce them. When I eat at a restaurant, I am expected to leave money. I don’t have to; I could dine and dash, or better still, I could walk into the kitchen and start eating the food they have stored. If people refused to do business with me as a result, I don’t have to care because I can forage everything I need in a similar fashion, over the face of people’s objections.
If I try that, physical force comes into play; but really the reason people don’t do things like that are social mores stop them. Taxes are the same. When you participate in a society, you are expected to leave money; and in most places people do out of social mores. It’s no more inherently about force than my inability to eat in other people’s stocksrooms is.
Meanwhile, if you look at different countries around the world, you will notice that describing taxes as the threatened violence is really contrary to how things actually work. Because all the places with the lowest actual violence are ones with relatively high taxes and social programs. We should care more about actual violence than things that in theory could be equated with potential violence if you ignore lots of details, right?
Thumper #56
I.E.? I mourn for you!
I hadn’t heard that Mozilla story. I shall google immediately.
Oi, you lot! You were asked for proof your god exists. Come on then, let’s be having it. What’s that, you’ve got nothing? Oh dear ….
Relevant (kinda).
Thumper @ 59:
I wouldn’t worry too much. The tactic seems to be to spread as much doubt and confusion as possible, bringing every philosophical problem possible from solipsism to whatever else. Then, when the target is hopelessly befuddled and unable to answer the questions, offer god as a simple answer (ignoring, of course, everything you’ve just said about not knowing anything for sure and could you be mistaken and so forth).
I doubt they’re solipsistic, they just put on the robes of one when it becomes convenient.
Morality? From the Bible?
Kent Hovind believes that a billion people died in the flood. I saw him put up a graph of population growth since the flood, to prove the flood, and he had a billion people before the flood. There was no logic to that part of the graph, it was just something he wanted to be true. Kent Hovind imagined a world population of a billion people just so they could die in the flood.
Kent Hovind then mocked and ridiculed the victims of the flood. He said that underground oil is made from the bodies of people who drowned in the flood. He mimed putting gasoline in a car and hollered, “So long, Grandpa, you should have listened to Noah!” He laughed, and the churchly people laughed along with him.
That last bit happened a few minutes after he condemned atheists for believing that dead people became nothing but worm dirt. The churchly folk had shuddered with him.
The Flood, as recounted in the bible, is incredibly cruel, and literally impossible. Anyone who defends it is a horrible person, anyone who thinks it actually happened is wrong. Anyone who bases their religion on their own cruel improvements to the flood is a truly evil being.
You followers of Kent Hovind, you need to renounce his evil or give up trying to impose your horrible book onto decent people.
@Chris J
I think their point is to bring up all teh problems , and then say the bible has the answers and act like they’ve proven it.
@Daz #61
I know! :( And if I work from home, I still have to use IE, because our desktopping software only works with IE! FML.
Anyway, it’s twenty to seven on a Friday, and I really should be drunk by now. Y’all have fun with the Bovines, I’m off.
@60 monad
Hahahaha, you sound so surprised. Have you never spoken to a libertarian before? That’s their whole schpiel!
@Chris J
It’s like a kid just repeating “Why?” over and over until dad gives in and lets them have a chocolate bar.
[rhetorical] I notice that liberturds try the same dishonest redefine/usage games as the forced-birth people, in order to generate emotional, not logical responses. Words like innocent, coerce, and violence, have no place in a rational discussion of taxes. If Tomas C wants a rational discussion, he needs to drop those words from xis sloganeering. [/rhetorical]
Is Jesus preventing you hovindhoids from telling us which version of the bible you use?
monad @ #60,
Those are all good points. But I understand that Somalia is so much better under the fractured despotic rule of warlords who collect taxes from people at …oh wait. /sarcasm
Menyambal, yeeeesh. ::shudders:: I always find myself assuming that religious people just ignore the really horrible stuff that Divine Forces of Righteousness do in their books. Then I get blindsided by them reveling in it. Like all of Tertullian’s stuff about enjoying the sufferings of the damned, augghhhh ugh humans can be so horrible i hate thEM SO MUCH SOMETIMES
…excuse me, I seem to have gotten a bit carried away there.
Nerd #70
Trying to be a bit fair here, I assumed that Thomas C’s “violence” was merely bad wording, and that he meant “force.” Which would be accurate. Taxes are “enforced.” (See: Hovind.) As with all laws and other acts of government, what’s under debate is what we want government to do, and how much force we’re willing to allow it to use in order to do it.
Daz @ 75:
Thing is, the word “force” isn’t normally taken to mean “enforcement” in the bland sense. I’m pretty sure people who describe taxes as something extracted by “force” know exactly what they’re doing. They’re trying to draw outrage from the idea that an individual is coerced into doing anything, with the idea that such coercion shouldn’t exist in an ideal world.
To me, it’s pretty childish. “Responsibility” or “duty” are nice, grownup concepts that mean sometimes you are required to do something even if you don’t want to. Sometimes you volunteer yourself into that responsibility, sometimes it is put upon you. These jokers want to believe that any responsibility that you don’t choose to take on is de facto immoral.
Kind of a fundamental pattern actually, from “financial abortions” so you don’t have to contribute to raising a kid that is actually a kid now, to those nuts who think tax laws don’t apply to them because they never signed a document with the government, to people who don’t want government at all because sometimes a government requires them to do something they don’t like, to people who think that because they never enslaved anyone, they shouldn’t feel guilt about perpetuating racism through hi-larious jokes. It all boils down to the selfish notion that you should have no duty to anyone or anything except yourself… and society can’t function that way.
@75 Daz
He means violence. He keeps equating the collection of taxes with sending armed goons to your house to collect tribute.
Ironically, this is EXACTLY what civilization IS.
Civilization was and is created precisely from the collective decision to extract resources from individuals and pool them for collective works, mostly through collective assent, but with the threat of force implicit in the background to enforce compliance in the event of recalcitrance.
Chris J #76
I don’t disagree with their reasons for using the word. I’d just rather argue that (strictly limited) application of force is justified, rather than pretend that force isn’t force. If I, via government, am going to sign off on the idea that people should be made to do certain things whether they want to or not, it I think it’s only honest of me to admit that what I’m signing on for is use of coercive force on my—and others’—behalf.
Seven of Mine #77
In which case, fuck ‘im.
Are they gone?
Wait a minute… were the presuppositionalists just a figment of my imagination? If not, where could they have possibly gone? Therefore, because I don’t know, they must not exist. You can’t trick me, figments!
Umm
Chris J
I mean I don’t disagree with your assessment of their reasons for using the word.
Daz @ 79:
I’d agree with that argument. It’s interesting to note that the people who argue that the government should be able to force them to do something are the same people who think they should be able to use force to prevent other people from doing something. It doesn’t get rid of the force, it just changes the agent that uses it.
Must’ve been lunch-hour at Camp Hovind.
@82 consciousness razor
But you’re certain you don’t know, therefore…well, I dunno but I’m sure it’s quite profound.
Seven of Mine #86
Are you certain that CR is certain?
mmm figs
If god is a brain in a vat dreaming it is a butterfly being tricked by an evil demon, and it is traveling at 80 mph through downtown Baltimore at the precise moment you murder Neil Armstrong on the moon, how long does it take for someone in Seattle to find out whether that murder is wrong?
Or nap-time. But I’m not absolutely certain. Perhaps we’ll find out some day.
from previous thread:
@748
erichovind
that’s a funny way of saying “the bible isn’t wrong about everything”.
but you are equivocating here.
Interesting thing to observe, reading through the end of the previous thread and the beginning of this one – eric & friends claim that morality comes from God, via the Bible, and then quote a passage that seems to suggest that God disapproves of rape. Others then show other passages (and, indeed, more of the self-same section of the Bible) which show that God doesn’t really disapprove of rape, other than things like the ‘punishment’ of forcing the rape victim to marry the rapist with the rapist having to pay a whole fifty shekels of silver for her.
So, one question to eric & friends, if they’re still around – what, precisely, made you select that specific passage, Deuteronomy 22:25-28, and not, say, Deuteronomy 22:25-29, which includes the part about the rapist buying the rape victim from her father for fifty shekels of silver? I ask, because it looks very much to me like you’re using some other mechanism to decide whether a passage is moral or not when selecting it as evidence of God’s supposed morality, and this would suggest that God is therefore not the ultimate arbiter of what is moral or not, or else such careful selection would be unnecessary.
also from previous
@724
impact
false.
reason and logic are not yours.
all you have is this bare assertion that your fairy story is the foundation of them. you are unconvincing, all you have is your stories.
I feel … dissatisfied.
Actually, EH and PZ come to a time agreement, and the students post for that period and go away. This has happened before. Same old presup arguments, with “how do you know” the favorite sophistry.
God’s “gift” of “choice” to humankind:
“I give you free will, so that you may choose to do only things that I like, on (literal) pain of endless torment if you don’t.”
@ erichovind
Hi! Your dad and I go way back. I don’t think we’ve ever met, but I listened to his lecture series and followed his activities for a while. Discovering “creation science” via middle-school prosletyzers led me to talk.origins, Richard Dawkins, P. Z. Myers, and an appreciation and understanding of the natural world that has made a huge difference in my life. Will you tell him thanks for me? Not trolling; he really did make a positive difference in my life, albeit in a roundabout way.
Nerd of Redhead @ 95: How peculiar. What’s the purpose of this behavior?
I missed the Deluge of Hovindists? Darn.
What’s always fun with these incursions is marking down the questions that were very pointedly not answered. For instance none of the Hovindists took a swing at the question Snoof raised @663, if it would be right to kill a 5 year old girl if god commanded them to. And they all wilted before they could actually respond to what their bible ACTUALLY said. And it’s funny that they couldn’t complete their scripts either, I never did get to see the ??? between “Answer this leading question saying you believe in Absolutes” “GOD!”. My assumption is that if anyone had actually taken the bait and said they believed in anything absolute the Hovindists would be so thrilled because they could complete their script and say that “All things absolute are GOD you’re a believer you foolish atheist! Now convert!”
Friendly’s comment @ 718 was my favorite response, an absolute demolition of the entire gaggle of them. I wasn’t surprised he got not a single response for the Hovindists though.
Whose behavior? PZ’s or EH’s? I suspect with PZ, is that the horde gets to sharpen their teeth on some fresh meat. As far as EH goes, I think it is just proselytizing at an atheist blog using presup idiocy without getting banhammered.
I think Hovind sends his students here to sharpen their debating skills.
And I think that they think they’ve won.
I feel so sorry for those kids.
Thing is, it’s trivial to demonstrate that you don’t get your morals from god or the bible. Especially not the bible.
1. Do you consider child pornography immoral?
2. If you do, you’ve just demonstrated you don’t get your morals from god or the bible. Since the bible doesn’t mention child pornography at all. Nor child rape, nor pedophilia of any sort.
I suppose the only dodge against that one is the “do unto others” thing (plagiarized from Rabbi Hillel and inserted into the stories about Jesus). Except, what if the child in question likes having his/her photo taken while naked? Would you then say that the immoral act becomes moral, because the child wants it to happen? Of course not.
Ergo, you’ve just proven that A) You’re more moral than your god, and B) The bible is not the source of morality.
Aw, I never got a chance to thank haroldweasley for making me laugh (“Wait, so you guys don’t believe in Noah and the Flood?” – which he said over at the “another review” thread). That was hilarious . Whether it was meant as a joke or not (and hard though it is to credit, they do seem to be absolutely serious about this bollocks – amazing).
Clearly, if your god instructs you to kill a five-year-old girl or anyone else, that’s absolutely fine.
hovind fans:
Consider your Book. Every first year seminary student is exposed to the unpleasant truth that the Bible is fragmentary, heavily edited and had multiple authors over many hundreds of years none of whom witnessed the events mentioned. Further, even things with a specific name on them like most of Paul’s Epistles were not written by him (cf. Bart Ehrman’s Forged: Writing in the Name of God–Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are for a readable précis).
By contrast, we can be pretty sure that even after Umar al Khattab got through with it the Quran is pretty much entirely the writing of Mohammed. By that standard it is more reliable than the Gospels. I expect to see sanekids3, erichovind and company remain true to their principles, ditch the Nazarene and start buying prayer rugs and learning Arabic.
@ erichovind et al, if you’re still listening, it might be helpful to think of the rape issue this way:
The Bible and I both have prohibitions against rape, but for very different reasons. We don’t really “agree” at all.
The Bible operates within a patriarchal ownership system in which the rape of women is mostly seen as a property crime against the reproductive security of the men. That’s why the punishment of the rapist is different depending on the marital / engagement status of the victim, and that’s why kidnapping a bunch of foreign virgins during wartime gets a pass — if all the menfolk are slaughtered, who’s going to complain about the theft of property?
My reasons for opposing rape are “bodily autonomy” reasons — I don’t think anyone has the right to use or occupy another person’s body without their explicit and continuing consent. So it doesn’t matter to me whether someone is raped by a spouse, or an employer, or whether they are single or engaged — the crime is the same, and it’s a crime against the person who was raped, not their spouse, guardian, or fiancee.
These two forms of opposition to rape are really very different from each other. They begin with different premises and have different effects. We might both use the phrase “hey, don’t rape!” at some point, but the sense in which this is an “agreement” is pretty superficial.
Mutual aid ain’t gonna do a thing when everyone in the group is out of money. They have the exact same problems of distribution as private charities, as the people who need the most aid are the ones with less money to pool in.
As for free participation in the market, it doesn’t just happen by fiat. Discrimination, unequal hiring practices, widespread shitty treatment of consumers are things the Almighty Free Market has trouble fixing – and in fact, many of your fellow glibertarians think they’re a perfectly acceptable price to pay for FREEDOM.
barnestormer @ 105:
It’s all very simple – don’t treat people as things. If one is going to go by the bible, El Shaddai treats people as things from the very start, and continues to use them as things through which it channels its pettiness, anger and jealousy.
Why do religious people keep asking how atheists can have a purpose in the world without God?
Does it matter?
Even if the only way to have purpose to life is through God, that doesn’t prove that God exists. It just means that there is no purpose to life.
I prefer to make my own purpose for life. Which is to enjoy myself and provide for my family.
In the West the delusion most everyone buys into of course – is the god delusion to paraphrase Richard Dawkins. The delusion that there is an invisible dictator in the sky who told us everything in his (not her) holy book, whether it be the Bible, Koran, Book of Mormon, or any number of other lesser know mythological holy books. I care in part because the holy books are interesting mythology but mainly because many of the practitioners really believe this stuff and they vote and try to impose their narrow minded theocratic notions – patriarchy, homophobia, national tribalism, etc, etc, usually linked with equally insidious ideas – a strange form of libertarianism which asserts that punishing the poor and middle class is actually helping society. While I would never advocate banning these ideas from the public square (that is historically a religious concept – killing heretics), except keeping them out of places they don’t belong – in the science classroom, a huge distinction, I do advocate at all times constant vigilance in holding these ideas up to the ridicule they deserve.
It is funny that from the East there are a different set of delusional ideas which are not as commonly discussed or ridiculed. We ignore these ideas, because in the West they have little influence outside perhaps followers of Oprah Winfrey, but there is a large subculture of people who are into this stuff. I’m not talking about ideas like reincarnation and karma, which are as ridiculous as sin and salvation. I’m talking about this very common eastern notion that consciousness=reality, that somehow there is no external reality except that which is experienced in consciousness. You hear this a lot in that con artist Deepak Chopra, but if you read Buddhist or Hindu scriptures, time and time again you run this notion – that the world is an illusion outside your conscious awareness. This is true in the sense that our conscious minds mentally construct an external world, so in a way outside our conscious minds, such a world does not exist. It may also be true that the experience of ‘awakening’ which is commonly written about in these writings which is the Christian version of ‘salvation,’ may actually be a real experience in which the external world ceases to exist in the mind of the person undergoing this experience, and all things seem to be ‘one.’ While these experiences may occur in a mind, they by no means proscribe what the universe actually is. As far as we know consciousness is a late comer in the history of the universe, for most of history the universe has been evolving blindly and unconsciously without observers. So what. The lesson is that introspection is no sure guide to truth anymore than positing invisible gods in the sky with mythological holy books. But at least these ideas don’t seem to entail getting school boards to change curriculum to introduce mythology and false history, so it has that going for it. This is a delusion maybe Sam Harris buys into, I don’t know.
@ 107
Yes, exactly! Thanks for putting it so concisely.
Probably my favorite example of this tendency is the Book of Job. God tortures a guy, including by murdering a bunch of his “things” (family and servants!) on a bet with one of his buddies; wraps up by yelling at the poor guy about his own godliness.
Or the fact that when I was growing up, Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac was STILL being glossed as, “Abraham was willing to give the best he had to God, and that’s great!”
@omnicrom #99:
Aww, thanks, omni. Yeah, I wasn’t expecting a response, either. They were only here to troll, using the tired old script of all those “watch us evangelize the brain-dead spring-breakers” videos that the sophist-fundie camp is so fond of. Sadly for them, I speculate that these parts are rather thin on the wide-eyed, credulous, shallow, semi-baked beachhoppers that seem to be their bread and butter.
Ye gods! That’s as callously irresponsible as it is twisted. I wonder if anyone has ever totted up an account of all the nutters who have killed or seriously injured themselves or others in direct obedience to Bible verses, handling poisonous snakes, sacrificing their children etc, just( say), in the twentieth century. I distinctly remember a story about a guy in the states who chain-sawed his hand off for sinning against him; he wont have been the first or the last to do that I’m sure.
A properly obedient application of the “do unto others” command would be that if YOU, personally, like having your photo taken while naked, then you, naturally, must go out and take naked photos of everyone you meet, adults and children….
Does Hovind realize that this is the absolute worst way to teach anyone anything? I doubt it he knows. I doubt he cares. I bet the only real lesson he wants to teach by sending his mini horde of sycophants at us is just to get them to come away from it whining about how meeeeeean atheists are, without having the fear of straying into Pharyngula all on their lonesome and no having fellow bleaters to distract from their own personal idiocy and dishonesty.
@110 barnestormer:
Yeah, the Job story was a real problem when I was a Christian. I could justify pretty much all of the sheer horrors God allows/commands in the Bible/history/modern times as “well, we’re sinners and deserve punishment in hell, so anything else is still better than we deserve”. It left me self-hating to the point of despair and suicide, but yeah, I could manage the mental gymnastics required to keep calling that God “good”.
But then you have Satan, the guy who fucks over humanity constantly and who God is supposed to protect us from, making a bet with God, God saying Job actually IS perfect and deserves no punishment, then God specifically allowing Satan to mess Job up to basically masturbate his own ego in the eyes of Satan, the most evil being.
The only defense there was “God’s ways are higher/mysterious/not to be questioned” or “well, you’re not Job and you’re not perfect, so why don’t you go hate yourself some more and thank God for not fucking YOU up more than he ought, eh?”
Well, that or “God is all-powerful absolute narcissist despite his total dick-baggery, and might makes right, so he can just torture us as he pleases and we’re totally without recourse”, which it turns out is a solid transitional step in becoming an atheist. The few days I believed that weren’t fun, but at least I didn’t have to beat myself up mentally to say God’s shits smelled like roses.
I know I really shouldn’t enjoy Jimmy Carr. It’s far too easy to excuse his sexism and bigotry as “meta” from my privileged position.
But at least he takes potshots at the superstitious, religious and royals as well.
I suspect the requires a trigger warning for misogyny and trans-mocking.
Now maybe, if you reaaalllyy stretch it, you could see some nobility in what Abraham did, in a tragic hero sort of way, loyalty and all that.
But what the hell do you make if the god who ASKED that of him?
#48- Rich Woods
By what authority do you say that only mathematics and logic are completely true and nothing else is?
Were Mathematics, Science and Logic made up by someone or where they discovered? They were discovered! everyone knows that! Then there has to be something that supersedes math, science and logic which they rely upon! God exists and He created everything according to His nature. Therefore math, science and logic have order exemplifying God and are not completely random like what would be expected from a “big bag theory”.
::whoopee-cushion noise::
@ 112, davidchapman
It really is, isn’t it? I think most people are protected from its scarier implications by a thick membrane of compartmentalization. The people I grew up with didn’t treat people as things, for the most part, and I suspect that if God had told them to sacrifice one of their kids, their reaction would have been “Whoops, what a weird auditory hallucination!” and to check in with a doctor.
But at least in my family there was this pervasive sense that Everything Was Different back in Bible Times and child murder wasn’t so serious then, or something, and also a confident assurance that God wouldn’t ask anything like that today because Jesus already took care of his human-sacrifice needs. We were supposed to admire Abraham because the Bible, which was the Word of God, told us it was ok, but we weren’t supposed to admire modern infanticides because they weren’t in the Bible. Or something like that.
@ 115
To be “fair,” the Christian idea of Satan as the malevolent force that constantly fucks over humanity so that no one can have nice things was a later development; the Satan character who makes a bet with God in Job was orignally more like — God’s prosecuting attorney, I guess? That doesn’t solve the problem of God trying to impress him by letting him kill a bunch of people and torture a guy, though. I’m sorry you suffered so much in trying to hold onto belief in a good god. :( I hope things are better now.
#57- Daz: Experiencing A Slight Gravitas Shortfall
So you admit that you can’t know anything?
As for furthering the argument…I am establishing your credibility first. I want to know if your knowledge is actually credible.
impact 118
By what authority do you say that gut feelings are absolutely true?
Was religion made up by someone or was it discovered.
How do you know? Were you there?
How do you know? Could you be wrong?
How do you know? Could you be wrong?
How do you know? Aren’t you just assuming that?
That’s not what scientists say. Could you be wrong?
impact #121
Read what I said again. This time with your brain engaged.
121 impact
I find it ironic that the people who claim to have exclusive claim to absolute knowledge and absolute morals are ALWAYS the poorest at displaying those traits.
Bravo, you fucking disingenuous asshat.
impact
Maths is a language by the way. It describes aspects of the universe. It was invented.
Logic, ditto.
Science is a method; a way of looking at the universe. Again, an invention.
None of these things exist outside the mind. They are the map, not the territory.
Impact @ 118:
You are an absolute fucking moron.
“Big bag theory.” Boy, you are one ignorant fucknugget, aren’t you? For your information, in case you hadn’t heard, we’ve been able to see the fireball of the “Big Bag” in every direction we look for 50 years now.
@118 impact
I really have to close my tags :(
Mathematics and Logic were invented, by humans, not discovered. Science was discovered. Neither logic nor mathematics are in fact even capable of determining truth. Both systems manipulate truth that is supplied externally by humans. Start with a false premise, and all logic can do is produce ornate gibberrish.
Science approximates truth but never reaches it. Humans do not in fact have any methodology that can ascertain truth.
But what science can do is tell us what is the PROBABILITY that we are wrong. This allows us the ability to ACT on our beliefs as if they were true, because we can use science to ascertain how likely we are to be wrong, and if that likelihood is low enough we may act if we decide the risk of a bad outcome if we turn out to be wrong is low enough to be acceptable. And what specific threshold is “low enough” is a judgment call every human has to make for himself or herself.
Barnestormer:
Yes, everyone makes a big effing deal about Abraham and his willingness to kill his child. Never a word about all the people (including children) killed for El Shaddai, though. You never hear about Jephthah, who, when the spirit of lord came upon him, said if god gave him success in massacring the Ammonites, why he’d kill whatsoever came out of the doors of his house afterwards. Well, after he had a wonderful, god-assisted slaughter, he went home, and his daughter came out to greet him and celebrate his victory. He cried, and told her he promised to kill her, given his god inspired vow. She said he must keep his vow, so he murdered his daughter. Naturally, given that it was the murder of a woman, she’s not named in the bible. That’s yet another wonderful story out of Judges.
Your deity is imaginary until you provide conclusive physical evidence for it, evidence that would pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine, and not natural (scientifically explained), origin. You only presume your deity exists, which is a fallacy, until you show otherwise, with evidence not from the babble.
waitwaitwait
Did impact come in with the other hovindhoids?
and not leave with them?
or return without them?
.
impact!
Does Uncle Eric know you’re doing this?
118. impact,
The Hell?!
At worst a third of mathematicians are Platonists. Mathematics is as discovered as chess is.
Alway a favourite
http://m.xkcd.com/435/
it has a cephalopod.
Amphiox #129
Mathematics and Logic were not invented; they were discovered. The laws of logic and mathematics have always existed. They are immaterial and unchanging. 2+2 will always equal 4. No matter how society changes, 2+2 will always equal 4. Likewise logic is unchanging. The laws of logic have always been. The laws of science are immaterial and unchanging as well. The law of gravity was not invented; it was discovered. Do you think that before gravity was discovered it did not exist? That is absurd.
Do you believe in absolute truth? Are you absolutely certain that absolute truth does not exist?
Since all deities are imaginary, existing only in the minds of humans, absolute TRUTH can’t exist. Science does well approaching the truth, but can’t get there. But 99.999% is awful good.
@ 130 Inaji
Poor Jephthah’s daughter. She did get at least one medieval hymn written about her that I know of, but she certainly didn’t make it into the Children’s Story Bible that I remember. I only ran into her much later, when I was on one of my “read the whole Bible!” attempts.
Not to mention all those Ammonites. :(
Oh, by the way PoG, something like the coordinates of the eternally burning bush or equivalent are required. Then science, magicians, and professional debunkers can study it to show that it a stage trick…..
John 11:35
Who left the door open?
We’re having an infestation.
I’ll have the Pullet Patrol™ bring in some high duty fans for the nonce. The fans will keep the shit odor down for a while.
Poof of Gawd:
Are you sure? Could you be wrong? Were you there?
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls #136
Are you absolute certain that absolute truth can’t exist? What about the law of gravity. Isn’t it always absolute?
Bets on whether any of the godbots will eventually get that the joke in the picture at the top of the thread?
anteprepro #141
God who was there has revealed in the Bible that there is such a thing as absolute truth. 2+2 will always equal 4!
The laws described by logic and maths have always existed. “Two,” “plus” and “four” are words which describe objects and actions.
My 145 was @Proof of God (which appears to be lacking, by the way.)
Hi, Proof of God!
Are you really proof of god? That’s very exciting! Which god are you proof of? I hope it’s not that douchenozzle El Shaddai; we were just talking about what a nozzle he is, with all the genocide and the human sacrifice and the generally being a tool.
Did I miss the part where you presented Proof of God? Please link if you get the chance. I hope it’s Baal; he’s a jerk, too, but I always kind of liked his character on Stargate: SG1.
Since all deities are imaginary, I’m only 99.999% certain. And there isn’t complete evidence gravity is an absolute, and your sophistry is meaningless in the real world. Reality trumps theology (very bad sophistry due to the twin fallacies of an imaginary deity, and book of mythology/fiction being inerrant). There is an absolute zero….
@ Proof of God #135:
To the extent that this is true, they were discovered the same way as everything else, by seeing what works. For instance people who don’t know logic often reason by saying A -> B, and B, so A. Every book I have seen corrects this the same way, by appealing to experience, giving examples where we know A does not follow. We know they work with great confidence, but not quite absolute certainty, as per Goedel.
And the only reason you think they have anything to do with gods is because you’re assuming so, so if you’re using them to argue for a god, it means you don’t know very much about logic at all.
Godpoof at 142:
Wut? Yeah, I guess the law of gravity is absolute. And relative. What with it depending on mass and distance, and all.
Even the things that you think are “absolutes” are only considered “absolute” insofar as we assume to be, via induction. Even the things that you think are “absolutes” are actually malleable and conditional. Your “absolutes” aren’t absolute. They don’t prove jackshit. You are an ignorant halfwit who only has word games to rely upon and has nothing else . Because science has made your worldview archaic. The gaps that your God hides in are far too small for your liking. But they are perfectly small enough for us atheists to move along on our merry way. Don’t sweat the small stuff, ya know. But go ahead, continue your presuppositional wankery. It never hurts to have another ignorant and arrogant blowhard for the mocking. I’ll bring the popcorn and the rotten tomatoes.
Proof of God!
Does Uncle Eric know you’re doing this?
and
Which bible are you using?
Where in that bible is 2+2=4?
Somewhere near pi=3?
barnestormer #147
There is only one God; the God of the Bible. All other God were invented as counterfeits to the REAL God.
PoG, there is no way to prove your deity isn’t imaginary with philosophy/theology. Conclusive physical evidence is required. If you can’t/won’t put, if you have honesty and integrity *snicker*, you shut the fuck up.
Poofy
But were you there far that revelation? Because otherwise you are just trusting The Word of MAn who say that the Bible is the Word of Gawd. I don’t have enough Faith in Man to have Faith in the Bible and through that have Faith in God. It all is very backwards, but that’s how you fundies like it. You like to have your selective faith, your foregone conclusions, your assumptions, your presuppositions. Because as much as you accredit logic to your God, you sure as fuck ain’t gonna dare to use logic! That’s for icky heathens! Real True Christians just rely on Assumption (i.e. Faith) all the way down! They don’t worry about petty things like facts or evidence! They have The Troof so they don’t have to worry about determining the truth!
chigau (違う) #151
There is only ONE Bible. The Bible is fully and completely inspired by the Holy Spirit. 2 Timothy 3:15-17
God’s 100 Proof:
How do you know? Is it possible that you are wrong?
(Actual correct answer: You aren’t wrong, but you fail to even consider the possibility that the same criticism could be levelled against your religion. Because you are disingenuous, self-centered, narrow-minded, myopic, little thrall to one of the stupidest ideologies currently in existence)
Logic-proof for God at 155
Do you deny the existence of alternative translations for Teh Jeebus Novel? Are you really that ignorant?
LOGICAL FALLACY. You can’t quote the babble to prove the babble. That, like your imaginary deity, requires real and conclusive physical evidence. Try for showing that the exodus actually occurred, using Egyptian records, and archeological evidence from the Sinai. Or shut the fuck up, like liars and bullshitters should do when exposed…..
1. Which bible?
2. your proof of this is what? Were you there at the creation of each and every single other god?
3. What does it mean to say your god is “real” when your god is not sufficiently part of reality to speak to reality’s inhabitants or answer those inhabitant’s prayers?
4. If by the bible you mean your god murdered millions and ordered followers to murder 10s of thousands more, even if that god existed, why should we give that god the time of day, much less worship?
Math is absolute! 2 + 2 = 4! And 1 + 1 + 1 = 1! GAAAAAAAAWWWWWDDDD!
Proof of God
There are more than 500 versions of THE BIBLE in English alone.
Whoever has been telling you that there is OnlyOne™ is lying.
Bearing False Witness.
Sinning.
Someone a while back inquired about the origins of Satan as the rebel angel. Per the Pfft!, it appears that the Canaanite legend of the morning star trying to overthrow the king of gods drifted into Hebrew theology, metamorphosing into Satan, the angel associated with the morning star. That particular bit of theology was retained by the Essenes, in turn a strong influence on early Christianity, but didn’t make it inti the traditions of Rabbinic Judaism, ancestral to modern practice.
@proof of god:
Well, the Pfft! of all knowledge would disagree:
Of course, the Pfft! actually cites some sources that are useful for their attention to evidence. Not least is source [1] noted above: Riches, John (2000). The Bible: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 7–8. ISBN 978-0-19-285343-1.
You might take a gander at it.
anteprepro #154
How do you know there is such a thing as the law of gravity? Don’t you just have faith in what science tells you? After all you cannot SEE the law of gravity
152
Proof of God
But gods existed waaaaay before the Bible. So how could they counterfeit your god when he didn’t even exist then?
Doesn’t that make yours the copy-cat? After all, haven’t you noticed the similarities between gods and their religious tales?
anteprepro
I think maybe you should stop using ‘poof’ to insult Proof of God.
@everyone except PoG:
I just thought I’d take a moment to help you all laugh so hard you choke on your tongue – hopefully without permanent hypoxic effects.
Proof of God #164
… gravity …
Now you’re just trolling.
An Alert is in the chamber.
PoG, you have to provide links to legitimate sources outside of yourself, as we are utterly and totally skeptical of everything you claim.
Example, if I wanted to show as evidence for evolution, random mutation (Lenski 1, Lenski 2) and natural selection (Schneider). That’s called third party evidence.
Your turn to do the same for all deity/babble related claims…..
I’m waiting *snicker*.
Assertion of God at 164:
And you can’t see smells. Therefore, you must HAVE FAITH to believe in smells! Therefore, Odin is real. Checkmate.
chigau:
Crap, it’s some kind of sexual slang insult isn’t it? That slipped my mind…
@155
Did you just try to use the Bible to prove that the Bible is true?
Faith is belief without evidence. Science provides the evidence, so it is all conclusions based upon the evidence. You are one ignorant asshole.
Delusion of God vomited @ 135 :
Math and logic are human inventions DESCRIBING how the universe behaves.
What is your EVIDENCE that 1) A Magical Sky Pixie exists, 2) YOUR ridiculous interpretation of one particular collection of superhero stories is correct and 3) that YOUR Magical Sky Pixie is actually REQUIRED for math and logic to be eternal/valid.
If they have always existed, there is no reason to invoke a Magical Sky Pixie to create them.
If they are unchanging, there is no need to invoke a Magical Sky Pixie to maintain them.
If you are right, your Magical Sky Pixie is IRRELEVANT; if you are wrong, your arguments are baseless and vapid (AND your Magical Sky Pixie is irrelevant).
2 + 2 = 10 in base 4; 2 + 2 = 11 in base 3.
Mainly because they are self-evident and necessarily true – only a demented f*ckwit would claim that the Law of Identity (True statements are true) is up for debate !
Or requires the continued existence of one particular Magical Sky Pixie to be true.
Again, twit : if the laws of logic have always existed, there is no point in claiming they were invented or implemented by a Magical Sky Pixie; if they are unchanging, they do not require the constant attention of a Magical Sky Pixie.
If your evidence-free blubberings were right, your Magical Sky Pixie is irrelevant. Merely a Post-It Note slapped onto reality in a pathetic attempt to give credit where it is not due.
If you are wrong, your blubberings are vapid and baseless – just like your assertions about what your Magical Sky Pixie did or did not do.
Yet you seem to think it perfectly reasonable to claim that the ONLY reason gravity works is because it is overseen by one particular unevidenced Magical Sky Pixie …
The FORCE of gravity has always existed; a DESCRIPTION of how it acts did not. The ‘Laws’ of nature are DESCRIPTIONS of how nature behaves – if gravity behaved differently, the Law of Gravity would be different.
Here’s a question you won’t answer :
How does one DETERMINE if a ‘truth’ they uncover actually IS an absolute ?
(and no, paging through the Holey Babble to see if something somewhere sorta fits what you need to be true is not a valid procedure)
Do you need evidence to prove that you are alive? Do you need a doctor to tell you that you alive? It is self evident, you don’t need any proof that you exist, you don’t need someone else to tell you that you are alive.
JAL: Snark, Sarcasm & Bitterness #165
I repeat: there is only one God. God has always existed. He did not come into being when the Bible was written. All other gods were “invented” by corrupt humans. Do you believe in absolute truth? Without God there is no such thing as absolute truth.
174 impact
That is something you can observe. God is not. If you believe otherwise:
HOW DO WE OBSERVE GOD. And how do we know that is, without a doubt, God we are observing. How do we know it isn’t a delusion. How do we know it isn’t just selection bias or seeing patterns where there are none, as we know humans do often. How do we know it isn’t a completely God than the Christian God. How do we know it isn’t something supernatural altogether different from a god. HOW DO YOU KNOW.
impact #174
If your god were as self evident as this, there wouldn’t be these people called atheists who don’t believe it exists, now would there?
Try again. With evidence. Or at least something vaguely approaching logic.
All gods were invented by humans. You just believe your god is special because he’s the one your parents taught you about.
If you had not been raised as a Christian, what reason would you have to believe in God? Why would you believe someone who tried to tell you the Bible was the true word of God?
Proof of God #175
How do you know this to be true?
Proof of God at 175: Yes, you do indeed repeat. It is tiresome. We don’t give a shit about what you assume to be true. If you actually reasoning and evidence, give them. If you just have bald assertions, then your job is done here and you can move right along. Repeating them an extra three dozen times isn’t going to have much effect. Thanks in advance.
PoG@135:
.
If (as you say)
wouldn’t your god want us to know about them? Please, show us where they are completely described in the bible.
Depends on the system of math used. Doesn’t have to if it is addition of vectors.
.
Gravity is a physical force, the “law of gravity” describes it’s effects. Logic is a method of reasoning conducted according to strict principles of validity. Can you really not see the difference? Just wondering, but if the law of gravity isn’t described in detail in the bible (any of the many different versions) then how do you know it exists?
.
Absolute truth does not exist
.
.
.
and that’s the absolute truth.
Unevidenced assertions, dismissed without evidence. You lose loser.
Since there is no absolute TRUTH, there is no imaginary deity. Physical evidence is required loser of losers….
All explained by the theory of evolution, and the rise of consciousness from there…..Another loser of losers….
The Quran says it’s true and surely Allah wouldn’t lie. Likewise the Vedas, particularly the Bhagavad Gita and Ramayana, say they’re the true word of the gods. The Tripitaka is the word of the Buddha along with later commentaries, however Mahayana Buddhism adds the Sutras (which are mainly Mahayana concepts) and Tibetan Buddhists also hold the Book of the Dead as being sacred. Joseph Smith dictated the Book of Mormon while talking through his hat (literally) and convinced a bunch of people that his book was the word of God.
Every “holy book” says that it’s the “True Word of God(s)” and the believers of each religion believe this to be true.
It was neither; it was made by humans to describe how gravity works. Gravity always existed, the Law of Gravity is a post facto human construct.
Nothing stealthy about it. They got into the candy cupboard. Thought they all had their sugar crash a few hours ago, but I guess there’s still a straggler or two.
Is Eric the one who gives class credit for this or am I thinking of someone else?
Lots of very earnest-sounding adults raised them to know it. Probably worked themselves up into a sugar high about it at some point too, which reinforced it.
Daz: Experiencing A Slight Gravitas Shortfall #179
How do you “know” it to not be true? Do you believe in absolute truth? Without God there is no absolute truth.
Proof of God @175
No, we don’t believe in absolute truth. The only people who claim to know absolute truth are theists. Unfortunately each separate sect, cult and creed have their own absolute truth which conflicts with everyone else’s absolute truth. So how can we know your absolute truth is truthier than the Pope’s absolute truth or the Grand Mullah’s absolute truth?
Here, I know you Hovindites must be feeling out numbered right now, since you aren’t at Full Swarm Of Buzzard capacity right now. So here, let me just simulate a reinforcement for you. I know I can’t tell the difference! And now you can feel like you recruited a new member to your cult today too! Yaaaay imagination!
187
Bald assertion is bald. I know you beliebers think that this is Troo and Obvious with your wittle hearts, but it really has never been successfully argued. It’s just an assumption. Do you actually have a case that this statement is true? Show your work, Proofiness.
You deity is imaginary existing only in your mind. You have failed the test to have honesty and integrity. The null hypothesis for anything you say is that you are a liar and bullshitter, unless backed by a link to the peer reviewed scientific literature…..
You couldn’t put up, you won’t shut the fuck up. You brought it upon yourself…..
I don’t “know” that unicorns don’t exist, but I’ve never seen any reason to believe they’re real. God’s the same way. Why are you so CERTAIN that your God exists? and all of the other Gods that man has thought up (and have just as much evidence in their favor as yours) are fake?
Al Dente #188
Could you be wrong about that? Out of all the knowledge in the universe how much do you think you possess?
176-anteprepro
If I could prove to you, to you satisfaction, that my God of the Bible does indeed exist would you worship Him?
You apparently nothing. Either provide third party evidence liar and bullshitter, or shut the fuck up. You have nothing but your delusions…..
@194
If your God did exist, I still wouldn’t count him worthy of worship.
Proof of God #187
Answer the question. You’re making two assertions here.
1: That a god exists.
2: That absolute truth cannot exist without that god.
Show your working. How did you reach these conclusions?
U Frood #192
Without God we can’t know anything.
193 Proofiness
What makes you think that humanity’s collective lack of knowledge justifies God’s existence? Why does a blind spot prove angels? Why does a margin of error prove Satan? Why does the existence of a gap prove that a god must exist to fill it?
If you have some actual evidence, some actual logic, share it. If all you have is the kind of sophistry and JAQing off we’ve seen so far…then fuck off.
Proof of God @193
Since you argue that all knowledge is unattainable, it’s more reasonable that we don’t have and cannot have absolute truth than that we do. I know I’m ignorant about many things and it’s most likely that I’m ignorant about your “absolute truth”, whatever the fuck that might be. It’s equally likely you’re also ignorant about it.
Also you need to define what “absolute truth” is before we can discuss this further.
impact #194
Worship the monster who drowned an entire planet in a fit of pique? I’d spit in the bastard’s face.
impact 194
If you somehow prove that God exists and is good, then probably. Good fucking luck. The Bible is liability, not an asset, in that regard.
anteprepro #199
Answer the question please. Of all the knowledge in the universe, how much do YOU think you possess?
181
Ray, rude-ass yankee
This has always bothered me. Before I gave up trying to force belief in god, I wanted to know “Why the fuck did he tell us this worthless shit, instead of helping and advancing humanity through knowledge?” No, instead he goes on a rampage and justifies horrific crimes.
That doubt along with the information I learned here is what freed me from the guilt-ridden shackles of religion.
And ignorant godbots, you link to evidence by either supplying the full url like this:
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/279/13/1005.full.pdf
Or you add it to a sentence like this: Evidence that <a href =”http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/279/13/1005.full.pdf”>Therapeutic Touch was refuted by a thirteen-year old</a>. , which comes out like this: evidence that Therapeutic Touch as refuted by a thirteen-year old. Take it outside of you word, which is bullshit.
177-Daz: Experiencing A Slight Gravitas Shortfall
Romans 1:20 “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.” everyone knows God exists but many chose to deny Him.
impact @194
Worship your sadist, bullying asshole of a god? Are you fucking nuts? I wouldn’t worship a being who kills people just because he can. I’ve read the Bible from cover to cover. According to your own propaganda your god is a narcissistic thug. If (and that’s a big IF) it exists it isn’t worthy of my worship.
Proof of God is now demanding that I answer their questions? While explicitly ignoring mine? Hahahaha. Go fuck yourself, you self-important little shit.
Since you deity doesn’t exist, it is an irrelevant question. You lose loser….
@haroldweasley
You say it’s ok if he tortures you on a whim because it’s a god? Where is your self respect? Why do you have so little value of yourself? Why do you have a slave mentality?
I am not a slave. I am no one’s slave. I will not submit to your god. Someone once said that if god did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him. I say that if your god existed, it would be necessary to destroy it. Nuke god! If I fail, at least I have the knowledge that I am morally superior to your god, and I. Die. Free!
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IDieFree
Live free or die. – Official state motto of New Hampshire
Give me liberty, or give me death! – Part of a speech which arguably caused Virginia to join the war against the tyrrany of the British.
…
@thebackrowstudents
This is asking for a measure of confidence in a proposition. Confidence is a measure, a metric. This metric exists only in certain well-defined axiomatic frameworks.
I define what it means to have confidence in a proposition according to my starting values of reason, logic, science, humanism, etc. It’s improper to say that I have confidence in these starting values, because that implies that I’m open to changing them. That implies that they are conclusions. I am not open to changing my mind on theses values. These values are not conclusions. These values are needed to even define what a conclusion is!
It’s not a matter of how I justify these. I will do these, and there is nothing you can say to convince me otherwise. You cannot reason me out of using reason. You cannot form a logical argument for me to abandon logic. You cannot present evidence to convince me to abandon using evidence.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma
…
@impact
Every time you appeal to logic and reason, you are appealing to the Flying Spaghetti Monster! What do you say to that? /snark
When dealing with a presuppositionalist, often the only tactic is: I’m sorry, I do not accept your naked unjustified assertion. I do not accept that I have to believe in your god to use logic. You asserted that nakedly, without justification of any kind, and as such, it is not compelling to me.
Let me answer that.
Never.
I am no one’s slave. I worship no thing. Such a good and powerful creature may be able to earn my respect and my thanks, but never worship.
…
@Proof of God
The scientific theory of gravity is a convenient model to describe the world around me. That’s all I want. That’s all I need. I can’t “see gravity”, but I can sure as hell see this hammer fall when I release it.
Citations please. If you provide your bible, citation please that the bible is something other than fiction.
…
@anuran
Going for Gödel? Being complete. Ability to prove consistency of the whole thing.
Al Dente #200
Absolute truth is: truth that is absolutely true, no matter what. It is always (absolutely) true. Knowledge is attainable.
impact @206
Quoting the Bible to prove the Bible doesn’t work with us. Try actual evidence instead of made up bullshit.
Prove it.
Daz asks for logic or evidence. impact at 206 responds with a Bible quote. We are truly dealing with intellectuals of the highest caliber today, people.
Pennsylvanians 5:23 “And the Christians will quote their holy book as proof of its own truth. And no one will be convinced.”
@ 152 Proof of God
Well, I have to say I’m disappointed! The god of the Bible probably isn’t the jackwagon-y-est god ever, in the grand scheme of things, but he’s still pretty unpleasant. Still, it’s always interesting to have proof of things! Is there proof of that claim that you can share with us, or do you only have proof of the existence of Bible!god? Or are you the proof. . . somehow? Please explain further!
Quoting the babble to prove you imaginary deity or the babble is verboten (forbidden in German). You must either prove your imaginary deity exist with conclusive physical evidence, or that your babble is inerrant with physical evidence.
Let’s see what third party evidence you have provided:
.
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
*crickets chirring*
Nuff said.
impact #206
You cannot say “The Bible is in its claims about a deity true because the Bible says it is true.” That’s circular logic. (In other words bad logic)
Look, if I assert that I’m the ghost of Buddy Holly, and you ask me to prove my claim, I cannot point at this comment and say “because this here comment says I am.”
This is not difficult to understand.
#196- If you would not believe in my God anyway then why do I need to try to prove Him to you that he exists.
Proof of God @211
This is a prime example of the logical fallacy called “begging the question.” You cannot define absolute truth as “truth that is absolutely true.” You need to define “absolute” and “truth” and then show the relationship between the two concepts.
Try again.
POGlet:
Oh, you poor little Cupcake. Your god is a serious latecomer, as far as gods go, a mere stripling. Perhaps that explains why it happens to be such an immature, angry, petty, jealous, and all around nasty bit of goods. Do some reading here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deities
People have been inventing gods for a very long time, Sweetpea. And here’s the thing: out of all the gods that ever were, you have no idea if you’ve gone and picked the right one.
Umm please imagine my 218 with added grammar. Thank you.
Doesn’t exist, as your deity is imaginary. You repeat unevidenced claims, I refute the same claims with the same lack of evidence on your part.
Change your argument to change the result, like providing the conclusive physical evidence for your imaginary deity, or shuttting the fuck up….
219 impact
Wow, you are fucking unbelievably dishonest. Your question was whether we would worship God if you proved God was real. Worship =/= Believe in.
219
impact
To prove that you are right of course. You’ve just admitted you don’t care about truth, but want to recruit. Fuck your proselytizing.
@219 impact
You’re the one that came to us, dude.
But you may want to prove his existence to yourself. That is, if you don’t want to be a gullible sap your whole life, manipulated by priests and rabbis and clerics all the time. Filled with conservative prejudices and hatred toward their fellow man. Be free of all that crap, man.
Cupcake, you either have honesty and integrity or you don’t. If you do, providen conclusive physical evidence for it. It you don’t, shut the fuck up, as a loser of losers should.
If you can’t put up, and won’t shut the fuck up, you tacitly are acknowledging you are nothing but a con-man, a liar and bullshitter.
impact #219
except U Frood didn’t say that. U Frood said that even if they believed in it, they wouldn’t worship that deity.
Were you born this dishonest, or did you take a course? (I’m betting you passed with flying colours.)
impact:
No. Your god is an ugly, petty, jealous, angry, bloodthirsty asshole, to say the very least. You see, I have read the bible, more than once, all the way through. I’ve read more than one version of the bible. I’ve read it in languages other than English. Your god is not only evil, it is one serious fuck up. If that god of yours showed up on my doorstep and provided irrefutable evidence, I’d believe it existed. Worship it? No, never.
This quote is attributed to Marcus Aurelius, and it speaks well:
@consciousness razor
https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2014/03/22/thunderdome-43/comment-page-2/#comment-773017
You seem rather thick. Surely you’ve read or watched Sam Harris at least a little bit. In fact, I’ve even explained his position quite clearly for you. What you said is blatant ignorance or dishonesty. Ignorance for forgetting it so quickly. Dishonesty for pretending to not remember, or not give this new guy the benefit of the doubt and apply Sam Harris’s reasoning.
Do you need a link to my previous explanation? Will you read it this time?
The proof is of course the holy spirit has to reveal it to you, else you are a wicked depraved god denier who deserves hell. Proofs are only rationalizations to buttress you’re self conceited presuppositions anyway. At least that’s what I got out of reading the so-called king of Christian apologetics William Lane Craig in his Reasonable Faith book. Proof phewy. You just need the holy spirit and total gullibility will supply the rest.
228 Daz
Why do you think impact is hanging out in The Hovind Hovel? Gotta learn how to get their Smarm on.
Catching up on the threads. 2 more posts.
@Tomas C.
There are many, many problems with your position. I agree that taxes are collected with violence. I agree that forcing someone to testimony in court in someone else’s court case is done by violence. However, I simply disagree with your starting principle that violence is always bad. I care about the happiness, safety, self-determination, well-being, and freedom of people (and the other values of humanism). This narrowly constrained version of freedom is not paramount in my world view.
To put it in perspective: In today’s society, if there was a armed guy resisting the police who are trying to take his property for tax evasion, and he’s shooting at the police, and his expressed reason for not paying taxes is because it goes to food stamps, then I’d shoot him myself. (This is in assumption that I’m a police officer, acting under usual operating procedures for dealing with someone shooting at me, which I assume is to shoot them.)
In certain well-defined situations, I am more than willing to initiate the use of force. You cannot be a decent and caring human being if not. You cannot be a decent and caring human being if you are against food stamps. Perhaps many don’t fully appreciate what this involves. I’ve taken the time to think about it. I appreciate that this is the moral equivalent of shooting that guy, and I have concluded that I would shoot him (under this very specific scenario where lots of little things matter a lot). I am not a pacifist. Pacifism is morally unjustifiable. “All it takes for evil to flourish is for good people to do nothing.”
Why have I come to this conclusion? Why am I willing to shoot someone? Because if I didn’t, there would be even more violence and misery and human suffering. I choose the path of least evil. It is unfortunate that the laws of physics necessitate violence, but I accept the universe as it is, rather than make believe it is something else.
Inaji #221
There is only one God. I do not have to “pick” one hoping I got it right.
For the True Believers, they are equal. Also, the Bible is true because the Bible is true. It’s pretty much all unquestioned assumptions piled on unquestioned assumptions. And all for some silly tribal affiliation. Pretty sad and boring way to go through life.
Proof of God #234
How can I ask this so you’ll understand the question?
HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS?
You have offered nothing but bold-faced assertion.
Proofiness
And how do you know there is only one God? How do you know that the one God is question is the God of Christianity? How do you know that your given version of Christianity has the correct interpretation of the Bible and of God’s nature? These are not trivial questions. And they completely undermine your belief system because you have no answers to them. Don’t worry, as sad and pathetic as it is, you are not alone! Most Christians can’t answer these questions! Because are religious due to cultural inertia, emotional blackmail, and indoctrination, rather due to actual logic or thought.
Here’s the question: Could you be wrong about everything you think you know?
@234
Proof of God
your assertion that you know which god is without support.
please provide support instead of just asserting.
@Amphiox
https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2014/03/22/thunderdome-43/comment-page-1/#comment-771649
When my goal is to hurt someone, you’re saying I shouldn’t hurt someone? Ha!
Again, ridicule and shame are required weapons in our fight. One should not use them always, or even frequently, but they are a indispensible weapon in our fight against ignorance and willful delusion. Sometimes, in order to help someone, the best way is to hurt them by setting up a cognitive dissonance to make them question their beliefs. I simply laugh at your suggestion that we should never hurt people’s feelings. It’s … a really bad idea.
So, I laugh in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.
Go ahead. I’m sure you can find some sexist or racist or ableist reference in there if you look hard enough. I have no time for those who do their damnest to find reasons to be insulted, and to then try to censor others because they’re afraid of the mere obscure hypothetical possibility that someone might be offended.
Note that this is different than defending the use of racial slurs, or ableist slurs, etc.
…
For everyone else. A working culture needs to value being intelligent, using reason, and making your beliefs match the evidence. Thus, we need to devalue, stigmatize, and ridicule those who could do better, but expressly choose not to. If someone has a strongly held belief in contradiction with all known evidence, sometimes we need to make fun of them for that.
The problem that I am forever going to face with people like some of those here is the absolutely unavoidable association between 1- making fun of people with mental illness, and 2- making fun of people who don’t do their research, who are oblivious to their confirmation bias, who have faith, and so on. My problem is that I don’t think it’s possible to avoid the first while doing the second according to the strict standards put forth (especially the obscene standard that I need to respect everyone who says “that offends me” no matter what that is).
Any word or phrase I use to describe these negative behaviors, thought processes, and beliefs, targeted at the intelligent people who are behaving or thinking badly, will have inevitable spill-over to the mental handicapped. How can I possibly make fun of an intelligent person who uses faith without also having spillover on paranoid schizophrenics? I’m going to be making fun of the intelligent person for having behavior and symptoms like that of the paranoid schizophrenic, and thus invariably the words I use will be applicable to both, and thus invariably hyper-vigilitant word police like yourselves will take issue.
This is what I’ve learned: When someone uses faith to practice faith healing and their child dies instead of seeking medical attention, I cannot say “you’re insane” nor “that was insane”. I can’t say that “you’re delusional for believing that faith healing would work”. If they hear god talking to them, I can’t say “you’re hallucinating.”
However, I can say: “You are exhibiting behavior which indicates that you are not comporting your beliefs with reality. You hold strongly to beliefs, despite all evidence to the contrary. You refuse to listen to reason. You may even hear voices in your head which are not the result of real audio phenomenon. Overall, I seriously and gravely question your ability to be a functioning member of society because of this impairments to your ability to reason about the world around you. In fact, I think it is getting close to the point where you need to be forcibly restrained for your own safety and the safety of others.”
Is that last version really any better at avoiding stigmatizing people with mental illness? Contra to other people’s assertions, the difference is just the words. There’s nothing more ableist than saying “you purport to hear voices which are not the result of real audio phenomena” and “you purport to hallucinate”, except any possible negative connotation which brings stigmatization. I’m describing exactly the same things, and making negative value judgments about exactly the same things.
If I avoid your taboo words, I can make my point, but it lacks the punch because I have to avoid those words with strong negative connotations. I suspect that every word I can possibly find which will have a strong visceral reaction will be poo-pooed by the word police precisely because it invokes such a strong visceral reaction, and the word police will then associate that with the disadvantaged group.
At this point, you’re not protecting anyone from offense or stigmatization. You’re actively trying to be offended. I generally hate the “freeze speech!” crowd for completely missing the point, but here it is applicable. The “freeze speech!” crowd also think that free speech includes a right against criticism and being offended. Here, I am arguing precisely that we need to criticize and offend those who “strongly hold beliefs in spite of overwhelming evidence”, who “say that they hear god speaking to them”, who “do not use reason and do not try to avoid various cognitive biases”, and so on. This is made exceedingly clear by Amphiox above.
Your standards are impossible to meet.
…
@consciousness razor
https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2014/03/22/thunderdome-43/comment-page-1/#comment-771692
For most of us rational people, belief is not a choice. Our beliefs comport with the available evidence. However, for many religious people, they can choose to believe. For them, belief is volitional. It really is a matter of make-believe. It is not ignorance to assert as true there is a god who answers prayers. Ignorance is the lack of a belief. Asserting that there is a god who answers prayers is a belief. It is a delusion. You’re the one who doesn’t understand what words mean.
And yet, in one of the first articles I found via google on ableism says exactly that. I even think it makes a compelling argument:
http://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/viewArticle/46/0
In context, what it is saying that the very use of “reasonable person” in law is ableist. They’re right. Why should the opinion of a paranoid schizophrenic be valued less in a court of law? The very use of that standard artificially creates a class separation, which allows for the ableist discrimination you’re fighting against. That standard in a court of law is an official government stamp that regular people are good, and
paranoid schizophrenics are bad.
Of course, this might just be the unreasonable extreme rad-fem equivalent to the ableist movement. I don’t know. It does seem to follow quite logically, and I cannot find any holes in that argument right now, yet the conclusion seems absurd. Should we throw out the “reasonable person” standard of law? I hope not. That means we do value reasonable people more than unreasonable people, “insane” people (not a clinical diagnosis), and paranoid schizophrenics (specifically we value their reasoning skils more, but not necessarily the person more). This means that in court, it is legally required for someone to say “I’m sorry, but your opinion is not valuable, because you are a paranoid schizophrenic.” How is this not ableist? How can we possibly survive as a society without this particular kind of ableism?
Is it ableist to show pride that I am reasonable, intelligent, and not prone to hallucination (because it implicitly puts down kids with clinical retardation and kids with paranoid schizophrenia)? Is it ableist to show pride that I do not have reading difficulties (because it implicitly puts down dyslexics)? It it ableist to compliment a young child on their success in school with math and reading? Praising someone as good at reading, as intelligent, as reasonable, as not prone to hallucination, as good at avoiding cognitive biases, etc.? We should be praising people when they display these positive traits, but necessarily by virtue of saying these are positive traits, we are being ableist.
PS:
Quoting Jackie, all dressed in black
https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2014/03/22/thunderdome-43/comment-page-2/#comment-773140
I believe this makes my case.
@ 201, Daz
Seriously! What if that were true! And dude was just going around weeping and raging, “I killed them all, but you’re alive! Why don’t you love me? I saved you, why can’t you love me?”
I mean, Stalin was real enough, but I can’t see wanting to kiss his toes.
@234 Proof
So if you didn’t pick the God you worship, you just kept believing in the one your parents taught you about?
Even after your realized how fallible your parents are?
How do you know your parents or your grandparents or your great great great grandparents didn’t pick wrong?
@238
go check out the youtube channel “knownnomore”
he has all the answers you need to your silly line of questioning.
218-Daz: Experiencing A Slight Gravitas Shortfall
How do you know circular reasoning is wrong? Is it absolutely true that circular reasoning is wrong?
238 Axiom of God
Answer your own question first, and then we’ll talk. It seems like you are very selective in your skepticism and don’t think you could err in the slightest bit. So I think you addressing this question is far more pertinent. But of course, you are dishonest and are only interested in loaded questions. Half-witted, ill-formed “gotchas”. Because you got nothing.
Easy steps:
1: You need to prove that a god exists.
Then, and only then,
2: You need to prove that the god which exists is the character described in the Bible.
Then, and only then,
3: You need to prove that the Bible contains an accurate description of that god’s wishes and commandments.
Then, and only then,
4: You need to prove that the existing god is worthy of obedience in these matters.
In that order, one step at a time.
Kinda sad for me to think that us humans, who for all our faults have done some really amazing things, couldn’t do it without some ghost whispering in our ears constantly.
Kinda weird also how God makes different people know different and contradicting things. And not even just about His nature.
(I better stop before the Hovind patrol thinks that I’m actually granting them anything about the existence of gods, or indeed doing anything other than winding them up)
@244
impact
logic and reasoning are adaptations of the brain to understand the external reality. no god required.
we have evidence of this, called evolution and all brain science.
you have nothing.
You don’t actually know what circular reasoning is, do you?
impact #244
Yep. It basically says “I’m right because I say I’m right.”
I may still be right, but “I say I’m right” doesn’t rule out the fact that I may be wrong.
really, the presuppasitionalists have to FIRST rely on their own reasoning and senses in order to read the bible etc.
the god is tacked on, it is not the foundation. it is sad that they can’t see this.
impact@194,
Not directed to me, but here’s my answer: If you could prove to my & a panel of experts satisfaction, via overwhelming evidence, that your (and only your) god existed, I would acknowledge it’s existence. But to worship the homicidal, narcissistic, incompetent, vain, petulant, genocidal, misogynistic, lying sack, of a sky tyrant that is described in your bible?
NO “F”ing WAY!
Proof of God typifies the cliche that the god you believe in depends on where you were born and what you were told.
If you were born an evangelical protestant then catholics are heathens
If you were born catholic then protestants are heathens
If you were born in the Arab world, you would praise Allah
If you were born in Utah you’d praise Joseph Smith
If you were born in ancient Canaan you’d praise Baal
If you were born an Aztec, you would sing the praises of Huitzilopochtli
By your responses you typify the blind obedience of all believers, and the willingness to jettison reason in the name of your particular tribal god. So fucking typical.
It’s like talking to a five-year old who kinda knows some of Daddy’s big words.
240
EnlightenmentLiberal
It’s quite fucking easy to not cause splash damage. The Horde does is all the fucking time and they ridicule, mock and insult people far better than you. Falling back on such insults like “retarded” just shows how fucking stunted you are that you can’t think farther than that.
By the way, my mother’s husband is an actual paranoid schizophrenic. You have no idea what’s it is like being him or caring for him. It fucking matters what word you use. Because his problems are not the same as just believing in outrageous things. It wasn’t taught to him by family or supported by society, it’s his actual fucking brain that’s betraying him. It’s so goddamn awful and painful to see.
Go fuck yourself, you ablist status-quo supporting asshole.
Daz: Experiencing A Slight Gravitas Shortfall #236
A short list of verses showing there is only one God: Isaiah 45:5, Isaiah 46:9, 1 Timothy 2:5, John 17:3…
it all comes down to that question that the 12 year old kid (or whatever) owned hovind with.
if you are not omniscient, then you can’t be sure of god. not just in one way, but in two ways 1) his existence 2) trusting his supposed telepathy.
so the only option for us non-omniscient is to use evidence. but there is none for god.
Enlightenment Liberal 240:
Splash. Damage.
You are inches away from baaaawing about political correctness. Say hi to Chas for us.
Also: Nice attempt at e-psychiatry. But don’t quit your day job.
Except not, because conventional religious is specifically given a little leeway when it comes to diagnosing mental illness. Why? CULTURE. People believe irrational things more easily if their culture normalizes that particular set of irrational beliefs. Oh, whine and cry as much you like about free speech and your right to label people with whatever mental illness you so please, but the actual professionals in the matter do think that cultural religious climate is a mitigating factor in determining whether a person is actually delusional or not. So, you are the one who doesn’t understand what the word means! Congratulations! When can we start calling you willfully ignorant on the subject?
@JAL: Snark, Sarcasm & Bitterness
It’s really not. I’m sure that for any sort of visceral rebuke against a Christian who let their kid die because faith healing, you will see your mother’s husband in my rebuke. It’s unavoidable.
@256
Proof of God
LOL!
yes, and harry potter books “show” that there are flying brooms and stuff.
Proof of God
Read this.
impact and Proof of God
It is not possible that y’all are not aware of the existance of many versions of TheBible.
WHICH ONE DO YOU USE?
Just answer the question.
@anteprepro
So do I.
Nice attempt, but non-sequitur. It does nothing to address the earlier point I made with that phrase about how “ignorance” is not a proper label for having a positive false belief hold strongly in spite of overwhelming evidence.
@ Proof of God, I’ve been scrolling up and down looking for the part where you provide proof of god, but all I’ve found are unsupported assertions and repetitive questions that don’t really seem relevant. Could you please direct me to the proof? There have been several good descriptions here of what “proof” might entail.
I hate to be mean, but I was really excited by the prospect of finally seeing some proof of god, and now every time I see your nym I feel a little twinge of disappointment that no proof is forthcoming.
Please break out the real proof so we can all enjoy it and, if necessary, start making plans for the prosecution of the war criminal El Shaddai for crimes against humanity. Thanks!
259
EnlightenmentLiberal
NO. We’ve had thread like that, and guess what? Not everyone is an asshole like you. Lurk more, learn something.
Verses showing there is more than one god.
Of course, there are other books out there.
If I write down the ramblings of the homeless man on the corner, does that make them true?
anteprepro #245
If I did not know God then, yes I could be wrong about everything I think I know. However, God has always existed, knows all things, and has revealed these things in the Bible. Without God one could not know anything for certain.
Enlightenment Liberal
Nice attempt, but it does nothing to address the fact that “ignorance” fits well enough without inappropriately adding further stigma to mental illness.
But I’m so glad that your desire to maximize rhetorical impact takes priority over such petty things as that. You’re a real fucking winner.
@268
Proof of God
well, “proof of god”, where is your proof?
???
Again, do you think I should be upset that you think I’m an asshole? Sure, I should feel shame if I’m actually contributing to the stigmatization of disabled people, but my last few posts have clearly not been doing that. So, I feel no shame. I do feel a little pity for your silly, silly notions.
224, 225, 226, 227,228, 229. If you actually truly believed (accepted) God then you would worship Him, so the two terms go together. So by admitting that you would not worship God you said that you would not believe (accept) God. God was first and all comes from God, therefore everything that exists is proof that God exists and yet you will not believe.
Enlightenment Liberal
” Nice attempt, but non-sequitur. It does nothing to address the earlier point I made with that phrase about how “ignorance” is not a proper label for having a positive false belief hold strongly in spite of overwhelming evidence. ”
i already told you that you can say unreasonable or irrational. i’m pretty sure those are accurate.
impact@206, shorter impact: *waves hands*, *points at bible*, POOF! *god*
impact@219
Read that comment again, please. U Frood@196 didn’t say he wouldn’t acknowledge the existence of your god, just that it is not worthy of worship even if it did exist.
You don’t know your imaginary deity, as it doesn’t exist. Your testament is nothing but bullshit, as you are a confirmed liar and bullshitter. You must provide third party evidence from the peer reviewed scientific literature, which you are unable to do as it doesn’t exist. All you have is your delusions, which we don’t have to share. Keep them to yourself…elsewhere….
barnestormer #264
If I showed you proof of God beyond question would you believe in Him?
impact #272
Do you worship Joseph Stalin?
How do you know this? (And no, passages from the Bible are not evidence that Bible passages are true.)
Ok, then I wouldn’t truly accept it. I would accept as true that it existed with these general properties, but I would never worship it. Furthermore, if it resembled the description in your bible, then I would seek its destruction. Nuke god!
@272
impact
do not equivocate. there is a difference between:
1) thinking that an entity which is called god exists
2) thinking that entity should be worshiped.
Please acknowledge the difference.
Proof
Irrelevant. You don’t know what God knows. Your knowledge is still fallible. Your knowledge of God is fallible. Your knowledge of the Bible is fallible. Your knowledge that the Bible is a revelation from God is fallible. Even if we presume that God exists, you still are fallible. He’s the one with the absolute knowledge, not you. Fallible humans wrote the Bible, fallible humans chose the books in it, fallible humans preserved it, fallible humans translate it, and fallible humans interpret it and teach you The One True Way in Sunday School. That remains true whether or not God exists. That uncertainty and room for error exists whether or not God exists. To deny that is to blatantly deny reality. Which I’m sure to you is like brushing your teeth.
Your deity is imaginary. Provide conclusive physical evidence for it, or shut the fuck up, as you are nothing but a presuppositional liar and bullshitter, to be ignored until they go outside of themselves to real evidence…like the peer reviewed scientific literature….
EnlightenmentLiberal
Here in Pharyngula, don’t use mental illness as an insult.
Do you understand?
@272
impact
i’d be willing to accept this if you could show that it is true.
but all you are doing is asserting.
271
EnlightenmentLiberal
By defending the use and the saying you’ll say those things again, you are stigmatizing disabled people.
Shove your pity, you condescending asshole. I don’t care that you don’t feel bad, though you should. I’m telling you, you are wrong and hurtful. That’s the point. It’s not all about you either. Someone has to shout down this bullshit.
impact and Proof of God
It is not possible that y’all are not aware of the existance of many versions of TheBible.
WHICH ONE DO YOU USE?
Just answer the question.
…
Bonus question
In which language did god write the bible?
PoG
Well there you go. Since there is no such thing as absolute truth there obviously isn’t any god. There is only Absolute Delusion as taught to you during your most impressionable years of life..
As for your assertion that 2 + 2 = 4 is an absolute truth, have you ever tried to collect real objects to add them up? Ever noticed how real objects are never 100.00000000% identical? Reality deals in the balance of evidence, not assertions of infallibility.
Nope. I’m trying to understand, but the more I understand, the more I am convinced that it’s impossible to do, self destructive to do, and enforcement is wildly arbitrary and variable.
You want to take a shot at my post? How is “calling someone unreasonable” not ableist? The purpose of the legal standard “a reasonable person” is expressly to rule out those with mental illnesses. Is it not an insult to say that their opinion is not valued in court? I’m sorry, but there is no nice way – no non-insulting way – to say “I’m sorry, but due to your mental condition your opinion and life experiences are not valued in this context.” However, it also needs to be said.
Would you also think I’m stigmatizing black people when I defend the KKK’s right to speak on public streets? I don’t think you know what stigmatizing means. Or, alternatively, your bar is set so obscenely low that it will trigger whenever you want it to trigger.
You have been told by many people that your language is hurtful. At this point, maybe you should just accept that as a given, and stop making all this fuss about being asked to forgo the use of one single fucking word.
Proof of God@238,
.
No.
288
EnlightenmentLiberal
Don’t move the goal posts. This isn’t about defending other bigots right to free speech without government intervention.
You have used and will continue to use such insults like retarded. You think it’s perfectly fine if other say it as well. You are stigmatizing disabled people.
Enlightenment Liberal is either being willfully obtuse or is one of the most laughably, pig-ignorant people I’ve ever seen. This isn’t that hard, unless you are trying to be a fucking handwringing pedant.
DO NOT USE MEDICAL DIAGNOSES AS INSULTS
DO NOT USE MENTAL HEALTH DIAGNOSES AS INSULTS
DO NOT USE SLURS RELATED TO ABOVE.
That’s it. Enough with the fucking dishonest hairsplitting!
Here’s a proof of god.
I mentally masterbate that this god is the greatest super duperest being that could ever exist. This guy answers my prayers, makes me super rich, gives me a pretty mate and nice kids in a white neighborhood, burns everyone in hell for ever I find disagreeable or pokes fun at my cosmic solipsistic narcissism.
The real thing is better that mental masterbation.
Therefore my particular god fantasy exists. Obey or be damned.
QED
Ray, rude-ass yankee #290
Do you believe in absolute truth? If not then how can you know absolutely that your not wrong? Out of all the knowledge in the universe how much do YOU possess?
For the word “retard”, I am trying to not use it as an insult. I am making a conscious effort. You can look back and see. I would have normally used that word many times now, but I am changing.
“Insane”, I’m still debating. “Delusional” will likely remain in my vocabulary as an insult. “Unreasonable” is definitely going to remain in my vocabulary as an insult.
285 chigau
It does not matter which Bible you use. Some translations distort the Bible far beyond what God actually intended so I stay as close to the literal English translation as possible.
God inspired men to write the Bible in Hebrew, Greek, and a little Aramaic to answer your question.
…why don’t they answer?
wait, i know why.
EnlightenmentLiberal
Do you think that you are able to stop?
If so, you should.
Proof of God@256, One of the 10 commandments is: “you must have no other gods before me” obviously showing that according to your own inerrant biblical rules, other gods must exist. Q.E. freakin’ D.
Each and every human being only possess’s a fraction of all the knowledge in the universe. If I could be wrong about everything I claim to know then doesn’t it follow that I don’t really “know” anything. Unless I do know Someone who knows everything then it follows that I don’t “KNOW” anything.
EnlightenmentLiberal
1.) This is not a court. Fuck the legal context. It’s not relevant or perfect anyways.
2.) We are trying to change the way society treats disabled people, so why the fuck do you just assume we follow this?
3.) I can’t possibly see how or why you’d tell them their experiences aren’t valued. Especially not due to their mental condition. We’ve had people comment here that clearly needed help. We told them to get help and if they are known to us, we try to contact people who known them in meatspace to help. And no, we DON’T need to degrade someone due to their mental illness.
Being a decent, caring, empathetic person isn’t that hard. Really. You act so fucking superior yet you fail so miserably.
It seems like you really, really need to look down on people so you can be superior, just because of how you were born. Is that all you have? How pathetic. “Enlightened” indeed. *snort*
Proof of God and impact
As I said earlier, any student at a real Christian seminary will (reluctantly) agree that there isn’t One True Bible. None of the written versions is less than a couple centuries after the fact. There are no written eyewitness accounts.
There are quite literally thousands of contradictions in the ones we have.
The choice of what got in and what didn’t was explicitly political which is why the Gospels of Phillip and Thomas, the Acts of Timothy, dozens of Apocalypses, the Gospel of Mary Magdala, so on and so forth didn’t make the cut. At the same time it’s well-established that most of what’s attributed to Paul could not possibly have been written by him. And the only reason the epileptic murderer Saul of Tarsus even gets in is because he was a good salesman.
The Quran has infinitely better provenance.
The Eddas are better poetry and stories.
The Bharta, the Ramayana and the Vedas are better poetry and stories AND have better provenance.
We know the Sakyamuni Buddha existed, where and when he was born, what he said and what he did unlike Josh the Nazarene Carpenter cum Zealot cum Rabbi. Besides, at least a few of the Buddha’s claims are testable.
So “It’s in the Bible” cuts as much ice as a soap hacksaw.
@297
impact
how do you know that?
so what you are saying is that sometimes 2+2 does not equal 4???
impact 297
How. Do. You. Know. This?
impact
TELL US WHICH VERSION OF THE BIBLE YOU ARE USING.
and then tell us how you know that the other versions are distortions.
These godbots have a very hard time deviating from the script. Like listening to a broken record. Except even worse, because the record was just the sound of farts, roosters, yodeling, and Nazi party rallies before it broke.
296
EnlightenmentLiberal
Insane and delusional are included in insults like retarded. Unreasonable is only brought up by you because you cling to such black and white thinking, needing The Law to back you up.
Who made the laws? Have they been wrong and changed before?….So why the fuck do you think that matters or helps you?
@impact
Do you believe in the devil?
So you’re saying that we should abandon the reasonable person standard of law? And that paranoid schizophrenics should be allowed to sit on juries and such?
“You’re being unreasonable” is appealing to some sort of “unreasonableness” which is “mental illness” by another word. It is ableist. It is saying that if you are not using reason, then it is a bad thing.
God inspired men, bla bla bla, of course of course, it has to be men, things that come out of ribs can’t be inspired.
anteprepro (#308)
I was just about to make a similar comment. Minus the funny record analogy. It’s really striking, though, isn’t it? They cannot process answers that deviate from what the script tells them they’ll be getting.
311
EnlightenmentLiberal
That is not the fucking issue here.
No, it just means you aren’t using reason in your thinking on whatever subject. It doesn’t mean that they have a non-neurotypical brain or mental issues.
Proof 301:
You know about someone who knows X =/= You know X
Especially when you don’t actually know what that someone else knows.
If you think that knowledge can easily transfer from one person to another without incident, you know nothing about education, or the human mind. Flat out denialism at work.
2 + 2 = 5 with sufficient torture. Ask Winston Smith or the thousands of heretics put through the rack or fires through the ages.
It totally is. In many circumstances, calling someone unreasonable is the effective equivalent of saying that they have a mental illness. I gave one. I even have scholarly articles on ableism backing me up here. It is discriminatory against mentally disabled people to say that they are not allowed to participate in the legal process. It is stigmatizing.
I ask again, should we discriminate against some mentally disabled people for juries, for interpretation standards of law, etc.? Should we let a paranoid schizophrenic sit on a jury? (I honestly don’t know the rules for that in the US. I assume there are rules for excluding them, as it should be.)
Every time someone refers to the “reasonable person” standard of law, it is ableist. By all I can tell here, it is an ableist slur. It that context, it means exactly the same thing as “non-insane people”.
313 A Noyd
Yeah, they very desperately are clinging to it. It’s strange, I don’t quite understand it. I don’t know why they bother. It’s like they see how reality isn’t meeting their expectations and instead of walking away and readjusting their expectations, they try to just keep pushing forward and see if they can eventually get reality to conform to their desires. It’s the purest form of stubbornness. It’s intriguing, like a trainwreck. Truly baffling.
Ray, rude-ass yankee #300
A god is anything you set up as authority. If I worship money then I have made money my God. The 1st Commandment does not say there are other gods. It says you shall not set up for yourselves any other god.
Do you believe in absolute truth?
If truth is relevant then what you say is right. However, truth is not relevant. There is such a thing as absolute truth. Rape is always wrong no matter what. Even if society approves of rape, it is still wrong in God’s eyes.
Enlightenment Liberal, quit while you’re behind.
@301
Proof of God
you just discovered agnosticism. congratulations.
this doesn’t make your god story true.
in case you are worried about agnosticism, 100% knowledge is not needed. there are no worries. think about your bank account. even though you believe in god, you CANNOT know for certain that it has not been robbed.
think that over and you will see two things. 1) your god would be redundant even if it existed. 2) agnosticism is true, you know that you are not omnicient, therefore your god magic idea is incoherent.
Now by Calvinball rules, you must sing the “I’m So Sorry Song”. The score is still Q to 12!
Well, obviously.
Really, stop trying to use logic, you’re just embarrassing yourself and everybody.
@anteprepro
You’re not answering my questions. I ask again, should we discriminate against some mentally disabled people for juries, for interpretation standards of law, etc.? Should we let a paranoid schizophrenic sit on a jury?
Rey Fox @254
Before I read your comment I just had the thought that this was like playing the endless game of a three year old’s “Why?” game. They just (mis)use bigger words. At least a 3 year old wants to learn.
Rape is perfectly A-OK in gods eyes, at least according to many portions of the old testament. It’s called the booty – women and children after you have slayed all the men by the sword. Look it up, rape in the OT is perfectly acceptable to Yahweh if you’re the enemy.
Proof of God #319
This is what we call “a metaphor.”
anteprepro #320
If I may, I’d amend that:
Enlightenment Liberal, just go away.
The other weird thing that keeps coming up in these threads is the concept of “worship”. I haven’t worshiped anything in many…I don’t think I’ve ever really worshiped anything. I wouldn’t even know how to go about doing it. I think I’d just feel silly if I tried, and then go do something more constructive and/or enjoyable. Some people can’t seem to wrap their minds around it.
Guess you missed all those biblical rape verses quoted earlier in the thread.
@319
Proof of God
i recommend looking into what actual historians have discovered. if you are too lazy or dishonest to do that, maybe you could at least check out a video here to give you an idea of what you would find if you LOOKED.
Nope, your god is imaginary, existing only in your mind. It has no authority, except over you. Which is irrelevant to any logical atheist, like myself.
Enlightenment Liberal
1. You weren’t asking me.
2. As I have already mentioned to the Hovindites, I am under no obligation to answer you.
3. Fuck off, already.
impact
Take two random objects. Add another two random objects. Will you always get exactly the same collection of 4 random objects? Put any collection of 4 people on a scale and tell me they will always weigh exactly the same???
2 + 2 = 4 is only absolute so long as you first define 2 and 4 as absolute concepts, making the whole thing quite circular. Like your absolute proof of god it is based on assumptions of absoluteness that cannot be proved by measurement, only ass-ertions..
Fuck this. Today was my step-father’s birthday. At the end of last year, he went off his meds and back on drugs. We’ve been struggling to protect ourselves and get him help. He’s gotten help again and stable now. All he wanted to do for his b-day is see me and my daughter, since I had to cut him off when he spiraled. He bought balloons with candy attached and gave us cards. He hates himself and feels awful for what he’s done. And what he knows he can and will most likely do again. He talks of ending it to spare us the problems.
I have vented here and called him an asshole. A fuckface. But I’ve never treated him less than human. He needs help but the system is set up to fail. It’s inevitable. I’ve seen him walking around screaming at himself. I’ve seen him happy as a clam playing with my daughter, teaching her ride a bike. He’s not unreasonable, he’s mentally ill. When he’s stable, you can easily converse and debate topics like religion and justice with him. He has plenty of insights on what’s wrong with the justice and safety net in this country from personal experience. And that matters, because how people are treated within the systems are a huge part of effectiveness.
Comparing his struggle with someone who willing lets their child die due their religious beliefs is disgusting. It’s so fucking wrong. You know nothing. Keep fucking sneering, asshole. I’m done. You’re too pompous to get it. Go infest somewhere else.
EnlightenmentLiberal
Analogy alert!
People who are physically incapable of lifting heavy weights are not being unfairly discriminated against if not employed to lift heavy weights. It would still, however, be unfair to use “physically weak” as a slur against their character.
</analogy>
Statin’ the fuckin’ obvious alert!
People who are deemed unable to make the sort of judgements required of jury-members are not being unfairly discriminated against, when not employed as jury-members. It is still, however, unfair to use their condition as a slur.
</statin' the fuckin' obvious>
Proof of God@295,
.
No
.
.
By shear weight of chance, I could not possibly be wrong about “everything” (which was what you asked in comment 238).
.
.
I know a very small fraction of what could be known. Just. Like. You. (although I limit myself to reality) You seem to like to pretend you know everything, because “bible” or “god” or something.
.
“Worship” is the act of trying to gain an advantage over your neighbour without expending any sweat.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls #330
If you reject the God of the Bible then you set yourself up as god. You become the ultimate standard against which you judge everything.
Let me ask you a question: How do you know that you really exist? If you use reason/logic to determine this then how do you know your reason/ logic skills are trustworthy? Could your mind be deceiving you into thinking you really exist?
@276, Proof of God
Proof of G., of course if you showed me proof that something exists, I would believe that it exists. That’s what “proof” means. But you have to actually show us that proof so we can evaluate and confirm, or it’s no good to anyone. I’m not the only one here who has told you this. A proof has to be shared with other people, or it isn’t really serving the function of a proof. If you just sit on it all day and never let it see daylight, it’s more like a “thought” or a “daydream.”
I asked you several times to show me proof, and you asked me another question. Please take a break from asking questions and show us this proof you keep implying that you have, or else explain that Proof of God is just a nym so that we can all stop being disappointed every time you comment. Thanks in advance!
@337
Proof of God
I must exist for me to even contemplate that.
a mind cannot deceive me unless I exist!
Only in your delusional mind, where there must be an imaginary deity. Your delusions, in other words.
I am a mere mortal, making my way through life the best I can, with everything that happens by chance in the world.
Not through your imaginary deity. It has nothing to do with anything, other than your delusions, and delusional thinking.
Ever hear of the Theory of Evolution. Consciousness arises from the brain. Nothing more is needed.
Your deity doesn’t exist. Deal with that fact elsewhere loser of losers.
Proof of God #337
If you reject Harry Potter, are you setting yourself up as a trainee wizard?
The existent, observed universe is the standard against which all factual judgements should be measured. If your ideas fail when tested against reality (i.e. “what actually exists”), then your ideas are wrong; no matter how attractive you find them.
Ray, rud #335e-ass yankee
If, say, you knew 1% of all knowledge in the universe, wouldn’t it follow that somewhere among the other 99% would be a contradiction against what you think you know. Without knowing all knowledge you don’t really know anything. Unless you know that your 1% of knowledge is not contradicted in the other 99%, then you do not know anything for “CERTAIN”.
Since this is the mean and rough ‘n’ tumble Thunderdome, I’ll just remind people that they don’t need to use an empty line with a period in it to separate paragraphs here.
Proof of God@319,
Except when god orders it (wink,wink) amirite? Have you even read your own holy book? Jeez, I give up.
.
I’ve got to go to sleep, even if “Someone Is Wrong On The Internet”
.
G’nite
Proof of God #342
I know I’m sitting in this chair. How does my lack of knowledge concerning something going on half-way across the galaxy contradict my knowledge of my current seated position?
Absolutist fuckwittery from someone who can’t/won’t supply the simple request of physical evidence to show you aren’t a delusional fool, saying foolish things, by actually supplying real evidence for your phantasm. Which makes your questions all nonsequiturs, no matter what your inept and stupid teachers taught you.
Proof of God #337
Nope.
Which version of TheBible™?
brianpansky #339
Can’t you see you are using your reasoning/logic skills to determine that your mind can’t deceive you! How do you know you must exist in order to contemplate your existence? You mind could be deceiving you.
Wasn’t Proof of God going to show us proof of God so we could all profess our newfound belief?
Seriously, stop trying to sound smart.
No.
Unless we’re somehow defining “knowledge” as any random-ass thing uttered by anyone anywhere. Is that what you mean by contradicting yourself within a single sentence, first saying that someone knows 1% of all knowledge in the universe and then saying that that someone only “thinks” they know it? I assume that when someone says “knowledge”, they mean that that knowledge must be true, but then that’s when I’m assuming that who is saying it isn’t playing cheap rhetorical games.
Of course, none of this explains how you know anything in the first place. I suppose you would say “because God told me”, but you could be wrong about that. Unless you are actually claiming to BE God.
PoG #348
Can’t you see you are using your reasoning/logic skills to determine that your mind can’t deceive you! How do you know you must exist in order to contemplate your existence? You mind could be deceiving you.
If I don’t exist, then my mind cannot exist to deceive me on this matter. If there is a mind capable of deceiving me, it therefore must not be exercising this capability.
Please provide evidence in support of your contention that a deity exists.
Please tell us which Bible you claim to be the one true Bible.
Nope, your mind is deceiving you, since it thinks your deity isn’t imaginary. Until you provide that conclusive physical evidence which is MIA, you are nothing but a delusional fool believing in imaginary things, like your deity. Which is topic we don’t have to listen to, as it is irrelevant to reality.
Oops!
PoG thinks their presuppositional argument is foolproof. No, it is proof of a fool giving it….
Then I decree by godly fiat that you lose a turn and must play the rest of the game hopping on one foot. I love Calvinball!
Proof of God clearly doesn’t know a fucking thing about science. It’s another PROOF of the deplorable state of science education in the US (or the fact that parents are allowed to effectively quarantine their kids from exposure to any outside non-cult endorsed ideas).
Science is a web of interlocking mutually reinforcing truths. My metaphor is a ratchet. As we discover truths about chemistry, biology, physics etc., they seem to fit well withing the framework of other well established sciences. This increases our confidence about science since it is an edifice build on the work of thousands of scientists, millions of experiments and observations over hundreds of years. No one sets themselves up as a god – final arbitrar of truth, there is no need for such a person. This is why it is by far the most effect methodology for every discovering truth.
We don’t need to submit to holy books or rely on the words of charismatic preachers or even our own inner revelations. We have a much more powerful methodology, albeit incomplete for discerning truths with a much higher likelihood to be right than fables from religious texts. That is the beauty of science. I may be full of shit, even science as a whole may be full of shit, but collectively the scientific process will get at the truth eventually if it is at all possible to do so. If not, no one else will get to it because no better process for truth discovery exists.
barnestormer #338
Would you worship Him. After all, He created you and is deserving of your worship. Remember, I have just shown proof that God exists, so would you worship Him. By the way, worship is an act if devotion toward someone or something.
@348
Proof of God
i didn’t say that my mind can’t deceive me about some things. but there is one thing i cannot be deceived about: that i am a thinking mind.
my mind cannot be deceived unless it exists.
by definition. that’s what it means for something to contemplate: it is an existing thing that is contemplating.
you have nothing, your god is nowhere in here. you are just palying a word game now.
@ 349 U Frood
I KNOW, RIGHT? What a wasted opportunity! Why would anyone walk into a room full of atheists with proof of god and then not show it to everyone immediately? What’s Proof of G.’s game? Is he actually. . . . Satan??
@ 357
Proof, what did I just say about asking a billion questions and not providing any proof? We can tackle the worship question later. Get us some proof of god’s EXISTENCE first and then we can hash out how we feel about it.
If you have “just shown proof that God exists,” PLEASE link so we can see it before you ask any more questions.
brianpansky #358
How do you know “there is one thing i cannot be deceived about”? Your mind could be deceiving you even as you think those thoughts. Are you absolutely certain that you exist? Do you believe in absolute truth?
Did I miss something. Where did Proof of God show proof that god exists. Since he is a solipsistic narcissist, perhaps proof that he (presumably) exists is the very proof.
Nope, my mommy and daddy created me when they had sex. I love my parents but I don’t worship them.
You haven’t shown shit. You’ve made assertions but you’ve not shown the least bit of evidence or logical argument that your god exists anywhere besides between your ears.
Absolutes are for delusional fools who believe in delusional things. Like you deity, which is only a delusion in your feeble mind, incapable of determining you have been soundly refuted and mocked for believing without evidence in your deity….
@360
Proof of God
yes i am. O_____________O
got a proof of god yet? because i’m really agreeing with the person who said:
but you seem to have nothing.
The second clause doesn’t necessarily follow from the first.
I must have missed it among all the assertions and word salad.
Again, doesn’t necessarily follow.
Sounds like a pretty watered down definition. I thought we were only supposed to worship God. I’ve performed lots of acts of devotion towards various people (who proved themselves worthy of such by actually existing, among other things).
Hey asshole calling yourself “Proof of God”, knock off asking about absolute knowledge. Your dumbass question has been answered many times by several people. All you’re doing by asking the same dumbass question is showing you’re not paying attention to what people are telling you.
Proof of God is doing a very bad imitation of Descartes evil demon.
Praise the almighty deity of nomadic herders in southwestern Asia several thousand years ago for freeing my brain from this jar.
barnestormer #359
Here is a link: http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/
The proof of God is that without God you could “know” nothing. Unless there is such a thing as absolute truth then you could not know what is true.
Oh wait, is this a question? You might want to denote it as such with that little curly mark in the lower right corner of your keyboard.
And that question has been answered by many people in this thread as “no”, because the god depicted in the Bible is a genocidal freak. If God existed, it would be humankind’s most noble and necessary task to destroy him.
Proof of God, sounds like a great catchy name for a new cult leader. L Ron Hubbard look out.
barnestormer #359
Visit: proofthatgodexists.org
The proof that God exists is that without God you could not know anything for certain. Without God truth would be relative and meaningless.
If Proof of God’s god existed there should be only one method of dealing with it:
Poor PoG, his script isn’t working like his inept teachers (eg, EH) said it would. Poor cricket doesn’t know what to do, without looking foolish. Anything other than shutting the fuck up is making Xim even more foolish….
POGlet:
No, Sweetpea. There are hundreds of them, at least. Go back and click that lovely link I provided for you. That’s a list of some of them. Almost all of those Gods are much, much older than that psychopathic upstart of yours.
Why, that there ultra-translated, cobbled together mish-mash you call a holy book mentions other gods, often.* Other gods are mentioned in Genesis, y’know. In Genesis, El Shaddai mentions being the youngest in a family of gods. His wife is a goddess. El Shaddai got all pissy with his playthings when they became like him (a god), and got fearful they’d find the tree of life and become immortal. Old El Shaddai doesn’t sound quite so important now, eh?
A little more:
Genesis 1:26 – And God said, let us make man in our image.
Genesis 3:22 – And the Lord God said, Behold, then man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.
Genesis 11:7 -Let us go down, and there confound their language.
Exodus 12:12 – And against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment.
Exodus 15:11 – Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods?
Exodus 18:11 – Now I know that the LORD is greater than all gods.
Exodus 20:3, 5 – Thou shalt have no other gods before me. … Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them.
Exodus 22:20-28 – He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed. (v.20)
Thou shalt not revile the gods. (v.28)
Exodus 23:13-32 – Make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth. (v.13)
Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do after their works: but thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images. (v.24)
Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods. (v.32)
Exodus 34:14 – For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.
Numbers 33:4 – Upon their gods also the LORD executed judgments.
Deuteronomy 3:24 – What God is there in heaven or in earth, that can do according to thy works?
Deuteronomy 5:7 -Thou shalt have none other gods before me.
Deuteronomy 6:14-15 -Ye shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the people which are round about you;(For the LORD thy God is a jealous God among you)
Deuteronomy 10:17 – For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords.
Deuteronomy 28:14 -Thou shalt not … go after other gods to serve them.
Joshua 24:2-14 -They served other gods. (v.2)
Fear the Lord … and put away the gods which your fathers served. (v.14)
Judges 11:24 – Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh thy god giveth thee to possess?
1 Samuel 6:5 – Ye shall give glory unto the God of Israel: peradventure he will lighten his hand from off you, and from off your gods.
1 Samuel 28:13 -And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth.
1 Chronicles 16:25 -The Lord … is to be feared above all gods.
Psalm 82:1-6 -God standeth in the congregation of the mighty, he judgeth among the gods. (v.1)
I have said, Ye are gods. (v.6)
Psalm 86:8 – Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord.
Psalm 96:4 – For the Lord … is to be feared above all gods.
Jeremiah 1:16 -I will utter my judgments against them … who have forsaken me, and have burned incense unto other gods.
Jeremiah 10:11 – The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens.
Jeremiah 25:6 -And go not after other gods to serve them, and to worship them, and provoke me not to anger with the works of your hands; and I will do you no hurt.
Jeremiah 46:25 -I will punish the multitude of No, and Pharaoh, and Egypt, with their gods.
Zephaniah 2:11 -The Lord will be terrible to them: for he will famish all the gods of the earth.
John 10:33-34 -The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
Cmon let’s not go about using the bible to refute the bible, that’s just not fair.
POGlet:
I reject the god of the bible, Sweetpea. I reject bloody Jesus and his holy ghostie, too.
I’m much too busy with life to bother with godhood, but thanks ever for the thought. Even if we were gods, punkin, at least we aren’t petty, jealous, genocidal, bloodthirsty, murdering, rape-happy sociopaths like that god you worship.
You should be asking yourself why you think a petty, jealous, genocidal, bloodthirsty, murdering, rape-happy sociopath is something you think is worth worshipping, because it doesn’t say anything good about you. At all.
*copies Inaji’s list for deployment as necessary*
i wonder if hovind will give his students above an A+ grade or an F.
i really can’t tell.
but the whole “do you know you exist” thing really does cut to the heart of presuppositional nonsense. from wikipedia, they think something along the lines of:
can you spot what they did? anyone could use “i exist” as their “ultimate presupposition” which would make sense, because it can’t be denied. instead they claim to use their fairy story.
that’s all they’ve got. i’m having difficulty putting into words just how epic of a fail it is.
Wow! I think I’m about to start worshiping Inaji. Inaji, would you like some firstlings from my flock?
Ináji #373
Wow.
Standing ovation.
I just can’t imagine converting anyone with this argument.
Well, you can’t really know anything is true. So you should cling as tightly as possible to the belief in this book….
Jagwired:
Oh, I thank you, but I’m more of grains and fruits sorta god. (See, I would have given Cain a break, because I would have been happy with his offerings.)
(You’d think a god wouldn’t suffer from laughing tea up her nose.)
brianpansky (#377)
I’m sure they get an A+ for sticking to the script no matter how apparent it becomes the script is ill-suited to having a conversation with real, live atheists.
That story never made any sense to me when I was young. I couldn’t see why Cain’s gifts weren’t of equal value.
Inaji @ 381:
Yes. This would seem to be one of the basic requirement for a deity. :D I’m sure there’s a test or something.
There isn’t a god but there may be a devil. A TV add just flashed across the screen urging the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline.
In reply to this:
PoG said this:
Thus proving that his mind is a thinking mind.
Thanks for conceding the point, PoG!
I do not absolutely know if I am a man, or a butterfly dreaming he is a man, or a chameleon hallucinating that he is a butterfly dreaming he is a man, or a simulation of a chameleon hallucinating that he is a butterfly dreaming he is a man, but I am confident enough in the relative probability that I am a man that I will choose to act as if that were the case, on a provisional basis.
Of all the million million million gods conceived out of humanity’s fevered imagination, I belief in just one god less than you do, PoG.
The difference between us is naught but a rounding error.
It is a peculiar deficient in minds like yours that seems fixated on the concept that there must be something fulfilling the “god function” in your universe, such that you cannot conceive of anyone rejecting your God of the Bible without filling that “god function” with something else.
But we are more flexible thinkers than you, and are not bound by such hidebound limitations. The “god function” itself does not exist. Nothing needs to fill it.
Jumping zombie jesus on a pogostick plastered with allah’s face!
I just finished reading the *last* Thunderdome, and now I’ve 383 comments here too??!!
Why do I think it’s going to be more circular
argumentsreasoningappeals to authority from the absolutely inane god-botherers *and* the worshippers of the free market?Proof of God
OK. Let’s say for the sake of argument that you did at some point prove your God existed. I wouldn’t worship him. I’d be scared shitless. I mean, have you READ that book? That dude’s frightening. So… No, I wouldn’t worship him. Creating me isn’t enough. And really… Creating me just to worship him, then punishing me if I don’t? That’s really messed up.
So Proof of God, here is my question to you (Impact is also free to answer, and any other believers).
Why would you worship him? You believe in him. You believe in all the horrible things he did. All the people he’s killed. The horrible things he’s ordered people to do. The stuff he’s condoned his followers do.
Why do you accept all the horrible actions in the Bible? Are you just scared? Would you rebel if you thought you had a chance?
I never could buy into the believe in one less god bit. Though technically true, honestly a person who would prostitute their mind to believe in this god, could easily believe in any number of other gods if this god were taken away from them, whether it be Allah, Scientology. Joseph Smith or alien abductions. Subtraction of that god would probably entail belief in another imaginary god for most of these people.
If the OneTrueGod of the Old Testament actually existed, you [everybody] would be a dam’fool not to Worship™IT.
’cause that Puppy will fuck you up if you don’t.
fortunately IT has the same type of Existance as The Tooth Fairy.
He will give them a Bill
@ 219 impact
Because you’re trying to use him as evidence of other things, fuckwit.
Also, I see that EnlightenmentLiberal is back pretending he can’t tell the difference between mental illness and reasoning incorrectly. Hoo-fucking-ray.
It’s like complimenting the dictator on his rule of tyranny – I entirely understand why people would be cowed into doing it, but that’s quite not the same thing as saying they deserves it.
PoG and friend, what is with trying to prove one god exists by quoting the bible? The existence of god is incredibly obvious if you trust the bible as inerrant – so much so that at some point, it must have occurred to you that people who don’t believe in god are probably ones who don’t trust the bible as inerrant. So by simple logic, quoting it as proof is an idiotic waste of time, yes? Haven’t you ever thought of this?
Proof of God:
I have just slogged through every comment in this thread and the preceding one. Thanks to you delusional godbots and EnlightenmentLiberalAsshole I have nothing left to ::headdesk:: on any longer.
How can this be explained in any simpler terms?
*IF* you could prove your god exists–which you have utterly failed to do–all that is then required for reasonable people is to accept that he exists. There is no reason to then worship him. You seem to think that he is worthy of worship just bc you think he created you. Newsflash you numpty: I don’t agree. If I’m going to look to how I was created, I would look at my mother and father; even then, I don’t worship my parents.
Your god is an evil, vile, rape supporting, slavery endorsing, homophobic, bigoted, genocidal monster. I would not worship him.
Fuck Him.
And a hearty fuck off to you and the other sheep until you can bring something to the table other than restating circular arguments and asking banal questions (loaded with presuppositions).
One more thing (apologies in advance for the shouting):
I DON’T BELIEVE IN ABSOLUTE TRUTH.
So why does -7°C feel sooo cold?
‘Cause it is.
chigau:
If you were a deity like Inaji, you wouldn’t be bothered by weather conditions (tea is another story though).
Proof of God
According to the Eddas Ymir’s cow Auðumbla worked away at a salt lick and uncovered/brought into being Búri, the father of the Aesir. There is no reason to worship Auðumbla.
Hundreds of millions of Hindus reject the Bible. They do not believe they are gods. They worship Brahma, Siva, Vishnu and other deities. Millions of Japanese are at least nominally Shinto. The Bible means nothing to them. They haven’t set themselves up as gods. Same with millions of Buddhists who believe that wanting to be a god is just about the stupidest thing you could wish for. Back in the say there were a lot more Zoroastrians. They absolutely did not believe they were gods.
Even if you could prove that your Holy Book was true, that it contained only one god and that that god had created the universe it wouldn’t follow that he or she or it deserved our worship. So far what we’ve seen from I Am That I Am is a lot of “Praise me or I’ll torture and kill you.” combined with “Might makes Right” and “Shut up with the damned questions or you’ll be damned next.”
I put it to you that that is not the behavior of a creature which deserves our love and worship. It is placating a bully.
Proof of God
You say rape is wrong.
You say your morality comes from the Bible.
You claim to know the Bible.
Tell us exactly where it says rape is wrong.
According to Saul of Tarsus you guys have Covenant 2.0. Neither Saul nor Josh nor any of his disciples say anything about rape.
What about Covenant 1.0?
In Judges 19 a poor woman is gang-raped all night. When she staggers back home her Master lets her lie on the doorstep until morning. Then he murders her and mutilates the corpse.
In Deuteronomy 20 we’re told fine to ride into a city and kill all the men, all the children and all the grown women. But you can rape the hell out of the young pretty girls.
In Deuteronomy 22 rape victims are put to death unless they are
1) Virgins who were shagged out in the fields or
2) Virgins who were violated in the city and screamed loud enough to be heard
in which case either Daddy gets to cover the price of her hymen or she’s forced to marry her rapist and will never be free of him. The only thing that’s important is that the slut might cost her family money.
I know you’ll bring up Sodom. But if you bother to turn to Ezekiel 16 you’ll read
and in any case the greater sin was being inhospitable
You’re setting yourself up as God by rejecting the clear words of the Bible, you heathen
What a shocker. The slyme are not at all happy that Colbert came under critocism for that rather stupid bit recycling an awful nine year old racist caricature.
Call out culture gone too far!
If liberal think Colbert is the enemy, they already lost the culture war!
For a people who think people’s rights are up for debate, they sure as shit get upset when their cultural dominance is challenged.
Conservatives seem to emphasize their commonalities in the face of The Enemy (whoever The Enemy is this week).
Liberals seem to emphasize their differences.
It makes unified action a lot more difficult.
Chigau:
‘Cause it is sooooo cold. We got hit with freezing cold again, there was frost all over yesterday. Bleah.
I was raised without gods.
But lots of books with fairy tales (seriously, I have a three digit number of books with fairy tales)
Being presented with the “evidence” as an adult, it got put firmely into the fairy-tales category. Because it made about as much sense as Cinderella and Snowhite
chigau (違う) @389
There’s even a song about it:
Giliell (#403)
I grew up reading myths of the Greek gods. There’s great appeal in tossing lightning bolts and bossing other gods around like Zeus, or in the aspects of Artemis having to do with hunting, wild animals and wilderness. It’s not that I believed the Greek gods were real, just that they were way cooler and more fun than the blandness of Jesus and his abusive pops who really had it out for humanity.
I’m curious, why do presuppositionalists deny the obvious fact that the universe was invented by a magical chicken who lives at the centre of the sun and keeps it from going nova? I mean, the chicken doesn’t mind it that we don’t worship her, because, frankly, she’s pretty comfortable with her self-image, but she did imprint her stamp on all of our minds so that all know of her… so why pretend that some petulant, ancient human is responsible for all of her work? She doesn’t mind the lack of worship, but IP theft is a serious issue, and it’s in her contract that she gets to peck anyone who misattributes her work for all eternity after they die, so it’s a pretty big risk to spread such a transparently obvious lie. Aren’t you guys afraid of the eternal peckage that you’re earning yourselves?
impact
Yes. That’s one fact I like to use to demonstrate the limits of math.
As for all the questions of the form “If (big if!) I could prove the existence of God to you, would you worship him?”
A) Since your God is the prize asshole of all the fictional characters ever invented—fuck, no! I’d kick him in the balls!
2) If you did demonstrate incontrovertibly somehow the interaction of your favorite tribe of Iron Age goatfuckers (among all the thousands of tribes of Iron Age goatfuckers—why them exactly?) with some superior being, I’m absolutely certain (yes, absolutely) that it would be much more like Ardra than YHWH the Wind God. (Just for my fellow Trekkies.)
Finally, someone is willing to stand up for traditional marriage:
Kenya’s parliament passes bill allowing polygamy
A Reginald Selkirk # 411:
So here we’re told gay marriage will create a slippery slope leading to polygamy (and marrying box turtles). Does the slope tilt the other way in Kenya? (It’s Uganda with Scott Lively’s “Death to the fags” law, right?)
Watertight argument. God exists because without God we wouldn’t have something else that also doesn’t exist (absolute knowledge).
@372 PoG
How do you know that you wouldn’t know anything for certain without God? Did you visit an alternate universe where your God is known not to exist and found that you weren’t certain about anything? If so, how did you know for certain that you were uncertain since there was no God there to provide you certainty in your uncertainty? Further, how did this alternate universe come to be without God there to create it? Also, once you were there and no longer certain about anything, how could you be certain of the way back to this universe?
SO MANY UNANSWERED QUESTIONS!
So if all you can know for certain is that God exists, how can you know that he actually created the universe?
Maybe God really does exist, but he’s just sitting in his room THINKING about creating the world, which has actually existed for billions of years without his help. If a God exists but has had no interaction with the real world, does it matter?
A. Noyd:
So did I. Pantheon gods are always much more human in aspect in actions, there’s more honesty there. Most of them were a fairly nasty lot, but even at their worst, didn’t have a patch on the outright evil of El Shaddai.
This thread.
http://images5.fanpop.com/image/photos/25600000/At-First-I-Was-Like-tom-hiddleston-25615975-450-358.gif
“If you use reason to argue against reason, you contradict yourself. If you don’t use reason to argue against reason, you’re being unreasonable.”
– said to occur in this book
“How can I conduct a revolution without shootings?”
– Lenin
A bit more imagination, man. Please.
(And I can’t shake the feeling that your understanding of paranoid schizophrenia is a caricature.)
Doesn’t it allow for a temporary condition of unreliability? I regularly become so tired that I shouldn’t be considered legally sane* when in that state, and most people have been drunk enough for the same. You’re not allowed to drive a car when you can’t be expected to react rationally and quickly – for example when you’ve had too much booze.
* The German term hits it better: zurechnungsfähig, from rechnen, “reckon/calculate”: you’re zurechnungsfähig when people can reasonably expect you to behave rationally, metaphorically calculate your behavior in advance.
It’s here, though without any of the emphasis. (Already linked to in comment 266.)
A. Noyd and Inaji:
When I was in fifth grade, out in Arizona, the teacher left the room to go take care of some business. While he was gone, we started discussing creation myths. We had sixteen kids in the class: two Hopi girls, one Navajo boy, one Havasu girl, three Hispanic girls (one very Catholic, two who went occasionally), one Unitarian boy (me), one Mormon girl, one Mormon boy, one very evangelical bible-thumping boy, one new-age hippy boy, and some mainline protestant kids. We discussed Genesis, including the way that different churches interpreted it (keep in mind, we were in fifth grade, so the analysis wasn’t all that deep)), and the three Indian creation myths and the ways that they myths differed and were similar. We talked for about an hour-and-a-half and the only one who kept getting mad was the bible thumper. Eventually, we noticed that the teacher had not come back. And we got a little worried and got quiet. Then the loudspeaker came on and out teacher’s voice said, “No, keep going. This is great!”
He scrapped the lesson plan for the next two weeks and we studied mythology with a special emphasis on creation myths. I did my project on the Norse pantheon. It was great. The evangelical got a note from his parents saying he could not participate, so the teacher assigned him a project on the geology of Grand Canyon.
Heh. Heh. Heh.
Specifically polygyny, and specifically without the consent of the wives a man already has. In short, traditional marriage.
Ogvorbis:
Wow! You just don’t get those extra special teachers often enough, and that one sounds fantastic!
Though I’ve heard Christians try to claim that God greatly disapproved of those marriages. But for some reason even though he was in direct contact with all the polygamist Jewish patriarchs he never bothered to tell them to stop it.
Oh, wow. You didn’t tell us last time what I’ve just quoted!
I shrieked with laughter at the end.
Inaji:
This was a small public school (~250 kids, k-12) and this was the 1970s, so creative teachers could actually be creative.
David:
Yeah. My memory (as has been noted) is weird. what I remember, and why, can be strange. Not sure if it was a full 90 minutes, but it was a long time.
And I think that there were two separate incidents — one after an assembly with a story teller, and the second time I don’t remember what got the conversation started. Both times we ended up doing projects on mythology — the first time in third grade, the second time in fifth. The third and fifth grade teachers were husband and wife.
Have we determined if Proof of God believes in the devil?
If so, could someone please ask if Proof thinks the devil could make them believe in something that isn’t true?
If they have trouble with this question, ask them if they think the devil has greater knowledge of the universe than they do, then ask again.
Does ol’ Proofy even get that their argument boils down to “You can be wrong about anything except this thing because reasons I won’t tell you!” I wonder?
Damnit!
I was conflating two separate incidents.
In third grade, while the teacher was out of the room, we had a discussion of immigration — with Indian, Hispanic and Anglo kids in the class it was an interesting week.
The discussion of creation myths happened in fifth grade while the teacher was out of the room and became the two week module on mythology.
I don’t remember now which teacher it was who told us to keep going (again, husband and wife).
Sorry.
What a wonderful teacher, Ogvorbis!
and
with a nice sense of humour too :-)
Okay, it looks like POGlet has run off somewhere into the wilds of Hovindia. Is it safe to put away the KJV bible, Crumb’s Genesis, and my beautiful print copy of SAB?
Galactic Fork #389
I worship God because He is HOLY. I am just a sinful human being. God created everything perfect and without sin. However, man sinned in the garden and brought an end to his fellowship with a Holy and Perfect God. Genesis 3. Because God is Holy, He cannot tolerate or condone sin. Nothing God ever did was “horrible”. God was punishing the evil in this world.
Let me ask you a question. Do you believe in absolute truth? If not as many of you have said, then how can you tell me it is wrong for God to punish people for their sin? If truth is relative then there is no right and wrong. Therefore what is “wrong” for you to do might be “right” for me to do. Can’t you see how absurd your argument is?
If I proved beyond a doubt to you that God exists, would you expect to go to heaven or hell? If heaven, why. If hell, why. Read Exodus 20 for some help there.
Which version of the bible shall I use for the reading of Exodus 20?
So God is Holy and perfect because he says so?
Why do you accept punishment for the minor disobedience of two human thousands of years ago?
Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop! #396
How can you then say that my God is evil? There is no such thing as evil in your worldview. If there is no such thing as absolute truth then there is no such thing as absolute non-truth. How can you say what is right and what is wrong if you don’t believe in right and wrong?
Again how can you say what is true and false. What if I said rape and slavery was right. You could not say that I am wrong without contradicting yourself! Your argument has been reduced to absolute absurdity. Please consider how contradictory your argument has become.
Proof of God:
Which version of Exodus will give me the True Word of God?
There’s God righteously destroying all the evil babies.
Okay, read it. What about it?
U Frood #432
They rebelled against there HOLY creator. If God is a fair and just God wouldn’t He have to punish their rebellion? The directly disobeyed Him. After Adam and Eve’s sin all humans have been born in sin. All human beings have a sin nature. There is no way around it. Why do you think it is that a baby doesn’t have to be taught how to sin? Instead he knows the moment he is born. He is born thinking of #1.
@433 PoG
We believe in right and wrong. We just measure it by a different yardstick than you do, i.e. not God.
You don’t have to believe in ABSOLUTE TRUTH to see the wickedness in doing harm to others. All you need is a shred of empathy.
And when we see that you worship an imaginary being who endorses rape, slavery, murder, and genocide, our ability to recognize the pain done to our fellow human beings is enough to condemn it, and you, as evil.
Fine, he punished them by kicking them out of Eden. Fair enough.
Why do you think you still deserve punishment for that sin? And why do you think the appropriate punishment is eternal damnation?
@437 PoG
This is possibly the most repulsive statement I have ever read.
Inaji #436
Have you broken any of the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20? Be honest.
Proof of God:
Which version of Genesis will give me insight into God’s unchanging Truth?
@ Proof of God, I went to bed last night hoping that when I woke up, you would have provided the proof of god you promised. Instead, I got this
and a link to a “logic comes from God, therefore God” webpage. Proof, I am disappointed :(
While the underlying argument is no great shakes, that website is a particularly poor delivery system because it eliminates any illusion that we are having a two-way conversation, blundering along toward a pre-determined conclusion. For example, having the “I don’t care if absolute truths exist” button link to Disney.com not only prevents you from actually convincing me of anything (since you’ve just shuffled me out of the “game” by fiat) — but it also prevents you from learning anything about how other people might think about truth claims, scientific modeling, and knowledge. It keeps you in a cage of ignorance even as it locks the rest of us out of meaningful discussion.
But! even if I were to answer all the questions “right,” and assert the absolute unchanging logic-y realness of everything against my inclination, what do I get? A whole new flock of unproven assertions!
Not one of which even attempts to prove the existence of a god. :(
Proof, in all seriousness, if someone told you that website was a convincing proof of god, you have been lied to.
Don’t feel too bad, it happens a lot. Arguments like this one function not so much to convince non-belivers that a god must exist, as to convince believers that their belief is logical and unassailable. This may make you feel good about your belief, but it probably won’t convince people who don’t already share it. That’s because 1). it’s based on a whole raft of premises that non-believers either don’t accept, or have a completely different understanding of, and 2) the conclusion “God exists” doesn’t obviously follow from the premises in any case.
In person, or on the internet, you might be able to have a worthwhile conversation usuing something like this argument as a starting point — but only if you’re willing to listen and think and be honest and upfront about what you believe, as many of the people here have been willing to be honest and upfront with you. It’s still not a “proof,” but it’s something you can talk about.
A website that continually constrains our options, leading us down a rat-maze of increasingly unsatisfying conclusions that ends in a spray of bible quotes, is not an adequate substitute for talking to people.
Seriously and for real, though, Proof, if you are really interested in witnessing to atheists in any way, I hope you’ll take a step back and re-evaluate your toolbox. Read some of the responses other people have made to arguments like the one presented on proofthatgodexists.org. If you have any atheist friends in meatspace or elsewhere, try to get some constructive criticism. As it stands, that website is doing your god exactly zero favors.
Best wishes in the future!
U Frood #440
I deserve punishment for MY sin. I am born a sinner and continue to sin. It is because of my sin that I am deserving of punishment. God is holy. He would not let sinners into heaven unless they had been justified. Therefore God send them to hell because of their sin against Him. Please understand, all sin is ultimately directed against God.
Proof of God:
Which version of Genesis is the Truth of God’s Word?
Ogvorbis: Still failing at being human. #443
Read it in the NIV, NASB, KJV, ESV, NLT, NET, NKJV…………….! The important thing is that you read it.
POGlet:
I do believe in right and wrong. In most cases, right and wrong are blindingly obvious. You believe in a genocidal maniac who is bloodthirsty and petty beyond belief. Your evil god is happy with slavery (FFS, every other bloody chapter in the OT is that god of yours selling is own people into slavery every 5 minutes), rape, genocide, war, mutilation, wholesale destruction. You worship that. Why on earth would anyone think you had any notion of right and wrong?
All it takes to understand right and wrong is empathy. That’s not a problem for most people, however, as someone who worships a wicked god and the details of that wickedness, I’d say it isn’t your strong point.
Actually, newborn infants aren’t capable of much for a while. Children need to be taught on issues of right and wrong, just as we all had to be taught. Also, Cupcake, it’s telling how pickled your brain is, using ‘he’ as the default for a newborn. You’re quite the nasty dipshit, just like that god of yours.
Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm #441
Repulsive? It is absolutely true. How do you think a baby learns to sin. How is it that the first word most babies learn to say it NO!
I have.
I have also read translations of some of the earliest extant copies. They say different things. The number of commandments, and their order, are different in different translations. This is the Truth of God, right? Which one is right?
You consider being damned for something you were born as to be just?
Because we don’t need to know if something is ABSOLUTE to make a decision on it.
Notice how we don’t say your God is ABSOLUTELY evil.
He is simply EVIL.
Your perseveration on that word, ABSOLUTE, will get you no where here. It only makes you sound silly and juvenile.
Ogvorbis:
When it comes to Genesis, one first much figure out which one of the creation stories is true.
“Abraham Show me how cool you think I am by sacrificing your son for me! Nah! I was just kidding. Good joke, eh, just kill that goat instead, we’re cool.”
How is this a Good being?
Inaji #447
Do you believe in absolute morality then? Do you believe in absolute truth?
It is quite repulsive that you seem to think that learning to say the word “no” somehow equates to sin.
Many of us here have READ ALL OF THESE, and we notice that THEY ARE DIFFERENT from one another.
Which means at the very least, all but one must be false.
Because they hear it a LOT from their parents who are trying to keep them safe (or from making an utter mess)
No! Don’t jump off the bed.
No! Don’t put that in your mouth.
No! Don’t throw the dirty diaper.
No! Don’t run in to the streeet
If we must have bible chat, let’s talk about all the times your god hardened someone’s heart, often repeatedly, just so he could have his way in slaughtering countless people. That alone makes him one evil entity, not worthy of a second glance, let alone worship.
If your god did exist, the only right thing to do would be to kill him.
454
Amphiox
Considering how he doesn’t accept our no answers, maybe he just thinks the word is a sin. God created us, therefore we don’t need to consent….
*shudder*
Proof of God
Murdering 99.99% of world population isn’t horrible?
Murdering someone’s firstborn isn’t horrible?
Raping some woman because her male relative or spouse is an assholes isn’t horrible?
You’re despicable.
@448 PoG
I’m an atheist, fuckwit. I don’t believe in sin.
The most common first words are “Dad” and “Mom,” not “no.”
POGlet:
You said babies don’t have to learn, they are born knowing. Which is it, Sweetpea?
From imitating their parents, other adults, and other children, you flaming doucheweasel. They also learn to say YES! and MAMA! and DADA! early, too.
Sin is a null word to an atheist. Who gives a fuck about what delusional fools like you who believe in imaginary things say?
Amphiox:
Not necessarily. The document known as the pentateuch represents a reading of the older materials that was created for political reasons.
God could have created a world without any evil in it, so that he would never have to punish it.
He chose not to.
That is EVIL.
Proof of God sure has a fetish for the terms “absolute morality” and “absolute truth.” Is that part of the cult indoctrination?
oh, Proof, no. Are you suggesting that children asserting their boundaries and preferences is an example of sin? I hope that’s not what you’re saying. Please explain.
[Citation needed]. I’ve met a lot of babies in my day, and this is very, very far from obvious.
POGlet:
Everything your god did was horrible. Beyond horrible, really. As you’re the one who sticks with god starting the whole ball rolling, once again, it points to what a compleat fuck up your god is, on top of being evil. It’s a being who couldn’t think its way out of a wet paper bag.
If I’m getting Proof of God right: There exists absolute good and absolute evil. Murdering little kids is absolute evil. God murdering little kids is perfectly ok because absolute evil is absolute for everyone but God.
Did I get this right?
Because I don’t think that word means… anyway, you know how that one goes. (there are some memes that have gotten old, this is one of them)
If I’m reading this right, it’s because one man and one woman ate the wrong apple. Doesn’t really help God’s case.
Well naturally as soon as the baby starts to exert his/her autonomy, everything goes to hell. Which, now that I think of it, comes right back to the Genesis story.
barnestormer:
Well, yesterday, we learned that POGlet and others think that Deuteronomy 20something stated rape was wrong. Of course, that’s not true, given that what it states is the specifics on when and where a woman who is raped is to be executed, or whether she is to be sold to her rapist. So, I wouldn’t be terribly surprised that a young child saying “no” is a horror of sin to POGlet, after all, you don’t have perfect subservience and obedience happening there, and that’s what El Shaddai demands.
The bible has some good advice:
Deuteronomy 23
12 Designate a place outside the camp where you can go to relieve yourself.
13 As part of your equipment have something to dig with, and when you relieve yourself, dig a hole and cover up your excrement.
I read it twice cover to cover. Then I started becoming an atheist. Which is a very common theme when you hear stories of becoming an atheist. They read the babble without stuporvision of ignorant self-appointed and irrational loudmouths, and see the ugliness that is there in black and white. That’s also why atheists know more about what is in the babble than godbots, who dip in here and there with lessons, and avoid the darker and self-refuting areas.
There is no absolute morality or absolute truth. As your deity only exists as a delusion between your ears, nowhere else. You haven’t evidenced otherwise, and avoid doing so. Your word is considered bullshit. Back what you say from academic sources outside of you and your babble. We are waiting to see how you can back up any claim….
PoG
I’m really glad my kids seem to be off the hook. Currently they identify as female.
But yeah, you have an absolute standard of good and evil:
God doing it: good
Somebody else doing it: evil
Of course, your only argument is “because he said so”, yet he seems to change his mind quite often, I must say…
God created creatures who as infants are unable to care for even themselves. It is completely logical that at first those children think only of their own needs. The first things they learn to do are entirely about assisting their parents address their needs.
If Adam and Eve hadn’t eaten the wrong fruit, would babies in the garden of Eden burst forth completely able to sing God’s praises and then go feed themselves only so they can further sing God’s praises?
If God wanted that, he should have designed people who were born fully capable, rather than requiring years to develop and learn about the world.
Thunderdome keeps taking down any links I try to post. Google the following phrases and take time to really understand what is being said.
Google “proof that god exists”.
Google “180 movie” video
Google”evolution vs. god” video
Crip Dyke’s 10 Commandments:
Why look!
Humans are born innately obeying all these commandments and they obey them all their lives!
Humans are innately good! Sin is a myth!
You doubt me?
Have **you** ever broken one of these commandments? Hah, proof of humanity’s non-sinful nature I tell you. QED. It’s almost like I made an argument, even.
You mean the one about the banana?
Google “the potter can do what he wants with the clay” Romans 9:21, which is the ultimate Christian pat excuse you run into time and time again when they run out of rationalizations or their brain starts to explode. It means STFU god can do whatever he wants to you.
Crip Dyke:
In POGlet’s case, I think this commandment is being broken quite a bit. El Shaddai isn’t big on his followers thinking, y’know. After all, thinking for yourself is a terrible rebellion, a nasty sin.
Well, yes, I think the 10 commandments = proof that humans are /not sinful are arguments about on the level of the Ray Comfort’s one where Bananas = proof of god.
Except that in this thread, Proof of God really **is** bananas.
@Inaji, 479:
LOL.
Fair enough. I suppose what I meant was that someone must do this at least once during a lifetime. Next time I’ll be more explicit.
Obviously if God is omnipotent, there’s not much we can do if he wants to abuse us. Doesn’t mean we must or should appreciate it.
“Thank you, sir. May I have another?”
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls #472
Then I can do as I please? It is not “wrong” for me to argue using circular reasoning? It is not “wrong” for God to do as he wants to the human race? If there is no absolute morality and truth then nothing is “wrong”. All human beings should just do as they please. How absurd is that?
In reality there is right and wrong. God is the standard for right and wrong. Where can you get truth without God?
@483 – Right on cue like a parrot, exactly what I said, STFU god can do whatever he wants to you – Romans 9:21.
As Greydon Square puts it:
I don’t give a shit if he created me
That don’t give him the right to commit genocide with pride and act crazily.
If there is no absolute truth then we cannot say that God is not ABSOLUTELY evil. He is, however, relatively evil–as in, more evil than the vast majority of human beings you claim he created.
Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm #438
What do you measure your right and wrong by? You have to have a standard with which you measure it by. What is YOUR standard? Is it yourself? Is it what society says? What is your standard that you measure right and wrong with?
Yes, you can. But if it pleases you to hurt other people, then it will please a great many other people to stop you from doing as you please.
That’s life as a human for ya.
PoG
Well, in your version it’s just god doing what he wants to do, with might making it right, how’s that less absurd?
Cryp Dike
You could also join Mr.’s religion.
The first commandment is NOT that you shall NOT overload your car.
He has not worked out a second one so far. We can always have a schism if it comes to that.
My own moral intuition, and others’.
I find that integrating multiple standards gives more accurate results, whether it’s regarding morality or science.
Mostly me, plus a dash of society. And a healthy dose of empiricism to determine that the results of my actions match my intentions.
This has been another edition of Obvious Answers to Fuckwitted Questions.
@Proof of God:
What are you doing in my living room, you invasive jerk.
If you were at least 20 meters away from me I could be sure you were outside my apartment and respecting my privacy, but as God didn’t create the standard meter, distance is completely arbitrary. Thus I can’t possibly say with any certainty that you are at least 20 meters away from me. Distance is an illusion!
Thus I’m having you arrested for trespass and voyeurism, sicko.
Let’s chat about what El Shaddai says in Leviticus:
If you don’t follow all of the laws in the Old Testament, God will shower you with all of the curses in the next 25 verses. 26:14-15
“I will even appoint over you terror, consumption, and the burning ague, that shall consume the eyes, and cause sorrow of heart: and ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it.” 26:16
“I will set my face against you, and ye shall be slain before your enemies.” 26:17
“I will bring seven times more plagues upon you according to your sins.” 26:21
“I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children, and destroy your cattle.” 26:22
“I will bring a sword upon you … I will send the pestilence among you; and ye shall be delivered into the hand of the enemy.” 26:25
“And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat.” 26:29
“I will … cast your carcases upon the carcases of your idols, and my soul shall abhor you.” 26:30
“And I will make your cities waste.” 26:31
“And I will bring the land into desolation”. 26:32
“And I will scatter you among the heathen, and will draw out a sword after you: and your land shall be desolate, and your cities waste.” 26:33
“And they shall fall one upon another, as it were before a sword, when none pursueth: and ye shall have no power to stand before your enemies.” 26:37
“And ye shall perish among the heathen, and the land of your enemies shall eat you up.” 26:38
All “devoted” things (both man and beast) “shall surely be put to death.” 27:28-29
@Giliell:
Yet another who believes that I mysteriously block floodwaters. Is this how the whole Red Sea myth got started?
Then, Lo! I am a devoted Giliell’sMrite forever.
Did I say forever?
PZ Myers #439
God does not endorse rape, slavery, murder, and genocide. If you would read your Bible, you would see that God is Holy and just and perfect. He cannot commit sin. Since you don’t believe in absolute truth then how can you condemn me as being evil? After all, I just might have a different standard than you do when it comes to right and wrong. How can you condemn God as being evil.
One more thing: the Bible says that in your heart you KNOW God exists. Romans 1.
POGlet:
That has already been explained, in detail, many times, by many people. One more time, let’s focus on you for a moment. You find a genocidal, jealous, petty, angry, war-mongering, slavery-loving, and rape-loving creature worthy of worship. This is the creature you derive your morals from, according to you.
Why, in the everloving fuckety fuck would anyone think you were moral?
@493
Have you read the Bible?
God “gave” his people a piece of land, and then told them to go kill everyone who had the audacity to already be living there.
Whether it hurts individuals or society. Your imaginary deity is imaginary. It has nothing to do with anything, you have not evidenced it to any reasonable satisfaction, which require physical evidence.
has PoG written anything funnier than this?
Oh, wait, the quote continues:
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahah!
So the god of the christian bible justly, perfectly endorses rape, slavery, murder, and genocide in all His Holiness.
To say he merely endorses rape, slavery, murder, and genocide is a slur!
POGlet:
Yes, your god does endorse rape, slavery, murder, and genocide. On a constant basis. And in the NT, Jesus upholds the old law. One more time – I have read the bible, more than once. I have read more than one version. I have read it in languages other than English. We aren’t the ones lacking biblical knowledge, you are.
There’s been one fucking bible verse after another quoted here, which demonstrates the evil of your god, right out of your book.
It’s easy. I’m doing it right now. You want me to worship a being that commits genocide and endorses rape and murders children. That’s evil. You’re evil.
Clearly. Yours is wrong and mine is right, because I recognize slavery, rape, murder and genocide as wrong regardless of who does it, whereas you make exceptions. Not only do you make exceptions, you fucking worship the guy who does these things.
Because slavery, rape, murder, and genocide are wrong no matter who does them.
Oh right, because truth isn’t absolute, it is sometimes okay to kill people, like in self-defense, or to buy a slave, because that’s the only way to get that particular slave out of the reaches of his or her cruel owner. That’s what we mean when we say truth and morality are situational and relative, not absolute.
The things is, the extenuating circumstances you claim for God just don’t fly. “Humans disobeyed God’s commands so he killed them” is not extenuating circumstances. Just makes him seem even more (relatively) evil.
By the way, people like you do more to create new atheists than any atheist activist ever could. Keep up the good work!