[W:1303]***To Believe or Not To Believe

[Obscurity]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

lol...since when is this a court of law?

Are you done with your petulant name calling and insinuation?

 

[Daisy]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Are you done with your petulant name calling and insinuation?

Are you?

 

[Obscurity]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Good, cuz I've been laughing at you from the moment you walked in the room all tough and rough...:lol:

Yawn. You aren't here to debate, you're just here to agitate.

I don't, as an atheist, have a problem telling people what to believe. It's you lot that has an issue with it. The flyers, knocks on doors, evangelism and other sordid nonsense - keep me out of it. You want to act like I am trying to tell you what to believe - spare me your bull****, flaccid righteous indignation. You guys have the monopoly there - not I. So before you cast ****ing stones, check to make sure your house is not made of glass.

 

[Angel]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Yet you have claimed that atheism is not addressing a form of theism which is only a belief in generic god(s). But that is exactly what atheism addresses.

What I have said is that bonafide atheism addresses the existence of generic god; New Atheism is fixated on religious God.

 

[Obscurity]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Are you?

If you have nothing to add, and no answers to the questions posed to you on a debate forum, I'd suggest you go evangelize some non-believers on facebook.

 

[Daisy]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Yawn. You aren't here to debate, you're just here to agitate.

I don't, as an atheist, have a problem telling people what to believe. It's you lot that has an issue with it. The flyers, knocks on doors, evangelism and other sordid nonsense - keep me out of it. You want to act like I am trying to tell you what to believe - spare me your bull****, flaccid righteous indignation. You guys have the monopoly there - not I. So before you cast ****ing stones, check to make sure your house is not made of glass.

That would be you and I ain't fallin' for it...eace

 

[Angel]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

What are they using to touch it?

In the parable their hands; in real life their minds.

 

[Obscurity]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

What I have said is that bonafide atheism addresses the existence of generic god; New Atheism is fixated on religious God.

Atheism is a rejection of the claims there are gods of any description because the arguments for a god are not compelling, are not demonstrable, and are based on no real evidence of any sort.

 

[Obscurity]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

That would be you and I ain't fallin' for it...eace

Not true. I am here to have a discussion. You are here to do nothing but post bull****.

 

[Daisy]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

If you have nothing to add, and no answers to the questions posed to you on a debate forum, I'd suggest you go evangelize some non-believers on facebook.

I prefer conversing with people who show mutual respect...not coming out with guns a blazin' like you did...believe it or not, there is that type of atheist here...you could learn something from them...:2wave:

 

[Angel]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

In what context is a thread about believing or not believing not part of my discussion?

You dislike my arguments because yours do not live up to them, sad to say.

The thread is about bad faith atheism, not religious faith.

 

[Angel]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Atheism is a rejection of the claims there are gods of any description because the arguments for a god are not compelling, are not demonstrable, and are based on no real evidence of any sort.

This is New Atheist Playbook nonsense (to use your favorite word). Theism and atheism are about belief in and disbelief in the existence of God, respectively.

 

[Obscurity]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

I prefer conversing with people who show mutual respect...not coming out with guns a blazin' like you did...believe it or not, there is that type of atheist here...you could learn something from them...:2wave:

Insulting my intelligence now, amusing.

I find it hilarious you sit here and act all indignant on your high horse over my posts.

Does it bother you that your god condones slavery? IT should.

Does it bother you that your god condones brutal, barbaric circumcision? It should.

Does it bother you that your god sees women as subservient, secondary to their male counterparts? It should.

Don't like it? **** off. Respect is earned. I don't care to be respected by my theist opponents, because I find their beliefs to be an odious, hideous quagmire of filthy, sickening barbarism and ignorance.

 

[Obscurity]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

This is New Atheist Playbook nonsense (to use your favorite word). Theism and atheism are about belief in and disbelief in the existence of God, respectively.

Not entirely sure what you're talking about with labels.

The claim is this; there is a god that created the universe.

I reject this claim because it's not falsifiable, it's not based in evidence, and it's not demonstrable.

Prove your claim.

 

[Daisy]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Insulting my intelligence now, amusing.

I find it hilarious you sit here and act all indignant on your high horse over my posts.

Does it bother you that your god condones slavery? IT should.

Does it bother you that your god condones brutal, barbaric circumcision? It should.

Does it bother you that your god sees women as subservient, secondary to their male counterparts? It should.

Don't like it? **** off. Respect is earned. I don't care to be respected by my theist opponents, because I find their beliefs to be an odious, hideous quagmire of filthy, sickening barbarism and ignorance.

No, i question your lack of being capable of acting like a gentleman...pay attention...

 

[Angel]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Not entirely sure what you're talking about with labels.

The claim is this; there is a god that created the universe.

I reject this claim because it's not falsifiable, it's not based in evidence, and it's not demonstrable.

Prove your claim.

First of all that claim is based on evidence.
Second, no one else bears your burden of reasoning to the existence or non-existence of God yourself.
If you have asked and answered the God question satisfactorily for yourself, that's the end of the story.

 

[Omega Man]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Because of long misuse, there are now two meanings of "to beg the question": the original meaning of circularity and the bastardized meaning of invite. If you mean the former, I disagree; if you mean the latter, I agree.

*whoosh*

Didn't quite catch the meaning of your reply, sorry.


OM

 

[pinqy]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

What, precisely, is this "scientific method" of which you speak?

Because, as far as I am aware, science is not a method. It is a set of falsifiable theories...

The basic scientific method (and there are different models) is
Either ask a question and then make observations or from observations formulate a question.
Form a hypothesis: a possible answer to the question
Test the hypothesis by making predictions (often through experiments)
Successful predictions support, but do not prove the hypothesis. Failed predictions prove at least the part of the hypothesis tested to be wrong.

If there is strong support for the hypothesis and it has not failed testing, a theory can be formed, subject to continuous testing.
Or, if there is a clear pattern/relationship that is always true, it is often termed a Law (theories do not become laws).

I’m not sure where you got your odd idea of science.

 

[Obscurity]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

First of all that claim is based on evidence.
Second, no one else bears your burden of reasoning to the existence or non-existence of God yourself.
If you have asked and answered the God question satisfactorily for yourself, that's the end of the story.

Which is fine, if it ends there. Moreover, there is no basis for the claims a god exists. You know it, I know it - believing this being exists requires a suspension of disbelief.

Now, to the first point; it doesn't just end there, does it? No. The endless "I'm praying for you" "You must be saved" the flyers, the knocks on the door, the tax breaks - I am being asked to subsidize your faith.

So it's definitely not as simple as you propose.

 

[Obscurity]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

No, i question your lack of being capable of acting like a gentleman...pay attention...

I'm sorry, do my questions offend you? Instead of focusing on my delivery, deal with the content. Hence why I demanded your answers before. Disliking the delivery system doesn't mean the payload isn't on point. Typical diversion tactic, akin to claiming racism to get out of arguing an inconvenient point.

 

[Angel]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Which is fine, if it ends there. Moreover, there is no basis for the claims a god exists. You know it, I know it - believing this being exists requires a suspension of disbelief.

Now, to the first point; it doesn't just end there, does it? No. The endless "I'm praying for you" "You must be saved" the flyers, the knocks on the door, the tax breaks - I am being asked to subsidize your faith.

So it's definitely not as simple as you propose.

The object of your concern is religion, not God. I understand concern with the former; I don't understand concern with the latter.

 

[Daisy]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

I'm sorry, do my questions offend you? Instead of focusing on my delivery, deal with the content. Hence why I demanded your answers before. Disliking the delivery system doesn't mean the payload isn't on point. Typical diversion tactic, akin to claiming racism to get out of arguing an inconvenient point.

No, you offend me...delivery is everything if you want me to take you seriously enough to discuss anything with you...I have no desire to get into beliefs or anything else with you because of your bigoted attitude...

 

[gfm7175]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Exodus very, very clearly makes the case for your god laying out how to own people, how to sell them, how to beat and abuse them, and how to pass them on as property.

Is "regulation" of behavior equivalent to "approval" of behavior? Is the allowing of marijuana to be legalized the same thing as approval of recreational marijuana usage? Is allowing gay marriage to be legalized the same thing as approval of homosexual relationships?

Do you believe owning other people as property is moral?

No, I don't.

And spare us the apologist bull**** about "well, slavery was about saving poor people!"

Slavery was different in that historic context... It wasn't like we think of it today... It was more about working for someone to pay back debts...

How about Abortion? What does the bible say about abortion?

The Bible speaks against abortion. It claims that human life is very sacred.

Or, what does it say about women? Is it moral and just that woman be treated as subservient to man?

Nowhere does it say that women ought to be treated as subservient. With God, there is no "slave" and "freeman", no "man" and "woman"... for they are all one in Christ Jesus... Wives should submit to their husbands, as their husband is the "head of household", but wives definitely weren't created to be treated as subordinates to their husbands. They were created as helpers, as "partners", as "compliments"...

If you believe the bible is the word of god as you admitted it, then you must believe these things are moral and just.

You have little understanding of the accusations which you bring forth...

 

[devildavid]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

The basic scientific method (and there are different models) is
Either ask a question and then make observations or from observations formulate a question.
Form a hypothesis: a possible answer to the question
Test the hypothesis by making predictions (often through experiments)
Successful predictions support, but do not prove the hypothesis. Failed predictions prove at least the part of the hypothesis tested to be wrong.

If there is strong support for the hypothesis and it has not failed testing, a theory can be formed, subject to continuous testing.
Or, if there is a clear pattern/relationship that is always true, it is often termed a Law (theories do not become laws).

I’m not sure where you got your odd idea of science.

He got it from a poster called Into the Night who endlessly repeats it as if it is true but has made no valid argument supporting it nor provided any actual evidence to demonstrate that is what it is in reality. Gfm is merely parroting a parrott.

 

[OlNate]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

When you make a claim, you have to support that claim. Yes, I am absolutely going to ask for an answer. The poster can dodge, that's fine. But all that does is prove they are wrong.

No it doesn't. It could mean that they no longer wish to share something that means a lot to them with you, because of your approach to the subject. The problem that atheists and theists have, when debating religion, is that it means the world to one, and nothing to the other. Smart people realize this, and set boundaries. If your respect level drops below a certain level, the conversation is over.

My suggestion to you, if you actually want to talk to theists about their faith, is show respect. Not for their religion, I wouldn't dare go that far, but for the person to whom religion is important. Demand the same in return, to be sure... But if you aren't willing to extend some respect for the person telling you something they care deeply about, and know out of the gates you think is hooey, that's on you if they dismiss you, and I honestly don't know where you figure you get off stating otherwise. The only thing I think that proves about someone in that scenario is that they have a low tolerance for assholes. :shrug: