He knows the literal English words well, but he lacks knowledge of written history of Middle East, the archaeological evidence, biology including evolution and DNA, geology. He can’t put himself in the shoes of the ancient peoples or of the scribes who wrote the manuscripts. He ignores verifiable facts that are evidently true, therefore he is ignorant. He’s a loon, and I wouldn’t put you in a bucket even close to him.

quote:
many people used to believe in those other “gods.” No one does now. No offense, but to even compare them to the Christian God is a very weak argument

Why? There’s just as much reason and evidence to believe in those other gods as the Christian God. That is to say - no reason nor any evidence.

quote:
How convenient (and intellectually dishonest) for your position. Read your quote again, and tell me how it is not self-contradictory

I disagree. I can say your God does not exist. I can also say I do not believe in the existence of your God. It is lack of belief. I don’t have to disprove God’s existence just as I don’t have to disprove the existence of leprechauns to not believe in them. Positive assertions require positive evidence. We may have to just disagree on the subject.

quote:
Your inclusion of “fairytales” (that no one is positing a truth claim for) in this statement is an appeal to ridicule fallacy, thereby showing the weakness of your argument.

I don’t think ridicule shows weakness at all, but it’s not the nicest thing. I’m going to try to be better and nicer.

quote:
claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence” is, in fact, circular reasoning

I don’t think so. The example I used was the Bible is the Truth, because the Truth is in the Bible. That’s foomanchoo circular logic. Two things that depend on each other in both directions. A proves B, because B proves A. That’s circular and that’s what I’m describing.

quote:
Well, you are a self-proclaimed atheist (who ironically argues for Gnosticism

I do kind of enjoy arguing based on the worldview of Gnosticism and Marcionism. It’s fascinating, and I enjoy learning about those subjects. Have you ever had to take a persuasive speaking course and argue in favor of a position you don’t actually support? That’s me sometimes. My intention though is to share some knowledge I’ve picked up and to get people to think a bit.

quote:
Bruh-

You are giving yourself away. I bet you are from so where between Lake Charles and Baton Rouge and south of Alex.

quote:
You Will Not Believe How Much Water Has Been Found Floating in Space

Are you arguing for a firmament? The great solid dome in the sky, hard as a cast iron mirror? I know you know better. Interesting though that they found water in space. It’s not surprising to me in the least though because just about everything is in spaces. Hell, there’s oceans of Natural Gas (CH4 methane) and more crude oil in the crust of Saturn’s moon, Titan, than we know about on earth.

quote:
What I have found is that (like you, Dawkins, Barker, Hitchens, O’Connor, etc ad nauseam) his arrogance concerning his claimed incontrovertible knowledge of things that can not possibly be known

That perceived arrogance is due to their frustrations of them showing incontrovertible facts of the Bible’s many contradictions and scientific inaccuracies and yet the believers will believe anyway and be ignorant - because they are ignoring the evidence against their own beliefs while believing without any evidence but with a desire to delude themselves. Did you watch the video I linked? I think you would understand everything Bart is saying, and you’d be Ok with it as it wouldn’t test your faith. At the same time, if foomanchoo would watch that video, he’d have to write a mental gymnastics book to counter Bart’s clear and easy to follow facts.

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by Prodigal Son

Member since May 2023

749 posts

Posted on 2/5/24 at 11:12 pm to Squirrelmeister

quote:
many people used to believe in those other “gods.” No one does now.

quote:
Why? There’s just as much reason and evidence to believe in those other gods as the Christian God. That is to say - no reason nor any evidence

IF that were true; then how do you explain the rapid growth and endurance of the Christian faith? Surely if there were no evidence, and no reason behind it- it would have faded away by now?

quote:
I can say your God does not exist. I can also say I do not believe in the existence of your God. It is lack of belief

There is no neutrality in belief. In order to lack belief in something, you must lack any knowledge of it whatsoever. Agnosticism is as close as one can get to neutrality- but essentially it is just bouncing back and forth between two opposing views- with the inability to settle on one or the other. You don’t just “lack belief” in God- you positively believe that no God exists. Surely a rational person, such as yourself, would have logical reasons for any belief that you hold. And surely those reasons would be based on evidence. Otherwise, you would be guilty of that which you accuse others of.

quote:
I don’t have to disprove God’s existence just as I don’t have to disprove the existence of leprechauns to not believe in them.

Of course not. You can’t disprove the existence of God with any more certainty than I can prove the existence of God. All we can (and should) do, is give reasons for why we believe what we do.

quote:
Positive assertions require positive evidence

So, when you assert that there is no God- are you not positive? And here I am thinking that you believed that.

quote:
I don’t think ridicule shows weakness at all

Perhaps not always. But, it is the preferred tactic of the left, so, I would encourage you to use it sparingly. I think you generally do a good job of that.

quote:
but it’s not the nicest thing. I’m going to try to be better and nicer.

I think it would serve you better to avoid it altogether. The ability to argue without resorting to ridicule tends to display a higher level of confidence in one’s position. Ridicule is generally utilized as an overcompensation for a weak argument. You’re better than that.

quote:
The example I used was the Bible is the Truth, because the Truth is in the Bible. That’s foomanchoo circular logic. Two things that depend on each other in both directions. A proves B, because B proves A. That’s circular and that’s what I’m describing.

I agree. I think where we disagree is whether or not the assertion that God does not exist is a positive claim that should bear a similar burden of proof. Again, neither position can be proven, but both positions should be reinforced by reason and/or evidence. I think that the claim itself is just a way to avoid any scrutiny of a particular position. I can understand it’s sensibility in the hypothetical scenario of arguing against FSM and leprechauns (

)- as no one is arguing for their existence; but in the debate over the existence of God, and the ramifications thereof- I think it is a red herring.

quote:
Have you ever had to take a persuasive speaking course and argue in favor of a position you don’t actually support?

Not in a formal setting. But, I almost constantly have a devil’s advocate dialogue going on internally.

quote:
My intention though is to share some knowledge I’ve picked up and to get people to think a bit.

I have come to appreciate that about you.

quote:
You are giving yourself away. I bet you are from so where between Lake Charles and Baton Rouge and south of Alex.

Worse- Denham Springs (currently). Though, I might add, that have had much variety of cultural and educational influences that have made me the pseudo intellectual redneck that I am today.

quote:
Are you arguing for a firmament? The great solid dome in the sky, hard as a cast iron mirror?

Maybe? I don’t know. I can see how an ancient near eastern goat herder with a limited knowledge of the universe could use metaphor to describe something he couldn’t possibly understand.

quote:
because they are ignoring the evidence against their own beliefs while believing without any evidence but with a desire to delude themselves.

Ironically, I would argue that this is also true of the atheist position. We will undoubtedly disagree on what is incontrovertible fact, as well as what constitutes evidence.

quote:
Did you watch the video I linked? I think you would understand everything Bart is saying, and you’d be Ok with it as it wouldn’t test your faith.

I didn’t. I will try to get around to it. My faith is not based solely on biblical inerrancy. It is based primarily upon the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is bolstered by the plethora of sound, logical arguments for the existence of God, and the ever increasing archaeological and historical evidence of the historicity of the biblical account. But, at the end of the day- it is truly faith alone upon which I rest my case. If I am wrong (which I do not believe I am), I am prepared to accept the consequences. Are you?

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by FooManChoo

Member since Dec 2012

41870 posts

Posted on 2/6/24 at 7:49 am to Squirrelmeister

quote:
I don’t think so. The example I used was the Bible is the Truth, because the Truth is in the Bible. That’s foomanchoo circular logic. Two things that depend on each other in both directions. A proves B, because B proves A. That’s circular and that’s what I’m describing.

I’ve been too busy lately to participate (Prodigal has been doing a great job of defending the Faith against your irrational hatred of your maker from what I can tell) but I just happened to peek in and see this nonsense.

I just want to mention a couple things: first a circular argument is not always fallacious. Only viciously circular arguments are fallacious. When you are arguing about ultimates, you necessarily wander into the realm of the circular because you cannot appeal to anything greater. For example, if I asked you to defend the existence of the laws of logic without using logic, you couldn’t do it.

For the Christian, the Bible is God’s revelation and the basis for our Faith. Without the Bible, we would not have the Gospel which is recorded in it, and no Gospel means no knowledge of the only means of salvation from the sins we know we commit. Therefore, while the existence of God can be shown from nature, all that knowledge can do is make men even more culpable for their damnation; it cannot save. To abandon the Bible is to reject both a clear evidence for the specific God of the universe as well as reject the only means of the knowledge of salvation. If the Bible is God’s word, then it is not off limits since it is God’s own testimony for Himself and the ultimate standard that cannot appeal to anything greater.

Second: when I argue the existence of God, I use biblical concepts but I typically use the transcendental argument for God, which is a philosophical argument based on biblical truth: the proof of God’s existence is that if He did not exist, you couldn’t prove anything. God is the necessary precondition for intelligibility and you couldn’t make sense of reality if He did not exist. I spend a lot of time talking about this argument as it is applied to morality to show the arbitrary/irrational nature of moral standards if God did not exist.

So please stop mischaracterizing my position and my arguments. Embrace the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ before you have to give an account to the maker you claim doesn’t exist.

This post was edited on 2/6/24 at 1:42 pm

3 ...

Report Post

Political Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board