You just selected one of the many god beliefs and used it as a "might be" then called yourself theist. You just happened to select the most passive one, one that doesn't require you to define the god in any real way. I simply put all god beliefs to the same test and all have failed. It's therefore more correct for me to conclude that none of the exist than to arbitrarily choose one and set about defending it tooth and nail.
So we agree it's without merit. No reason to discuss it further.An actual ad homenim fallacy right there. Surprised you didn't point it out.
But it is circular. Any time you say a group does something to identify with itself, that's circular.Perhaps if you didn't split my response in half, you'd get why it's not circular.
It's easier.It's not easier than finishing the process. It doesn't have the benefit of making a person feel smart.
It makes a person feel they have all the answers in one neat word "god" and as a bonus, the moral high ground.
The answer can be used for anything by even a child:
Why is the sky blue? Because god made it blue
How did that tree get there? God put it there
What causes cancer? God causes cancer
But cancer is bad. Not if God causes it.
No. Is an ad homenim really such a hard concept to understand? I'm saying your at ude sucks. I'm not arguing that atheism sucks because your at ude sucks. There should be no reason why you haven't figured out what ad homenims are by now.So you're discrediting my atheist views because you think I'm an arrogant jackass?Isn't that ad hominem?
How do you presume I made concessions? I have stated my thoughts exactly the same way throughout this debate. I have thoroughly answered all of your questions, yet you refuse to answer mine.
The Bible is indeed a paragon of literature. It is also one of the oldest recorded books in history. It is one of the most influential books in the history of mankind. How could you not look at it as a paragon of literature?
They must not have covered logical fallacies on the test he paid $30 for to be told he's one of the bestest and smartest
I go to school and open a World History textbook. Do I only learn about one country?
Since when does a small passage a whole book make?
where did chinook specifically discredit your atheist views?So you're discrediting my atheist views because you think I'm an arrogant jackass?
Was the Bible written in the 21st century? In those times it could have possibly been one of the most moral books ever written. I cannot claim that for fact, but the possibility is very likely.
Bro, we had an entire thread to hash out my constructive. Why you choose now to make an argument that ignores that is beyond me. But I don't aim to change your thought process, so whatevs. I will say that if you evaluate every "belief" about god the same way, you didn't use critical thinking.
We agree you didn't really address it. We can let it flow through if you want.So we agree it's without merit. No reason to discuss it further.
Do individuals not do things to identify with their group? Pretty sure you had no problem asserting that when you were talking about the social constraints surrounding theism.But it is circular. Any time you say a group does something to identify with itself, that's circular.
First, I mistyped. I meant to say that atheism is easier than finishing the process, not that it's not.It's easier.
It makes a person feel they have all the answers in one neat word "god" and as a bonus, the moral high ground.
Secondly, it's just as easy to say, "because physical events led to that" as it is to say "because god." They're the same type of trivial answer that doesn't address the proximate mechanisms. But the former is still a true statement, at least one we agree on. We disagree on the latter. That's just an example of why theism isn't incompatible with science at all. A lack of critical thinking is incompatible with most epistemology, however.
You have not answered a single one of my questions.
Previously, I had broken down your posts part by part and tried to answer each point you'd made exhaustively. I then went on to ask you questions--questions which you completely ignored, so you could bypass all the rebuttals I made and repeat the same point which I'd already refuted a million times. And then you proceed to accuse me of evading your points.
Just to recapitulate, here's a list of some among the many questions I'd asked you before:
1. If the Bible is divinely inspired, why is it so full of contradictions?
2. If the Bible is a reliable source of morality, why can you and I easily make up a list of 10 commandments better the ones contained in it?
3. Why are you privileging the Bible? Why not talk about the Q'uran and the Torah, and uphold those as paragons of literaure?
4. Why do you continue to insist that the doctrines of these holy books are compatible, when the civilizations that have adhered to them have spent centuries trying to foist their religion upon other people, while killing all those who disagree with them?
recapitulate
Excuse me? There is NO CENTURY IN HUMANITY that a book that sanctions slavery, subjugates women, abominizes sexuality, and mercilessly commits genocide against warring factions can EVER be considered a moral book.
“If you think that it would be impossible to improve upon the Ten Commandments as a statement of morality, you really owe it to yourself to read some other scriptures. Once again, we need look no further than the Jains: Mahavira, the Jain patriarch, surpassed the morality of the Bible with a single sentence: 'Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture, or kill any creature or living being.' Imagine how different our world might be if the Bible contained this as its central precept. Christians have abused, oppressed, enslaved, insulted, tormented, tortured, and killed people in the name of God for centuries, on the basis of a theologically defensible reading of the Bible.”
― Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation
You're inclined to think my at ude sucks because you privilege religion, and construe any attack against is as a form of arrogance. I can't blame you; our culture insists that its taboo to criticize religious beliefs. All I'm doing is levying criticism on bad ideas without respect for these taboos. If you think that's arrogant, then fine, I honestly couldn't care less. I've never sought your approval.
Meanwhile, he can't grasp simple concepts like the "ad hominem" fallacy, proving that his "intellect" is superficial and forced....
That, my friend, is an actual ad homenim.
Plus, it's demonstrably baseless, since atheists in this thread have much even more critical of you than I have.
Again, your contentions haven't gone passed entry level. No one is floundering to keep up with your intellect.
My use of big words is evidence of my superior verbal IQ, tbh.
The Bible does not contradict itself. You are simply reading out of context or know nothing of the scriptures.
What contentions have I made that haven't gotten past "entry-level?"
As I'd already stated previously, I never tried to argue for the nonexistence of God. It's impossible to prove a negative, and so the default position is to assume God doesn't exist. All I've been doing in this thread is criticising religion, something which has evidently upset you enough on a personal level to launch personal attacks like "arrogant" and "jackass."
Here are my answers then.You have not answered a single one of my questions.
Previously, I had broken down your posts part by part and tried to answer each point you'd made exhaustively. I then went on to ask you questions--questions which you completely ignored, so you could bypass all the rebuttals I made and repeat the same point which I'd already refuted a million times. And then you proceed to accuse me of evading your points.
Just to recapitulate, here's a list of some among the many questions I'd asked you before:
1. If the Bible is divinely inspired, why is it so full of contradictions?
2. If the Bible is a reliable source of morality, why can you and I easily make up a list of 10 commandments better the ones contained in it?
3. Why are you privileging the Bible? Why not talk about the Q'uran and the Torah, and uphold those as paragons of literaure?
4. Why do you continue to insist that the doctrines of these holy books are compatible, when the civilizations that have adhered to them have spent centuries trying to foist their religion upon other people, while killing all those who disagree with them?
1. I actually agreed from the beginning of the debate that I question its divinity. I did not concede it.
2. It has been thousands of years and yet 4 of the commandments (I do believe that I do not have to explain the importance of the 10 commandments within Christianity and Judaism) still hold true to this day. I would say that is reliable.
3. I have quoted the Quran and the Torah. They are not ignored by me. I do not have as much time researching those as the Bible, so I decline to use them out of respect to those who know more about them than myself. Those books are also some of the most influential books in history. How could they not be paragons.
4. It is one of the main points of the books that are strikingly similar. The belief in one true God is what is compatible. The main difference seems to be in the way the worship and understanding is applied.
Does this satisfy you?
^ok seriously whose troll is this?
Epic fail.
meh the fact that you posted one of these pics with a guy wearing a cross sort of discredits the whole joke
meh the fact that you posted one of these pics with a guy wearing a cross sort of discredits the whole joke
Again, ad homenim.
First, your OP is entry-level stuff. Second, looking for inconsistencies in the bible is entry-level. The constant strawmen you've used are entry-level. Your insistence on thinking I'm religious (for I'd have to be to disagree with you amirite?) is entry-level. You tossing out "fallacies" is entry-level.
Seriously, dude, it's grade-A vanilla stuff here. I'm not accusing you of being dumb or anything. But I do think you're incredibly inexperienced in this debate. You clearly haven't thought through both sides of the argument and taken them to beyond opening contentions. What's the point of being intellectual if you aren't going to actually analyze the issue before speaking on them?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
