NBA: Westboro Baptist Church planning on protesting game 5 in OKC

[Woo Bum-kon]

This topic has been studied for ages, and many theories and arguments have been made for and against the existence of God. Whether that proof is sufficient to you is another matter. This argument could be made by any scientific theory as well.

Your God hasn't met the burden of proof. Period. Not from a scientific or philosophical point of view.

The argument with regards to slaves through debt has been settled. Those "slaves" were essentially people under contract and could be freed after years of labour to pay off debt, and the treatment of them has been established to be quite well. You have been having a problem with slaves that were beaten, and those were POW, weren't they?

You did not prove that slaves were treated well. I never singled out POWs. You were the first to make that distinction.

You used the same argument that all Christians condone slavery, after misinterpreting the code in handling slavery in the OT.

Wrong. Your terrible reading comprehension rears its ugly head yet again. I have shown that the Bible condones slavery. I didn't misinterpret , because the slavery in the Bible is still slavery.

I did not make the legal code, nor did I vote for it in the OT, neither did millions and millions of Christians, Jews or Muslims.

But you CHOSE to believe in it and call it the word of God, did you not? That's the difference between me being an American and you being a theist. You have shown yet again to have terrible reasoning skills.

As for point 2), I am not in the position to argue who is and is not deserving of capital punishment. If you feel that you have the moral right to determine whether a person lives or not, be my guest.

You are so stupid that it's unbelievable. First of all, I have not condoned capital punishment. I am merely stating that if somebody were to executed for a crime, that crime should not be something like being a non-believer or an unruly child. Second, your God in your holy book says that you should determine who lives or dies. So, please answer the questions that you have dodged from the very beginning: do you think that the punishments fit the crimes in the Bible? Do you think non-believers should be put to death?

By stating that an argument that has been argued since the dawn of time cannot be proven one way or another is to take an infallible stance. It has been demonstrated for thousands of years that an answer could not be deduced.

It is stating that the argument has not been proven and that it may not be proven. Agnosticism is a perfectly reasonable stance when it comes to knowledge. When it comes to belief, atheism is the only reasonable stance.

[Blake]

It does take you a little longer than WB-k to go the personal attack route, so I give you credit. But unfortunately, at the end of this, it still resolves to personal attacks. Which, really, isn't surprising.

I also find it amusing how you could have not read the Bible in itself to conclude the entire book makes no sense. That goes for some strong comprehension skills.

your critical thinking sucks and your reading comprehension is mediocre.

It is what it is. I'm not attacking you. Just giving it to you straight.

[ambchang]

Your God hasn't met the burden of proof. Period. Not from a scientific or philosophical point of view.

I agree on the scientific point of view, because applying a scientific view point on the existence of God has already been agreed to be the incorrect route as God, or deities in general, are not mathematical or scientific en ies. As for philosophical proofs, perhaps you can show me an example.

You did not prove that slaves were treated well. I never singled out POWs. You were the first to make that distinction.

I showed that slaves were given basic human rights, and were freed after 7 years of labour. POW were not to be beaten without consequences. I don't want to go down the route again, because I know you would just like to take one sentence and ignore everything that came before or after it. While you like to go around in circiles, I don't.

Wrong. Your terrible reading comprehension rears its ugly head yet again. I have shown that the Bible condones slavery. I didn't misinterpret , because the slavery in the Bible is still slavery.

Reading the entire book is terrible reading comprehension while not reading the entire book is not? And do you know what condones mean? Most countries have legal codes that talks about incarceration for committing crimes, do all those countries condone incarceration?

But you CHOSE to believe in it and call it the word of God, did you not? That's the difference between me being an American and you being a theist. You have shown yet again to have terrible reasoning skills.

You can choose to live in another country. You have terrible mobility.

You are so stupid that it's unbelievable. First of all, I have not condoned capital punishment. I am merely stating that if somebody were to executed for a crime, that crime should not be something like being a non-believer or an unruly child. Second, your God in your holy book says that you should determine who lives or dies. So, please answer the questions that you have dodged from the very beginning: do you think that the punishments fit the crimes in the Bible? Do you think non-believers should be put to death?

Provided God exists, of course God can determine who lives or dies, He created mankind by definition.

And yes, the punishments fit the crimes. But then again, please use your fantastic comprehension skills to read the entire book.

It is stating that the argument has not been proven and that it may not be proven. Agnosticism is a perfectly reasonable stance when it comes to knowledge. When it comes to belief, atheism is the only reasonable stance.

You are saying atheism is the only reasonable stance? Proof?

[ambchang]

your critical thinking sucks and your reading comprehension is mediocre.

It is what it is. I'm not attacking you. Just giving it to you straight.

As opposed to a person not being able to understand how the Bible was written, and continuously take ones phrase out of an entire paragraph to proof great comprehension?

You have been filled with self-contradiction in this entire thread, and now is just relegating to stating anything you please as facts.

[Blake]

As opposed to a person not being able to understand how the Bible was written, and continuously take ones phrase out of an entire paragraph to proof great comprehension?[b

You have been filled with self-contradiction in this entire thread, and now is just relegating to stating anything you please as facts.

wrong on all points.

Is what it is. You are what you are: ignorant.

[Woo Bum-kon]

I agree on the scientific point of view, because applying a scientific view point on the existence of God has already been agreed to be the incorrect route as God, or deities in general, are not mathematical or scientific en ies. As for philosophical proofs, perhaps you can show me an example.

I don't have to show you an example of anything. That's not how burden of proof works.

I showed that slaves were given basic human rights, and were freed after 7 years of labour. POW were not to be beaten without consequences. I don't want to go down the route again, because I know you would just like to take one sentence and ignore everything that came before or after it. While you like to go around in circiles, I don't.

Nah, I just don't pretend that slavery isn't slavery. And being forced to work for someone else takes away human rights.

Reading the entire book is terrible reading comprehension while not reading the entire book is not? And do you know what condones mean? Most countries have legal codes that talks about incarceration for committing crimes, do all those countries condone incarceration?

Again, you show your terrible reading you claimed that I claimed that all Christians condone slavery. That's untrue. Therefore, you either misunderstood my point or lied.

And people are incarcerated for breaking laws. It's necessary for numerous reasons. The Biblical slavery is completely unnecessary, because the Jews had God on their side.

You can choose to live in another country. You have terrible mobility.

If I had the money, maybe. But that's besides the point. Every country's people disagree with their policies. I was born into America. I didn't make that choice. You, on the otherhand, chose to believe in God. You chose to follow his "infallible" teachings. That's where your comparison falls flat.

Provided God exists, of course God can determine who lives or dies, He created mankind by definition.

Terrible reading comprehension yet again. I was talking about God telling his followers whom to kill, not God killing people himself.

Take a critical reading and writing class in your spare time, instead of whining about Kobe Bryant.

And yes, the punishments fit the crimes.

So I deserve to be stoned to death for being a non-believer. You are a real sicko.

But then again, please use your fantastic comprehension skills to read the entire book.

You just don't understand. With or without the context that you provided, Biblical laws are ed up. And you are ed up for thinking that they are somehow justified.

You are saying atheism is the only reasonable stance? Proof?

God hasn't met his burden of proof, so the only reasonable thing would be not believing. All there is to it. You were a ty atheist before, and you are ty human being now, like all Christians who truly believe the bull in the Bible.

[ambchang]

wrong on all points.

Is what it is. You are what you are: ignorant.

LOL, writing in absolutes with absolutely no back up. This is simply painful to read from someone claiming to be a scientific thinker.

An objective person would have understood that the Bible was written in Hebrew, and that taking the reading in English without deeper understanding of the background and history is absolutely taking texts out of context.

An objective person would have understood that in order to criticize a subject, it is absolutely critical to read the book that was the basis of that subject.

But then, you didn't.

[ambchang]

I don't have to show you an example of anything. That's not how burden of proof works.

Burden of proof works on a scientific front, things such as theory of gravity could be proven/rejected based on a list of scientific observations.

On the other hand, I am trying to understand your burden of proof for philosophical questions. You raised it as something of an existence, and I would like to see an example of it so that I know what you mean.

Nah, I just don't pretend that slavery isn't slavery. And being forced to work for someone else takes away human rights.

Human rights? Do you know the history of human rights and how that applies to biblical times? The Bible is actually one of the first written examples of human rights.

[QUOTE=Woo Bum-kon;6562039]Again, you show your terrible reading you claimed that I claimed that all Christians condone slavery. That's untrue. Therefore, you either misunderstood my point or lied.

And people are incarcerated for breaking laws. It's necessary for numerous reasons. The Biblical slavery is completely unnecessary, because the Jews had God on their side.

I most definitely misunderstood your point then, if a person's personal believes align perfectly with those of a God, and the Bible is the written word of God, how can one claim that Christians do not condone slavery when the Bible does? In fact, I asked whether "those countries" condone incarceration, not whether "all citizens in those countries" condone incarceration.

The the statement about having God on their side thus not requiring slavery makes not sense whatsoever.

If I had the money, maybe. But that's besides the point. Every country's people disagree with their policies. I was born into America. I didn't make that choice. You, on the otherhand, chose to believe in God. You chose to follow his "infallible" teachings. That's where your comparison falls flat.

How much money does it take to move to another country? Other than the flight of a ticket, there is none, and in a place like the States, all you have to do is work for a few months and you would have enough money to move elsewhere, it is not that hard. I was born in an atheist and chose to be a Christian, you are born to be an American and can choose to be a non-American, it's not that hard.

Terrible reading comprehension yet again. I was talking about God telling his followers whom to kill, not God killing people himself.

Actually, God did both, but then again, the American government tells their soldiers to go abroad and kill terrorists and militants, the American government didn't kill, they only instruct their soldiers to do so.

Take a critical reading and writing class in your spare time, instead of whining about Kobe Bryant.

Like telling the difference between countries and citizens of a country? Where can I take those classes? I will avoid the ones you took because you certainly didn't learn too much from it.

So I deserve to be stoned to death for being a non-believer. You are a real sicko.

Were you a born a Jew?

You just don't understand. With or without the context that you provided, Biblical laws are ed up. And you are ed up for thinking that they are somehow justified.

Because you have defined it so. And I don't agree with your definition, because it was based on what you have deemed acceptable and not. I do not have to subscribe to your standards of morals, just like you don't have to for mine. It's not that hard to understand.

God hasn't met his burden of proof, so the only reasonable thing would be not believing. All there is to it. You were a ty atheist before, and you are ty human being now, like all Christians who truly believe the bull in the Bible.

The burden of proof on the existence of God is in the creation itself. This has been the main argument for the existence of God. While this is not a logical argument (I am not sure if you are looking for one), a burden of proof requires none.

In fact, the assertion that God does not exist could be rephrased into "There is no single dimension of existence with at least one God", turning the negative assertion to a positive one, and could easily shift the burden of proof.

I have a su ion that you are mixing up burden of proof and logical deduction, but am trying to find out.

[Woo Bum-kon]

Burden of proof works on a scientific front, things such as theory of gravity could be proven/rejected based on a list of scientific observations.

On the other hand, I am trying to understand your burden of proof for philosophical questions. You raised it as something of an existence, and I would like to see an example of it so that I know what you mean.

Burden of proof is for all factual claims. Either your God exists or he does not. Either your God has evidence supporting him or he does not. For a claim to be believable, it should have evidence supporting it.

Human rights? Do you know the history of human rights and how that applies to biblical times? The Bible is actually one of the first written examples of human rights.

That's nice and all, but slavery strips away human rights and turns a person into property.

I most definitely misunderstood your point then, if a person's personal believes align perfectly with those of a God, and the Bible is the written word of God, how can one claim that Christians do not condone slavery when the Bible does?

It's either because they don't know what the Bible says about slavery, or they rationalize it. You are really stupid and you really like putting words in my mouth. I already know that all Christians don't condone slavery, which is why I never asserted that they did. You are building up more strawmen.

In fact, I asked whether "those countries" condone incarceration, not whether "all citizens in those countries" condone incarceration.

So?

The the statement about having God on their side thus not requiring slavery makes not sense whatsoever.

God should be able to find a way for defeated armies to not be turned into slaves, because he's God.

How much money does it take to move to another country? Other than the flight of a ticket, there is none, and in a place like the States, all you have to do is work for a few months and you would have enough money to move elsewhere, it is not that hard. I was born in an atheist and chose to be a Christian, you are born to be an American and can choose to be a non-American, it's not that hard.

You are a ing moron. The solution to one disagreeing with their country's policies is to move away? There is not a country in the world that I agree with 100%, so what would moving away accomplish?

It's simple: you made a re ed statement about all Americans condoning murder and got called out on it. Stop being re ed. I have to live in a country. You don't have to worship a murder-happy God. Your comparison falls flat.

Actually, God did both

I never claimed that he didn't. I did claim that you have horrible reading comprehension, which you have shown repeatedly in this thread alone.

but then again, the American government tells their soldiers to go abroad and kill terrorists and militants, the American government didn't kill, they only instruct their soldiers to do so.

So your response to your God being an asshole is, "The American government is, too"? A stance that I don't even disagree with? If you want to expose me for hypocrisy, attack a stance I have, not some other group whose actions I don't even support.

Like telling the difference between countries and citizens of a country? Where can I take those classes? I will avoid the ones you took because you certainly didn't learn too much from it.

You think all Americans condone capital punishment by virtue of being American. You clearly can't distinguish between a country and it's citizens.

Were you a born a Jew?

Am I of Jewish lineage? No. Are you going to complain about the context in which murder is okay, again?

Because you have defined it so.

So? That's what human beings have being doing since they've been on earth.

And I don't agree with your definition, because it was based on what you have deemed acceptable and not. I do not have to subscribe to your standards of morals, just like you don't have to for mine. It's not that hard to understand.

I never said you did. It's funny that after all your crying about context, when it come right down to it, you don't even try to defend your sick beliefs. You are just using moral relativism now.

The burden of proof on the existence of God is in the creation itself.

That doesn't make any sense as a sentence and as an argument.

This has been the main argument for the existence of God. While this is not a logical argument (I am not sure if you are looking for one), a burden of proof requires none.

Burden of proof requires evidence and logical consistency. Your above statement makes no sense whatsoever and has no evidence whatsoever. You're off to a bad start.

In fact, the assertion that God does not exist could be rephrased into "There is no single dimension of existence with at least one God", turning the negative assertion to a positive one, and could easily shift the burden of proof.

How many times have theists made this strawman in this thread alone? Where I have I stated that no gods exist? You don't understand what atheism is, and you are pathetic at arguing. My stance is that your God hasn't met his burden of proof, not that your God doesn't exist.

I have a su ion that you are mixing up burden of proof and logical deduction, but am trying to find out.

I have a su ion that you have no idea what burden of proof or atheism are.

[Kidd K]

When are Christians going to learn that their "Word of God" is actually "Word of Man who wrote the book while claiming it's the word of God"?

God didn't write it, man did. Try to understand this . It's also very outdated. Back then it all made sense, now it doesn't. We also now understand that the world isn't flat, witchcraft doesn't exist, we revolve around the sun rather than the sun revolving around us, and that bull like slavery and misogyny (bull that's condoned and even pushed in the bible) are wrong while sexuality isn't actually a big deal as it harms no one including themselves.

[ambchang]

Burden of proof is for all factual claims. Either your God exists or he does not. Either your God has evidence supporting him or he does not. For a claim to be believable, it should have evidence supporting it.

Given your amazing comprehension skills, I would imagine you would have read that my original question was for you to show me an example of a burden of proof from a philosophical point of view so that I can answer your following question from a few post ago correctly.

Your God hasn't met the burden of proof. Period. Not from a scientific or philosophical point of view.

That's nice and all, but slavery strips away human rights and turns a person into property.

The concept of human rights is a recent phenomenon, and no where does the base of it says that being a property to another person cannot satisfy basic human rights. Human rights has two major approaches, one through the human interest theory, and one through the will theory. The interest theory does not apply in this case based on my interpretation, and the will theory applies in the significance of freedom.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/hum-rts/#SH4b

Freedom during different eras cons utes different meanings. In biblical times, freedom does not exclude being the property of another person. It is only recently that such a definition emerged, and the reason for the need for abolishing modern day slavery is due to the abuses through slavery than the act of ownership itself. In other words, the human rights of the biblical times were satisfied when the biblical codes were written. 500 years from now, human rights and freedom may be defined totally differently, the conditions we live in right now may be considered to be oppressive and appalling, but for us, at this point in time, we are absolutely living in a free environment with our basic human rights satisfied.

It's either because they don't know what the Bible says about slavery, or they rationalize it. You are really stupid and you really like putting words in my mouth. I already know that all Christians don't condone slavery, which is why I never asserted that they did. You are building up more strawmen.

So?

, immediately after saying I put words in your mouth, you tried to brush off the countries comment. You, on one hand, said the Bible condones slavery, and on another hand dismissed that you are condoning capital punishment. Condone, by definition, means to disregard and overlook a subject. You, as an American, living in USA, did not action to abolish capital punishment in your country is the definition of condoning it.

Speaking of strawmen …

God should be able to find a way for defeated armies to not be turned into slaves, because he's God.

Now you are defining the actions of what God should do. This in and of itself defines what a strawman argument is.

You are a ing moron. The solution to one disagreeing with their country's policies is to move away? There is not a country in the world that I agree with 100%, so what would moving away accomplish?

So what have you done to stamp out capital punishment? If nothing, you are condoning it, by definition.

It's simple: you made a re ed statement about all Americans condoning murder and got called out on it. Stop being re ed. I have to live in a country. You don't have to worship a murder-happy God. Your comparison falls flat.

Perhaps all Americans is a tad overkill, as there were pockets that were fighting against it. So, again, what have you done to stop capital punishment in your country?

I never claimed that he didn't. I did claim that you have horrible reading comprehension, which you have shown repeatedly in this thread alone.

I never claimed that you said He didn’t. You read anywhere I did? Perhaps your brilliant reading comprehension can point me the way.

So your response to your God being an asshole is, "The American government is, too"? A stance that I don't even disagree with? If you want to expose me for hypocrisy, attack a stance I have, not some other group whose actions I don't even support.

My stance is that you are condoning what your government is doing by not doing a thing about it. It is the strict definition of the term.

You think all Americans condone capital punishment by virtue of being American. You clearly can't distinguish between a country and it's citizens.

Again I ask, what is the definition of condone?

Am I of Jewish lineage? No. Are you going to complain about the context in which murder is okay, again?

Have I ever said murder is OK? Given you have such a strong stance against people words in others’ mouths, perhaps you can quote me?

So? That's what human beings have being doing since they've been on earth.

Defining something and then arguing anybody who does not agree with them is what human beings have been doing since we've been on earth?

I never said you did. It's funny that after all your crying about context, when it come right down to it, you don't even try to defend your sick beliefs. You are just using moral relativism now.

I never said you have to, I am telling you I don’t have to. Do I require your permission for that?

That doesn't make any sense as a sentence and as an argument.

Burden of proof requires evidence and logical consistency. Your above statement makes no sense whatsoever and has no evidence whatsoever. You're off to a bad start. [/quote]

My apologies, I meant, the proof is in the creation of God. The evidence is in the creation itself.

How many times have theists made this strawman in this thread alone? Where I have I stated that no gods exist? You don't understand what atheism is, and you are pathetic at arguing. My stance is that your God hasn't met his burden of proof, not that your God doesn't exist.

Atheism is the belief that there are no deities. I am not sure how you can be an atheist and you can claim that gods do exist. God hasn’t met the burden of proof is agnosticism.

I have a su ion that you have no idea what burden of proof or atheism are.

Perhaps you can enlighten me.

[Blake]

LOL, writing in absolutes with absolutely no back up. This is simply painful to read from someone claiming to be a scientific thinker.

An objective person would have understood that the Bible was written in Hebrew, and that taking the reading in English without deeper understanding of the background and history is absolutely taking texts out of context.

An objective person would have understood that in order to criticize a subject, it is absolutely critical to read the book that was the basis of that subject.

But then, you didn't.

So you're saying King James didn't translate it correctly.

An objective person would wonder why an omniscient, omnipotent God would allow for such mis translations instead of just writing it himself.

Why has he allowed so many people to believe the Israelites crossed the Red Sea for example.

fwiw, I never claimed to be a scientific thinker. Just a logical thinker. More reading comprehension failure here. More to come, no doubt.

You're God awful at this.

[Blake]

Perhaps you can enlighten me.

he has enlightened you multiple times as to what burden of proof in a logical sense means.

Your inability to get it by now is on you

[Woo Bum-kon]

Given your amazing comprehension skills, I would imagine you would have read that my original question was for you to show me an example of a burden of proof from a philosophical point of view so that I can answer your following question from a few post ago correctly.

Google it.

The concept of human rights is a recent phenomenon, and no where does the base of it says that being a property to another person cannot satisfy basic human rights. Human rights has two major approaches, one through the human interest theory, and one through the will theory. The interest theory does not apply in this case based on my interpretation, and the will theory applies in the significance of freedom.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/hum-rts/#SH4b

Thank you. Taking away people's freedom is not giving them human rights.

Freedom during different eras cons utes different meanings. In biblical times, freedom does not exclude being the property of another person. It is only recently that such a definition emerged, and the reason for the need for abolishing modern day slavery is due to the abuses through slavery than the act of ownership itself. In other words, the human rights of the biblical times were satisfied when the biblical codes were written. 500 years from now, human rights and freedom may be defined totally differently, the conditions we live in right now may be considered to be oppressive and appalling, but for us, at this point in time, we are absolutely living in a free environment with our basic human rights satisfied.

The standards of the Biblical times were ed up.

, immediately after saying I put words in your mouth, you tried to brush off the countries comment. You, on one hand, said the Bible condones slavery, and on another hand dismissed that you are condoning capital punishment. Condone, by definition, means to disregard and overlook a subject. You, as an American, living in USA, did not action to abolish capital punishment in your country is the definition of condoning it.

That's re ed. I have not condoned it at all. And give me an example of how one person with no political influence at all can put a stop to all capital punishment in America.

Speaking of strawmen …

Now you are defining the actions of what God should do. This in and of itself defines what a strawman argument is.

No, it is not. A strawman is a deliberate misinterpretation of an oponent's argument. Whose argument am I deliberately misinterpreting?

So what have you done to stamp out capital punishment? If nothing, you are condoning it, by definition.

No, I am not condoning it, moron. I, as a single person, cannot overturn the all capital punishment laws in the US. Your argument that I condone it because I haven't done anything to stop it is re ed, re .

Perhaps all Americans is a tad overkill, as there were pockets that were fighting against it. So, again, what have you done to stop capital punishment in your country?

Again, read the above, asshole, and stop trying to attack a position I haven't taken, moron.

I never claimed that you said He didn’t. You read anywhere I did? Perhaps your brilliant reading comprehension can point me the way.

You posted, "Actually, God did both" as if I claimed otherwise.

My stance is that you are condoning what your government is doing by not doing a thing about it. It is the strict definition of the term.

What should I do exactly?

Again I ask, what is the definition of condone?

To accept/agree with another's actions or policies.

Have I ever said murder is OK? Given you have such a strong stance against people words in others’ mouths, perhaps you can quote me?

When you said that the punishments fit the crime, you condoned murder.

Defining something and then arguing anybody who does not agree with them is what human beings have been doing since we've been on earth?

Yes.

I never said you have to, I am telling you I don’t have to. Do I require your permission for that?

Nope. Unlike your God, I am not for murdering people who disagree with me.

My apologies, I meant, the proof is in the creation of God. The evidence is in the creation itself.

Circular reasoning.

Atheism is the belief that there are no deities. I am not sure how you can be an atheist and you can claim that gods do exist.

I agree completely.

God hasn’t met the burden of proof is agnosticism.

The fact that you stated that shows that you don't understand with atheism and agnosticism are.

Perhaps you can enlighten me.

Your previous statement shows that you don't know what atheism is.

[ambchang]

So you're saying King James didn't translate it correctly.

An objective person would wonder why an omniscient, omnipotent God would allow for such mis translations instead of just writing it himself.

Why has he allowed so many people to believe the Israelites crossed the Red Sea for example.

fwiw, I never claimed to be a scientific thinker. Just a logical thinker. More reading comprehension failure here. More to come, no doubt.

You're God awful at this.

First, logical thinking is a subset of scientific thinking, so saying that a logical thinker is a scientific thinker is correct by definition. Scientific thinking includes empiricism, rationalism (logical thinking/reasoning), and a skeptical at ude. I am not even sure if you know what you a scientific thinker is, at this point.

Second, I never said the King James version incorrectly translated the Bible. Please practice that fantastic comprehension skills and logical thinking skills you preach. There is more than one alternative and conclusion that came from my earlier comment.

Third, I have been asking about burden of proof in a philosophical sense.

he has enlightened you multiple times as to what burden of proof in a logical sense means.

Your inability to get it by now is on you

[ambchang]

Google it.

I did, couldn't find it. Given that you already know about it, please tell me.

Thank you. Taking away people's freedom is not giving them human rights.

You are again forcing your own definition of freedom into arguments.

The standards of the Biblical times were ed up.

Compared to modern times? Sure. Wars, famine, diseases, social stratification, are but a few examples that we don't practice in modern times anymore.

That's re ed. I have not condoned it at all. And give me an example of how one person with no political influence at all can put a stop to all capital punishment in America.

You can demonstrate, you can pressure politicians. There isn't only one single way to accomplish this.

No, it is not. A strawman is a deliberate misinterpretation of an oponent's argument. Whose argument am I deliberately misinterpreting?

God's. You disregarded certain points of the Biblical context, and presented a superficially similar argument (In this case, the necessity of having slaves if He was a God), thus dismissing the origin position of whether He is God.

No, I am not condoning it, moron. I, as a single person, cannot overturn the all capital punishment laws in the US. Your argument that I condone it because I haven't done anything to stop it is re ed, re .


Again, read the above, asshole, and stop trying to attack a position I haven't taken, moron.

I am asking if you have done ANYTHING. Have you?

You posted, "Actually, God did both" as if I claimed otherwise.

As if? But I didn't, did I? If you said, "Durant scored 30 points on 12 shots", and I responded, "Actually, he scored 30 points on 12 shots and another 8 FTs", that does not mean that I disagree with your original statement, it only means I have more to add.

What should I do exactly?



To accept/agree with another's actions or policies.

It also includes to disregard or overlook (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/condone?s=t)

When you said that the punishments fit the crime, you condoned murder.

Punishment is murder? So capital punishment is murder?

Yes.

So what is the point of arguing? You already had it defined.

Nope. Unlike your God, I am not for murdering people who disagree with me.

Again, if you define punishment as murder, then I don't agree with the definition.

Circular reasoning.

How so?

I agree completely.

The fact that you stated that shows that you don't understand with atheism and agnosticism are.

Your previous statement shows that you don't know what atheism is.

Explain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostics

Agnosticism is the view that the existence or non-existence of any deity is unknown and possibly unknowable. More specifically, agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable.

[Woo Bum-kon]

I did, couldn't find it. Given that you already know about it, please tell me.

A philosophical argument is an argument that something is necessarily true, given the premises.

Bob is a penguin.
All penguins are black and white.
Therefore, Bob is black and white.

Replace Bob the penguin with God, and set up premises with him. It's not that hard to do. Look at the millions of iterations of the first cause argument. They all fail, but they are arguments for the existence of God from a philosophical standpoint.

You are again forcing your own definition of freedom into arguments.

So? And it's the modern definition of freedom. By the modern definition of freedom, slaves were not given basic human rights.

Compared to modern times?

Of course.

You can demonstrate, you can pressure politicians. There isn't only one single way to accomplish this.

Lot's of people have demonstrated. Lot's of people have pressured politicians.

God's.

No, I didn't.

You disregarded certain points of the Biblical context, and presented a superficially similar argument (In this case, the necessity of having slaves if He was a God), thus dismissing the origin position of whether He is God.

This doesn't even make sense. If an all powerful being was truly good, it would find a way for people to not be turned into slaves or indentured servants or whatever word you want to use. Period. I am not misinterpreting .

If God is good and all powerful, he would find a way. That's not a strawman.

I am asking if you have done ANYTHING. Have you?

Like what? And again, how is being born into a country with set policies the same as choosing a religion with set policies? How are you going to put the citizen at fault for all the actions of a government when the citizen doesn't even support those actions?

As if? But I didn't, did I? If you said, "Durant scored 30 points on 12 shots", and I responded, "Actually, he scored 30 points on 12 shots and another 8 FTs", that does not mean that I disagree with your original statement, it only means I have more to add.

Except you didn't have more to add. I specifically asked you a question about God telling his followers to kill people, and you changed the subject to God himself killing people. You dodged my original point, which is why we are having this conversation right now.

It also includes to disregard or overlook (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/condone?s=t)

So? Again, I didn't make the laws. I didn't choose to be born American. You chose to be a Christian. You can easily just stop being a Christian. You can easily just stop believing the bull in the Bible, but you choose not to. Asking somebody to stop believing in a religion is a lot more feasible than asking somebody to find a country whose policies they agree with 100%.

Punishment is murder? So capital punishment is murder?

Killing somebody for a bull reason is murder. Your repeated attempts at saying, "But the government does it, too!" doesn't change the fact that your God is a murdering psycho who wants you to murder people. And you choose to believe in him.

So what is the point of arguing? You already had it defined.

What is your point of arguing? You asked these stupid questions about humanity and definitions as if the answers aren't common knowledge.

Again, if you define punishment as murder, then I don't agree with the definition.

I am not defining punishment as murder. I am defining killing somebody for being a non-believer as murder. I am defining killing somebody for being unruly as murder. You seem to be okay with, but I'm not.

How so?

You are using your conclusion in your premise. God created everything, and the evidence is everything? That doesn't make sense. It's a circular argument.

Explain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostics

I already explained it to you, but you didn't listen. I have explained it multiple times in this thread, but you didn't listen. But I will explain it again slowly, so you don't get confused.

Atheism concerns belief.

Agnosticism concerns knowledge.

Knowledge is justified true belief.

Not all beliefs are knowledge, but all knowledge comes from belief.

Atheism is the rejection of the claim, "A God exists." That's the lack of belief in a God.

Agnosticism claims that we don't know if there is a God.

When you say, "But that's agnosticism, not atheism!" you show that you misunderstand what both terms mean. They are not mutually exclusive.

I will give you an example from The Atheist Experience:

You are walking with two people and you come across a gumball machine. The first person tells you that the number of gumballs in the machine is even. Do you believe him? No. Given the information available, you can't agree because you don't know. The second person tells you the number of gumballs is odd. Do you believe him? No. Given the information available, you can't agree because you don't know. You are an atheist in this situation because you lack belief in whether the number of gumballs is odd or even. You are agnostic because you acknowledge that there is not a sufficient amount of evidence available for there to be a justified true belief in the number of gumballs in the machine.

Replace the number of gumballs with God. If a person says, "God exists," do you believe him? No, given the information available, one cannot come to that conclusion. I am an atheist in that I lack belief in God. I am an agnostic because I believe that there is not a sufficient amount of evidence available for there to be a justified true belief in a god or gods.

[baseline bum]

Anyone know their plans for Game 7?

[Blake]

First, logical thinking is a subset of scientific thinking, so saying that a logical thinker is a scientific thinker is correct by definition. Scientific thinking includes empiricism, rationalism (logical thinking/reasoning), and a skeptical at ude. I am not even sure if you know what you a scientific thinker is, at this point.

lol at that made up .

Second, I never said the King James version incorrectly translated the Bible. Please practice that fantastic comprehension skills and logical thinking skills you preach. There is more than one alternative and conclusion that came from my earlier comment.

yeah, it's clear now you haven't compared the literal translation vs the King James.

Third, I have been asking about burden of proof in a philosophical sense.

It's an easy google, lazy ass.

[DMC]

My is God. Get on your goddamn knees and worship it. You shall bear the fruit of my loin across your visages.

[DMC]

Whoops more New Testament.

So when did you encounter your 1st Peter?

[Blake]

So when did you encounter your 1st Peter?

It was a revelation to John when he found a second one

[ambchang]

A philosophical argument is an argument that something is necessarily true, given the premises.

Bob is a penguin.
All penguins are black and white.
Therefore, Bob is black and white.

Replace Bob the penguin with God, and set up premises with him. It's not that hard to do. Look at the millions of iterations of the first cause argument. They all fail, but they are arguments for the existence of God from a philosophical standpoint.

Well, taking it straight from Thomas Aquinas:

The unmoved mover argument asserts that, from our experience of motion in the universe (motion being the transition from potentiality to actuality) we can see that there must have been an initial mover. Aquinas argued that whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another thing, so there must be an unmoved mover.
Aquinas' argument from first cause started with the premise that it is impossible for a being to cause itself (because it would have to exist before it caused itself) and that it is impossible for there to be an infinite chain of causes, which would result in infinite regress. Therefore, there must be a first cause, itself uncaused.
The argument from necessary being asserts that all beings are contingent, meaning that it is possible for them not to exist. Aquinas argued that if everything can possibly not exist, there must have been a time when nothing existed; as things exist now, there must exist a being with necessary existence, regarded as God.
Aquinas argued from degree, considering the occurrence of degrees of goodness. He believed that things which are called good, must be called good in relation to a standard of good – a maximum. There must be a maximum goodness that which causes all goodness.
The teleological argument asserts the view that things without intelligence are ordered towards a purpose. Aquinas argued that unintelligent objects cannot be ordered unless they are done so by an intelligent being, which means that there must be an intelligent being to move objects to their ends: God.

So? And it's the modern definition of freedom. By the modern definition of freedom, slaves were not given basic human rights.

But the social norms of biblical times were not the same it is now. It was the reflection of the societal norms, and the rules the Bible gives people to manage those social norms. The central idea of the Bible isn't to or not to have slaves, or how to punish those who violated certain socially acceptable behaviours.

Of course.



Lot's of people have demonstrated. Lot's of people have pressured politicians.

I am not talking about lots of people, I am talking about you in particular. What have you done?

No, I didn't.



This doesn't even make sense. If an all powerful being was truly good, it would find a way for people to not be turned into slaves or indentured servants or whatever word you want to use. Period. I am not misinterpreting .

If God is good and all powerful, he would find a way. That's not a strawman.

You have established a position that an all powerful God does not need slaves. The original position is the existence of God, and you have misrepresented and distorted that version by quoting the Bible out of context, then arguing against the existence of slaves means there was no God.

Like what? And again, how is being born into a country with set policies the same as choosing a religion with set policies? How are you going to put the citizen at fault for all the actions of a government when the citizen doesn't even support those actions?

Don't you guys live in a democracy?

Except you didn't have more to add. I specifically asked you a question about God telling his followers to kill people, and you changed the subject to God himself killing people. You dodged my original point, which is why we are having this conversation right now.

Which really has nothing to do with my lack of reading comprehension, but either your lack of reading comprehension (which I don't mind by the way), or you jumping to conclusions about my ability to read (which I sort of mind). As for God telling his followers to kill people, I can't explain it better than this article, so here you go:

Israel was commanded by God to completely exterminate the Canaanite inhabitants of the land including men, women, and children. This has been called a primitive and barbaric act of murder perpetrated on innocent lives.

Several factors must be kept in mind in viewing this situation. (1) There is a difference between murder and justifiable killing. Murder involves intentional and malicious hatred which leads to life-taking. On the other hand, the Bible speaks of permissible life-taking in capital punishment (Gen. 9, in self defense (Exod. 22:2), and in a justifiable war (Gen. 14). (2) The Canaanites were by no means innocent. They were a people cursed of God from their very beginning (Gen. 9:25). They were a vile people who practiced the basest forms of immorality. God described their sin vividly in these words, “I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants” (Lev. 18:25). (3) Further, the innocent people of the land were not slaughtered. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah clearly demonstrates that God would save a whole city for ten righteous people (Gen. 18:22f.). In that incident, when God could not find ten righteous people, He took the four or five righteous ones out of the place so as not to destroy them with the wicked (Gen. 19:15). On another occasion God saved some thirty-two thousand people who were morally pure (Num. 31:35). Another notable example is Rahab, whom God saved because she believed (cf. Heb. 11:31). (4) God waited patiently for hundreds of years, giving the wicked inhabitants of Canaan time to repent (cf. 2 Peter 3:9) before He finally decided to destroy them (Gen. 15:16). When their iniquity was “full,” divine judgment fell. God’s judgment was akin to surgery for cancer or amputation of a leg as the only way to save the rest of a sick body. Just as cancer or gangrene contaminates the physical body, those elements in a society—if their evil is left to fester—will completely contaminate the rest of society. (5) Finally, the battle confronting Israel was not simply a religious war; it was a theocratic war. Israel was directly ruled by God and the extermination was God’s direct command (cf. Exod. 23:27-30; Deut. 7:3-6; Josh. 8:24-26). No other nation either before or after Israel has been a theocracy. Thus, those commands were unique. Israel as a theocracy was an instrument of judgment in the hands of God. (Norman L. Geisler, A Popular Survey of the Old Testament, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1977, pp. 99-100.)

So? Again, I didn't make the laws. I didn't choose to be born American. You chose to be a Christian. You can easily just stop being a Christian. You can easily just stop believing the bull in the Bible, but you choose not to. Asking somebody to stop believing in a religion is a lot more feasible than asking somebody to find a country whose policies they agree with 100%.

Switching religion is tough to do because it involves the mental state of mind. Physical relocation is extremely simple. Millions of people immigrate yearly.

Killing somebody for a bull reason is murder. Your repeated attempts at saying, "But the government does it, too!" doesn't change the fact that your God is a murdering psycho who wants you to murder people. And you choose to believe in him.

Whether a reason is acceptable or not is your own definition, I can't argue with it. And for the record, no, God hasn't commanded me, or anyone, to murder anyone. As for him commanding people to kill either in the act of war or through punishment, it hasn't happened since early in the Biblical times.

What is your point of arguing? You asked these stupid questions about humanity and definitions as if the answers aren't common knowledge.

They aren't, that's why there are still different schools of thoughts for and against the position.

I am not defining punishment as murder. I am defining killing somebody for being a non-believer as murder. I am defining killing somebody for being unruly as murder. You seem to be okay with, but I'm not.

Great, we will agree to disagree then.

You are using your conclusion in your premise. God created everything, and the evidence is everything? That doesn't make sense. It's a circular argument.

Except God created everything is not the premise, the existence of God is the premise.

I already explained it to you, but you didn't listen. I have explained it multiple times in this thread, but you didn't listen. But I will explain it again slowly, so you don't get confused.

Atheism concerns belief.

Agnosticism concerns knowledge.

Knowledge is justified true belief.

Not all beliefs are knowledge, but all knowledge comes from belief.

Atheism is the rejection of the claim, "A God exists." That's the lack of belief in a God.

Agnosticism claims that we don't know if there is a God.

When you say, "But that's agnosticism, not atheism!" you show that you misunderstand what both terms mean. They are not mutually exclusive.

I will give you an example from The Atheist Experience:

You are walking with two people and you come across a gumball machine. The first person tells you that the number of gumballs in the machine is even. Do you believe him? No. Given the information available, you can't agree because you don't know. The second person tells you the number of gumballs is odd. Do you believe him? No. Given the information available, you can't agree because you don't know. You are an atheist in this situation because you lack belief in whether the number of gumballs is odd or even. You are agnostic because you acknowledge that there is not a sufficient amount of evidence available for there to be a justified true belief in the number of gumballs in the machine.

Replace the number of gumballs with God. If a person says, "God exists," do you believe him? No, given the information available, one cannot come to that conclusion. I am an atheist in that I lack belief in God. I am an agnostic because I believe that there is not a sufficient amount of evidence available for there to be a justified true belief in a god or gods.

How does that contradict with my claim that God hasn't met the burden of proof is agnosticism?

[ambchang]

lol at that made up .

Except I didn't make that up.

http://www.geo.sunysb.edu/esp/files/...ic-method.html

You may not agree with the introduction to science from Miami University, but that seems like a pretty basic definition of what a scientific thinker is.

yeah, it's clear now you haven't compared the literal translation vs the King James.

What does that have to do with what I said? I mean, your comprehension skills are so good, you can read into something I never wrote. Perhaps you can provide a logical explanation of how you can derive your conclusions from that one single sentence I wrote.

It's an easy google, lazy ass.

Of course, I did, and I said that to W-Bk.

These are the results I found http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...urden+of+proof, and none of them shows me a useful example.

[Blake]

Except I didn't make that up.

http://www.geo.sunysb.edu/esp/files/...ic-method.html

You may not agree with the introduction to science from Miami University, but that seems like a pretty basic definition of what a scientific thinker is.





What does that have to do with what I said? I mean, your comprehension skills are so good, you can read into something I never wrote. Perhaps you can provide a logical explanation of how you can derive your conclusions from that one single sentence I wrote.




Of course, I did, and I said that to W-Bk.

These are the results I found http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...urden+of+proof, and none of them shows me a useful example.

Point out the part that says logic is a subset of science.

I absolutely agree with this part:

" Reading, writing, and math are the traditional methods that young people learned to think logically (i.e. correctly), but today science is a fourth method. Perhaps the best way is to do a lot of writing that is then reviewed by someone who has critical thinking skills. Most people never learn to think logically; many illogical arguments and statements are accepted and unchallenged in modern society--often leading to results that are counterproductive to the good of society or even tragic--because so many people don't recognize them for what they are."

Part of learning how to think logically is learning and understanding basic logical fallacies.

You've used a number of fallacies here in this thread. We've been pointing them out but you still don't get it.