For my Christians Friends

Quote from volente_00:

I am not the one making the strong statement saying a God does not exist. By exist, define what you mean ? exist on earth ? exist on mars ? exist in this universe ? As I said before, something can still exist, without being found yet. According to atheist thinking then, all species here today is all that there are because the ones we have not found yet do not exist.
More...

You really are pretty dense when it comes to this particular subject.

1. Someone, some time long ago, asserted God.
2. Since then, someone has asked for proof.

In the absence of proof, what is to be concluded? That it might be so? No. Because since the assertion is extraordinary, it requires extraordinary proof.

Of course something can exist without being found yet. But we don't run around postulating its existence without a strong reason to. There is no phenomena that makes us think, "hmm, must be a god behind it" or "that might be indicative of the existence of a god."

Like your silly analogy to oxygen. We had strong reason to suspect its existence. And so we tested for it. And viola. Now we know for certain. And wherever we find it, we expect it to have the same testable attributes.

READ THE FOLLOWING CAREFULLY:

So when anyone asks for proof of the existence of God, it has to be based on evidence that can not only reasonably withstand testing, but more importantly withstand falsification to ensure that the evidence is only attributable to a god and not some other thing.

So while you like to run around stating that atheists make a strong statement which is actually a conclusion that there is no God, you fail to understand that atheists have to draw this conclusion until such time as evidence is presented, tested, falsified and confirmed.

Your personal anecdotal proof is worthless to all but yourself and those who wish to reinforce their untestable, self-serving evidence.

Agnosticism is not a logical conclusion as currently there is no reason to suspect the existence of God. Atheism is the logical conclusion since it's based on reason and NOT myth, wishful thinking, feelings, fear of the unknown and/or unchallenged cultural mores.

And please, for the love of your mythical god, stop embarrassing yourself by claiming the science is a faith. It's patently moronic. Science, the fruit of whose labor you enjoy daily, is merely a method used to arrive at material, tangible truths. The beauty of science is that with sufficient time, resources and insight, anyone can arrive at the exact same conclusions based upon experimentation. Try that with religion and faith.
 
Quote from Thunderdog:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/stoning.html

What the Bible says about stoning

For touching Mount Sinai

Whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death. Exodus 19:13

For taking "accursed things"

Achan ... took of the accursed thing. ... And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with stones. ... So the LORD turned from the fierceness of his anger. Joshua 7:1-26

For cursing or blaspheming

And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him. Leviticus 24:16

For adultery (including urban rape victims who fail to scream loud enough)

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. Deuteronomy 22:23-24

For animals (like an ox that gores a human)

If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned. Exodus 21:28

For a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night

If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her ... and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: And the damsel's father shall say ... these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. ... But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die. Deuteronomy 22:13-21

For worshipping other gods

If there be found among you ... that ... hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them ... Then shalt thou ... tone them with stones, till they die. Deuteronomy 17:2-5

If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers ... thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 13:5-10

For disobeying parents

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother ... Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city ... And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 21:18-21

For witches and wizards

A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:27

For giving your children to Molech

Whosoever ... giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. Leviticus 20:2

For breaking the Sabbath

They found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. ... And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones.... And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses. Numbers 15:32-56

For cursing the king

Thou didst blaspheme God and the king. And then carry him out, and stone him, that he may die. 1 Kings 21:10
More...




So you want me to believe the bible is a fable, but now you want me to believe what is in it is true ?


Talk about both sides of the fence.



So now that you say I should believe what it says, then why can't I believe what Jesus said ?


http://www.keyway.ca/htm2004/20040811.htm
 
Quote from DerekD:

Agnosticism is not a logical conclusion as currently there is no reason to suspect the existence of God. Atheism is the logical conclusion since it's based on reason and NOT myth, wishful thinking, feelings, fear of the unknown and/or unchallenged cultural mores.
More...

Agnostics believe that there is and probably can be no evidence for God's existence yet accept that there may be a possibility, albeit slim, that God's existence could one day be proven.

This arguably is a more reasonable position than atheism, which posits that there cannot possibly be a God and is based, in part, on the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam (appeal to ignorance).

Just because up to now there has been no evidence for God's existence does not mean that there is no chance that evidence may turn up in the future. Agnostics at least are open to the possibility of changing their minds, whereas atheists are not.
 
Quote from volente_00:

I am not the one making the strong statement saying a God does not exist. By exist, define what you mean ? exist on earth ? exist on mars ? exist in this universe ? As I said before, something can still exist, without being found yet. According to atheist thinking then, all species here today is all that there are because the ones we have not found yet do not exist.
More...

We have heard talk enough. We have listened to all the drowsy, idealess, vapid sermons that we wish to hear. We have read your Bible and the works of your best minds. We have heard your prayers, your solemn groans and your reverential amens. All these amount to less than nothing. We want one fact. We beg at the doors of your churches for just one little fact. We pass our hats along your pews and under your pulpits and implore you for just one fact. We know all about your mouldy wonders and your stale miracles. We want a this year's fact. We ask only one. Give us one fact for charity. Your miracles are too ancient. The witnesses have been dead for nearly two thousand years.
-- Robert Green Ingersoll,
 
Quote from volente_00:

...If you are close minded...
More...
The irony is downright palpable. You accuse others of being closed minded whereas you have yet to avail yourself of a single objective book that puts the matter fairly to rest. Looking inward for answers? Sure, that may do for working out personal problems, but it is not sufficient when you wish to understand reality. Looking inward then is to be arrogant beyond description. Schizophrenics look inward in creating their own reality quite apart from the one that most of us know. If you wish to throw yourself in willingly with that unfortunate lot, then feel free to do so. Just understand that your arguments are astonishingly childlike. Believe what you wish, but please refrain from using pseudoscience in an embarrassing attempt to justify such fanciful beliefs. The rationale that you employ to believe in a supernatural god is the same rationale that children use to believe in the tooth fairy, Peter Pan and so on. They look inward and allow their imaginations to run wild and justify anything and everything, to the exclusion of grown-up reality. Does it make them feel better? Sure.
 
Quote from volente_00:

So you want me to believe the bible is a fable, but now you want me to believe what is in it is true ?


Talk about both sides of the fence.



So now that you say I should believe what it says, then why can't I believe what Jesus said ?


http://www.keyway.ca/htm2004/20040811.htm
More...
I'm saying that you should either believe it or not. If the Bible was written as the word of God, then who are you to pick and choose which parts you agree or disagree with. That's where your hypocrisy comes in. How can you not see that? Or do you simply choose not to?

By adhering to some parts of the Bible and not others, when you believe that the Bible is the word of God, is to imply that God's judgment is flawed and that you know better. Is that not blasphemous by your religious standards? How can you expect someone else to take the Bible seriously when you yourself evidently do not?

Indeed...
Quote from volente_00:

...Talk about both sides of the fence.
More...
 
Quote from smilingsynic:

Agnostics believe that there is and probably can be no evidence for God's existence yet accept that there may be a possibility, albeit slim, that God's existence could one day be proven.

This arguably is a more reasonable position than atheism, which posits that there cannot possibly be a God and is based, in part, on the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam (appeal to ignorance).

Just because up to now there has been no evidence for God's existence does not mean that there is no chance that evidence may turn up in the future. Agnostics at least are open to the possibility of changing their minds, whereas atheists are not.
More...

That's preposterous. Atheists ask for proof of theist assertions. Clearly if presented with proof that is testable and falsifiable, atheist will concur that God(s) exists. It's that simple.

But since nothing to date lends itself as evidence of God, atheist conclude that there is no god.

Atheists don't deal with chance when there's no reason to suspect chance. But if evidence is presented which induces the possibility of chance, atheists will investigate it.

The agnostic position, as you state it but as many agnostics will disagree with, is most illogical. You can't suspect the probability of existence without reason to suspect it. Meaning, if there is or never will be evidence, you cannot prove existence, ever. The atheist doesn't take that position. Submit evidence, have it tested, and proof you shall have. That is reasonable, logical and prudent.

Appeal to ignorance? Nice try. But that fallacy doesn't apply to this subject matter in the negative defense use of the term.
 
Quote from smilingsynic:

Agnostics believe that there is and probably can be no evidence for God's existence yet accept that there may be a possibility, albeit slim, that God's existence could one day be proven.

This arguably is a more reasonable position than atheism, which posits that there cannot possibly be a God and is based, in part, on the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam (appeal to ignorance).

Just because up to now there has been no evidence for God's existence does not mean that there is no chance that evidence may turn up in the future. Agnostics at least are open to the possibility of changing their minds, whereas atheists are not.
More...
Read Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion. He discusses this very issue in some detail, however, too much for me to get into it here in a meaningful way. It is truly a well thought out, well put together and well written book. It is a thinking person's book and I have no doubt you would enjoy it.

However, I will say that I tend to agree with DerekD. Atheists will change their minds when evidence presents them with the opportunity to do so. As for agnostics, just because something is said to be true does not give it any special credibility in the absence of proof. What about Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot which I mentioned earlier in this thread and which I got out of Dawkins' book? Because you can't prove that that his teapot doesn't exist, does that mean you are agnostic about that, too? Must we be agnostic about every fanciful notion that pops up in an imaginative mind? And just because someone conjures up a fairly tale that we can't prove to be untrue, that does not mean it has an equal probability of being true as not. I refer again to the teapot or any other imagining. So it comes down to dealing in reasonable (albit not necessarily numeric) probabilities and drawing conclusions based on the available evidence until additional evidence presents itself.
 
Quote from DerekD:

That's preposterous. Atheists ask for proof of theist assertions. Clearly if presented with proof that is testable and falsifiable, atheist will concur that God(s) exists. It's that simple.

But since nothing to date lends itself as evidence of God, atheist conclude that there is no god.

Atheists don't deal with chance when there's no reason to suspect chance. But if evidence is presented which induces the possibility of chance, atheists will investigate it.

The agnostic position, as you state it but as many agnostics will disagree with, is most illogical. You can't suspect the probability of existence without reason to suspect it. Meaning, if there is or never will be evidence, you cannot prove existence, ever. The atheist doesn't take that position. Submit evidence, have it tested, and proof you shall have. That is reasonable, logical and prudent.

Appeal to ignorance? Nice try. But that fallacy doesn't apply to this subject matter in the negative defense use of the term.
More...

I do not appreciate the arrogant, dismissive tone. There is no need for it.

Although neither atheism nor agnosticism has a creed, agnostics in general believe that it is impossible to know for sure whether or not God exists (uncertain knowledge). Although the evidence AT THIS POINT does not point to a deity, it does not follow that there cannot be a God.

Why not?

Simply put, the only way one could know for sure that there is no God is to have complete knowledge of the universe.

This is impossible at this point; all of the collective reason in the world cannot overcome this obstacle. Reason is therefore a limited tool (but the most useful tool in the toolbox!).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top