Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
Mate, I've got the concessions I wanted from you and highlighted your arrogance in daring to suggest that Christians, in your disrespectful opinion, "don't need God".

 

I'm leaving it there. Have a good evening, and God bless 

 

1) Concessions? No, you just misunderstood what I said and kept saying I said something I didn't.

 

2) They had a moral code from god in the Bible that included stoning to death disobedient children. They have now created their own moral code. No need to turn to god for a moral code if you re-write his!

Posted
I ain't a Christian mate. Instead I'm open minded and tolerant of Christians and people of other faiths. I'm also tolerant of atheists and agnostics, but only when they are respectful of the rights of others to pursue faith. I'm intolerant of idiots who dare to suggest that people who have faith are idiots for having it.

 

Oh I firmly believe that people are free to believe exactly what they want - no argument from me there.

But I also firmly believe that I can also be free to think that people who believe in an all powerful, supernatural being/skydaddy or whatever, who, amongst other amazing feats, created the entire world in a matter of days are idiots. I can understand why people thousands of years ago believed the utter rubbish written in the various religious texts - but not now. It's just plainly ridiculous.

 

And therefore I fully respect your viewpoint that I am an idiot for believing that those people are idiots. I won't change your view, and you won't change mine.

See cos that's how tolerance works.

Just like religion - oh wait a minute:)

Posted
You only have to see how the Church of England was founded to realise how farcical religion is.

 

Let alone the way the books of the Bible were selected, edited, and assenbled.

Posted
It doesn't prove that at all. All it proves is you dont understand why there was a flood and what happened before it.

 

An inept god who knows the future created a universe that ****ed up, so he decided to start again and created a global flood to commit a genocide.

 

Please explain why that summary is wrong?

 

Still waiting... :rolleyes:

Posted
It is not three choices... atheism, agnosticism or theism. Everyone is either a theist or an atheist. Agnosticism is a sub-set of atheism.

 

 

 

 

If someone believe in invisible pink unicorns and they didn't have evidence, would you think they were idiots?

 

Not true. Don't forget the deists.

Posted
Ahh bless. The most desperate of bumps

 

Turkish accusing me of not understanding the global flood, so I give him a summary and ask him to explain why it is wrong... and he ignores it.

 

Can you explain why the summary is wrong as Turkish doesn't look like he can?

Posted
Not true, you either believe in an intervening god(theism) or you don't (atheism). There is no third option, you are one or the other.

 

Wrong!

Posted
Not true, you either believe in an intervening god(theism) or you don't (atheism). There is no third option, you are one or the other.

 

Do you believe I have a pet goldfish?

Posted (edited)
How?

Because there is always a 'don't know / not absolutely sure / not enough data to compute' option. That big middle ground between the fanatical pros and antis - on any issue, not just religion.

Edited by buctootim
Posted
Because there is always a 'don't know / not absolutely sure / not enough data to compute' option.

 

If you are 'not sure', then you don't currently believe... so are an atheist. Agnosticism is a sub-set of atheism.

Posted
Do you believe I have a pet goldfish?

 

It isn't unfeasible, strong evidence exists people keep goldfish as pets. But if you said you had a pet invisible dragon I'd want stronger evidence than just you saying it.

 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Not an old book.

Posted
If you are 'not sure', then you don't currently believe... so are an atheist. Agnosticism is a sub-set of atheism.

How about Lighthouse, do you believe that he has that pet goldfish? The obvious answer is neither yes or no..., but rather you don't know and/or couldn't possibly know. That's how agnosticism works.

Posted
How about Lighthouse, do you believe that he has that pet goldfish? The obvious answer is neither yes or no..., but rather you don't know and/or couldn't possibly know. That's how agnosticism works.

 

Agnosticism concerns knowledge, knowledge is a subset of belief... not an alternative.

Posted
Agnosticism concerns knowledge, knowledge is a subset of belief... not an alternative.

In your yes or no world, does Lighthouse have a pet goldfish?

 

Go on, give the honest answer of you don't know and/or couldn't possibly know. You can do it Matthew.

Posted
I answered this in post #1231

 

I believe it is possible he could have a pet goldfish... but I do not know that he has one.

 

Knowledge is a subset of belief.

What a cop out. You haven’t got the grace to say that you don't know or couldn't possibly know.

 

Next time you re-open a debate demanding answers to questions, have a crack at giving honest answers yourself mate.

Posted (edited)
Agnosticism is a sub-set of atheism.

 

No its not. Agnostic is 'not sure'. Potentially just as close to faith as to atheism.

Edited by buctootim
Posted

Knowledge is a subset of belief.

 

Also flawed logic. Believing something is true does not make it so. You are under-cutting you're own argument about faith.

Posted

I believe it is possible he could have a pet goldfish... but I do not know that he has one.

 

Knowledge is a subset of belief.

 

What a cop out. You haven’t got the grace to say that you don't know or couldn't possibly know.

 

Next time you re-open a debate demanding answers to questions, have a crack at giving honest answers yourself mate.

 

This is an issue with you not understanding knowledge is a subset of belief, not a cop out at all.

 

I said in the post that I do not know that he has one!

 

The issue is you not understanding subsets and that knowledge is a subset of belief.

Posted
No its not. Agnostic is 'not sure'. Potentially just as close to faith as to atheism.

 

Atheism does not require any faith in the slightest.

 

Atheism is not the claim there are no gods, it is the rejection of theist claims. Those are too very different things.

Posted

Knowledge is a subset of belief.

 

Also flawed logic. Believing something is true does not make it so. You are under-cutting you're own argument about faith.

 

I agree, believing something is true does not make it so. So how am I undercutting my own argument?

Posted
Atheism is not the claim there are no gods

 

Seems to me you've read the work of one philosopher and taken his opinions to be a universal truth. You're wrong, at least in the sense that the large majority of the population would disagree with you.

Posted
Seems to me you've read the work of one philosopher and taken his opinions to be a universal truth. You're wrong, at least in the sense that the large majority of the population would disagree with you.

 

What are you claiming I am wrong about?

 

Plus you appear to be using the fallacious argument that the number of people impacts validity.

 

Argumentum ad populum - (not a Harry Potter spell)

Posted

Knowledge is a subset of belief.

 

As LD would put it, pony ! Knowledge is based on experience and evidential proof, belief exists without.

 

What do you think I mean by knowledge is a subset of belief?

Posted
What are you claiming I am wrong about?

 

Plus you appear to be using the fallacious argument that the number of people impacts validity.

 

Argumentum ad populum - (not a Harry Potter spell)

 

I quoted what you were wrong about in my post. It was absolutely clear. Go back and read it

Posted
I answered this in post #1231

 

I believe it is possible he could have a pet goldfish... but I do not know that he has one.

 

Knowledge is a subset of belief.

 

So you neither believe not disbelieve that I have a goldfish. You simply acknowledge that it could be possible, based on the fact that you have absolutely zero information about my house, which is essentially what agnosticism is.

 

An invisible pet dragon would be akin to me disbelieving stories in the bible. I don’t believe Moses parted the Red Sea for example, because that contravenes known science. However in terms of there being a greater power in the universe, there is no known science, so there is nothing to contradict.

Posted
I quoted what you were wrong about in my post. It was absolutely clear. Go back and read it

 

It isn't simply theist, atheist & agnostic. It is possible to be...

 

1) agnostic theist

2) agnostic atheist

3) gnostic atheist

4) gnostic theist

06n3V.gif

Posted
So you neither believe not disbelieve that I have a goldfish. You simply acknowledge that it could be possible, based on the fact that you have absolutely zero information about my house, which is essentially what agnosticism is.

 

You are mixing up knowledge and belief.

Posted
If belief is a simple binary choice as you claimed, do you believe I have a goldfish?

 

I believe it is possible you could have a pet goldfish... but I do not know that you have one. Using religious terms I am an agnostic theist towards you having a goldfish.

 

06n3V.gif

Posted
For every debate MLG enters, this is the ending.

 

https://tenor.com/bioro.gif

 

As Turkish won't answer this question, can you...? ;)

 

It doesn't prove that at all. All it proves is you dont understand why there was a flood and what happened before it.

 

An inept god who knows the future created a universe that ****ed up, so he decided to start again and created a global flood to commit a genocide.

 

Please explain why that summary is wrong?

Posted
What do you think I mean by knowledge is a subset of belief?

 

I think you Googled Platonic philosophy and found someting to try to hang your misguided argument on.

 

From the starting point that you may, or may not, believe that Lighthouse has a pet goldfish, if you go to his house and see that he does indeed have a goldfish you then know that, and no longer merely believe it. This knowledge is not an intrinsic part of your prior belief, it supplants it.

Posted

What’s the point in trying to explain anything to you when you’ve predetermined the outcome?

 

All we ever do with you is go round in circles.

 

You’ve had things explained to you in the past but you can’t accept the answer because your pride won’t let you.

 

I’ve gotta be honest, I find you incredibly boring

Posted
I think you Googled Platonic philosophy and found someting to try to hang your misguided argument on.

 

From the starting point that you may, or may not, believe that Lighthouse has a pet goldfish, if you go to his house and see that he does indeed have a goldfish you then know that, and no longer merely believe it. This knowledge is not an intrinsic part of your prior belief, it supplants it.

 

I believe it is possible he might have a goldfish, because we have evidence that people own goldfish. I do not believe he owns a goldfish and I do not know that he owns a goldfish.

Posted
I believe it is possible you could have a pet goldfish... but I do not know that you have one. Using religious terms I am an agnostic theist towards you having a goldfish.

]

 

But you said

 

If you are 'not sure', then you don't currently believe... so are an atheist. Agnosticism is a sub-set of atheism.

 

 

So you’re an agnostic, theist, atheist?

Posted
What’s the point in trying to explain anything to you when you’ve predetermined the outcome?

 

All we ever do with you is go round in circles.

 

You’ve had things explained to you in the past but you can’t accept the answer because your pride won’t let you.

 

I’ve gotta be honest, I find you incredibly boring

 

I have not predetermined the outcome. I used the evidence from the book and made a summary. I'm sure you disagree with that summary and I'd like to know what about it you disagree with?

Posted
But you said

 

So you’re an agnostic, theist, atheist?

 

You have taken that out of the context it was written in... i.e. towards goldfish... not god. I was using the religious terms for belief/knowledge of ownership of goldfish.

 

Using religious terms I am an agnostic theist towards you having a goldfish.
Posted
You are mixing up knowledge and belief.

 

But you've said knowledge is a subset of belief. Make your mind up.

Posted

I’ve gotta be honest, I find you incredibly boring

 

If I'm boring why do you keep positing in this thread? Is it not healthy to have your views on the Bible challenged? If they all true then any challenge should be easy to deal with.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...