Jump to content

Blasphemy and Duck Rape


Yorkshire Saint

Recommended Posts

- Faith is without evidence

- Belief can be supported by evidence (hence why knowledge is a subset)

 

If you have good evidence you don't need faith... you'd use the evidence!

So which of these sentences is correct ?

"UFOlogists have faith in aliens." / "UFOlogists believe in aliens".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In that context I would be a agnostic theist in the top right of the diagram. I believe it is possible, but don't know it is true.

 

Stop posting that diagram and the bit in bold is fundamentally wrong. That is not a belief, that is a necessary truth, we know it to be possible.

 

I asked you for your belief, you don't have one either way. In this context, you are neither theist, nor atheist. You are agnostic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That much is obvious, the original question was not about knowledge. I asked if he believed I had a goldfish, he said he believed it is possible, which isn’t an answer. We know for certain that it’s possible I have a goldfish, that isn’t his belief.

 

What he is refusing to admit is that he doesn’t have a belief either way and is therefore neither theist nor atheist, in this context.

 

Again, to be fair to MLG, his answer to that question is also consistent to the answer he has given about religion througout this thread, i.e. on that sentence alone, he doesn't have enough information / knowledge to formulate his belief.

 

Can you truly answer this question : Do you believe my sister has won £88m on the lottery?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stop posting that diagram and the bit in bold is fundamentally wrong. That is not a belief, that is a necessary truth, we know it to be possible.

 

It is not wrong, because knowledge is a subset of belief. You have beliefs and these beliefs can be supported by evidence/knowledge. That is what makes it a subset.

 

I asked you for your belief, you don't have one either way. In this context, you are neither theist, nor atheist. You are agnostic.

 

Do you believe in regard to god everyone is either an...?

 

i) agnostic atheist

ii) gnostic atheist

iii) agnostic theist

iv) gnostic theist

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason I’m holding off fully answering the question is because:

 

1. It would be an essay

2. Would mean me entering into a debate I don’t have the time for

3. Unlike most of the UK population, I’m still neck deep in work and aren’t being paid by the government to have an extended holiday.

4. Because of 3, I can’t do 1 & 2

 

Trouble is, you say you’ve read the bible, but you haven’t understood it. For example, your last cherry picking was about God killing the first born males in Egypt. But what you failed to see was that they were holding the Jews captive over a long period and had been warned a number of times to release them or face the consequences.

 

Why didn’t you talk about the slavery of the Jews leading up to the Passover?

 

Wow, and you believe that?. The Nile turned to blood, the parting of the waves, frogs, bugs, pestilence, boils, storm of fire, locusts, three days of darkness and death of firstborn.

 

You mention cherry picking bits out of the bible, well, this has been pretty much done by all so called Christian denominations since it was written to suite their own agendas. I was brought up as a Jehovah's Witness until I saw sense and was then kicked out. At the end of the day all religions are the same, pretty much reliant on a book written thousands of years ago but interpreting it all differently, but when questioned and struggling for answers it's the same old response "you've got to have faith". Well I have faith in evolution because it has shown more substantial evidence than the bible has ever done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, to be fair to MLG, his answer to that question is also consistent to the answer he has given about religion througout this thread, i.e. on that sentence alone, he doesn't have enough information / knowledge to formulate his belief.

 

Can you truly answer this question : Do you believe my sister has won £88m on the lottery?

 

Which contradicts his earlier post

 

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.

 

There is a third option, that you are agnostic and don't hold a belief either way. That was the point of the goldfish example, he clearly has no belief either way.

 

I don’t believe that your sister won the lottery because there is strong evidence to the contrary, I.e. the mathematical odds against it. That’s different. There is no evidence supporting or contrary to there being a god, hence it is possible to be purely agnostic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which contradicts his earlier post

 

 

 

There is a third option, that you are agnostic and don't hold a belief either way. That was the point of the goldfish example, he clearly has no belief either way.

 

I don’t believe that your sister won the lottery because there is strong evidence to the contrary, I.e. the mathematical odds against it. That’s different. There is no evidence supporting or contrary to there being a god, hence it is possible to be purely agnostic.

 

But isn't your 'agnostic' option the same as the superposition in Shrodinger's cat - i.e. whether or not you have a goldfish is a superposition until it interacts with or is observed by the external world (open your door, go in your house and see whether you have a goldfish or not). Therefore, more information is needed in order to confirm one way or the other?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But isn't your 'agnostic' option the same as the superposition in Shrodinger's cat - i.e. whether or not you have a goldfish is a superposition until it interacts with or is observed by the external world (open your door, go in your house and see whether you have a goldfish or not). Therefore, more information is needed in order to confirm one way or the other?

 

Yes, that’s exactly my point. You can have no information with which to make a decision and therefore neither believe nor disbelieve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't let facts get in the way of egg imagining what he thinks I've said rather than what I actually said! :lol:

 

To be fair mate I skim much of the sh:te you post so some of the detail gets lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Faith is without evidence"

 

You have misquoted me.

 

"QUOTE=Matthew Le God;2816269]- Faith is without evidence

- Belief can be supported by evidence (hence why knowledge is a subset)

 

If you have good evidence you don't need faith... you'd use the evidence![/quote"

 

Where is the misquote ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"QUOTE=Matthew Le God;2816269]

Where is the misquote ?

 

You have taken it out of context when in combination with other posts.

 

Faith is the excuse people give if they don't have good evidence, if you had good evidence you would not need faith... you'd use the evidence instead!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You of all people accusing others of taking things out of context. :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

"when in combination with other posts". I'm not sure which 'other' posts I am supposed to have taken account of, it's a struggle to make sense of most of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"when in combination with other posts". I'm not sure which 'other' posts I am supposed to have taken account of, it's a struggle to make sense of most of them.

 

I quoted it in post #1331.

 

Faith is the excuse people give if they don't have good evidence, if you had good evidence you would not need faith... you'd use the evidence instead!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

MLG, surely the presence and quality of evidence is dependent on the individual's perspective. There are many millions of people who beleive in God and Jesus, and accept there is ample evidence. These people also have faith, therefore faith is not " without evidence". Your dismissal of the evidence is simply your personal choice, as you can neither prove your position nor disprove theirs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MLG, surely the presence and quality of evidence is dependent on the individual's perspective. There are many millions of people who beleive in God and Jesus, and accept there is ample evidence. These people also have faith, therefore faith is not " without evidence". Your dismissal of the evidence is simply your personal choice, as you can neither prove your position nor disprove theirs.

 

You know he will settle down if you don’t bait him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MLG, surely the presence and quality of evidence is dependent on the individual's perspective. There are many millions of people who beleive in God and Jesus, and accept there is ample evidence. These people also have faith, therefore faith is not " without evidence".

 

I said 'good evidence', not 'evidence'. Good evidence is testable and falsifiable.

 

I think you may be confusing Trust vs Faith

 

- Trust is proportional to the evidence

- Faith is inversely proportional

 

If you had evidence you would not use faith, you'd have a degree of trust proportional to the evidence.

 

Here is the key question - Is there any position you can not take on faith?

 

Your dismissal of the evidence is simply your personal choice, as you can neither prove your position nor disprove theirs.

 

I can disprove the Bible, it is contradictory throughout so is not 100% accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) What are you claiming I've taken out of context?

2) Still waiting for you to answer the question about Noah's flood! :rolleyes:

Why are you expecting to have a sensible conversation with someone who believes in made up stories?

 

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before this Jesus fellow turned up many people believed in a pantheon of pagan gods, so if lots of people believed in them at the time they must also be real. If Muslims begin to outnumber Christians at some point is that evidence that they were right after all. Or if we add up all people although Christians are a plurality they are outnumbered by others therefore not Christian wins?

 

Appeals to old books, feelings and personal experience do not constitute evidence. Weird how all this god action happened long enough ago so we cant be sure of any of the details. Might be important if this god fellow expects us to do things right. If we are meant to believe that we just have to follow what is passed down how come those passing it down are in disagreement with 30,000 denominations?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weird how all this god action happened long enough ago so we cant be sure of any of the details. Might be important if this god fellow expects us to do things right. If we are meant to believe that we just have to follow what is passed down how come those passing it down are in disagreement with 30,000 denominations?

 

[video=youtube;Ym-k5viJ7tA]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-51928077

 

Was it God that answered the prayer or science? If it was God, why did he/she take so long?

 

So, aged nine, I wrote this prayer that I said every night: "Holy creator, I'm going to sleep now and I look like a boy. I am begging you, when I wake up in the morning I want to be a girl. I know that you can do anything and nothing is too hard for you...

 

"If you do that, I promise that I will be a good girl. I will dress in the most modest clothes. I will keep all the commandments girls have to keep.

 

"When I get older, I will be the best wife. I will help my husband study the Torah all day and all night. I will cook the best foods for him and my kids. Oh God, help me."

 

 

_111327814_976xsqimg_6004.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

a) he is inept... because an all-knowing god would know in advance his ****-ups e.g. Adam & Eve failing his test & him deciding to make a genocidal global flood because he ****ed up again

 

or

 

b) he doesn't exist

 

Or

 

c) There is a god but it doesn’t confirm to any human preconceptions, including any of the known religions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or

 

c) There is a god but it doesn’t confirm to any human preconceptions, including any of the known religions.

I think that I'd be unable to discount C, and agree with B in the context of religions.

 

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a) he is inept... because an all-knowing god would know in advance his ****-ups e.g. Adam & Eve failing his test & him deciding to make a genocidal global flood because he ****ed up again

 

or

 

b) he doesn't exist

 

Or

 

c) There is a god but it doesn’t confirm to any human preconceptions, including any of the known religions.

 

My options were in regard to the god as described in the Bible. There are only two options regarding that, he either exists or he doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the inept God created beings who have worked out he’s inept. Good stuff

 

I don't see there is evidence that supports there existing a creator god as described in the Bible. I think the character of god as described in the Bible is inept. He is supposed to be all knowing, so he knew before he created Adam & Eve that they would fail the test, yet he gave them the test anyway. He knew they would fail, so it is not a fair test. He ****ed up with them. He then started again in the build up to the Noah's ark story, he knew humankind would **** up and punished humankind for his design ****up by a global flood genocide.

 

At same time can you tell me where space ends and what comes after that....and after that?

 

A few assumptions in that question. Why do you assume there can be or must be something?

 

Also, how is this question relevant?

 

Plus, what is wrong with the answer 'I don't know'? Do you know the answer to your question?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see there is evidence that supports there existing a creator god as described in the Bible. I think the character of god as described in the Bible is inept. He is supposed to be all knowing, so he knew before he created Adam & Eve that they would fail the test, yet he gave them the test anyway. He knew they would fail, so it is not a fair test. He ****ed up with them. He then started again in the build up to the Noah's ark story, he knew humankind would **** up and punished humankind for his design ****up by a global flood genocide.

 

 

 

A few assumptions in that question. Why do you assume there can be or must be something?

 

Also, how is this question relevant?

 

Plus, what is wrong with the answer 'I don't know'? Do you know the answer to your question?

 

Agree with that 100%, No wonder the world is f*cked up if he created us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

 

13 days later...

 

giphy.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
It is vague and wishy-washy... reminiscent to your lack of responses to questions in another thread

 

I got bored with you constantly failing to understand properly on the other thread so it's no wonder you cant understand the governments clear instructions on this. You're the sort of person that needs everything spelling out in black and white, that's not Boris Johnsons fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got bored with you constantly failing to understand properly on the other thread so it's no wonder you cant understand the governments clear instructions on this.

 

You accused me of not understanding something but refused to explain it. It suggests you have no answer. If you do... give it a go... if not... then stop accusing people of lacking understanding.

 

You're the sort of person that needs everything spelling out in black and white, that's not Boris Johnsons fault.

 

It needs explaining because the government has given out contradictory advice from different ministers in recent days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lighthouse changed the title to Blasphemy and Duck Rape

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...