Jump to content

Blasphemy and Duck Rape

Yorkshire Saint

By Yorkshire Saint,
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

Matthew Le God

Matthew Le God

Posted
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Who was responsible for the innocent killing of thousands of none jewish children then if it wasn't god, like you claimed it was?

The story in the old book says the kind and loving God did that particular mass murder or innocent children.

Edited by Matthew Le God
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Matthew Le God

Matthew Le God

Posted
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Yes i'm fully aware of what the "old book" says, so who do you think is responsible?

It is a story, there is no external collaborating evidence it actually happened.

Is Lord Voldemort responsible for his actions in a story... or is JK Rowling responsible for writing them?

Edited by Matthew Le God
Link to comment
Share on other sites
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

But you persistently diss people who believe He does.

 

1 hour ago, Matthew Le God said:

Do you agree there is difference between saying...?

a) X does not exist

b) I don't believe X has met it's burden of proof

Constantly throughout this thread people claim I've said a) but I haven't. I say b) and it is very different from a).

Yes there is a difference, and I was not pulling you up on this, but that does not excuse your constant badgering ( sic ) of other posters with your 'loving God that massacres babies' and 'loving God that commits Genocide' posts.It is this that is disrespectful of other people's feelings and beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Matthew Le God

Matthew Le God

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, badgerx16 said:

 

Yes there is a difference, and I was not pulling you up on this, but that does not excuse your constant badgering ( sic ) of other posters with your 'loving God that massacres babies' and 'loving God that commits Genocide' posts.It is this that is disrespectful of other people's feelings and beliefs.

Why is pointing out massive flaws in God's 'kind and loving' character 'disrespectful'? I'm not making it up that the God of the Bible murders innocent babies... the Bible says he does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Why is pointing out massive flaws in God's 'kind and loving' character 'disrespectful'? I'm not making it up that the God of the Bible murders innocent babies... the Bible says he does.

empathy
/ˈɛmpəθi/
 
noun
noun: empathy
  1. the ability to understand the feelings of another
Edited by badgerx16
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Why is pointing out massive flaws in God's 'kind and loving' character 'disrespectful'? I'm not making it up that the God of the Bible murders innocent babies... the Bible says he does.

You said it was a story earlier. Do you believe it or not? You seem very confused Matthew. I don’t think you actually know what you think. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, Matthew Le God said:

Fictional Egyptian first born ones during the time of Moses.

Every single fictional baby during the global flood.

If you don’t believe it happened why do you keep using it as a stick to beat religious people with about their beliefs?

Edited by Turkish
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Matthew Le God

Matthew Le God

Posted
Posted
Just now, Turkish said:

If you don’t believe it happened why do you keep using it as a stick to beat religious people with about their beliefs?

Because it is a massive conflict with the claim he is '100% kind and loving'. Do you you agree that killing innocent babies is not compatible with being 100% kind and loving?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted
Just now, Matthew Le God said:

Because it is a massive conflict with the claim he is '100% kind and loving'. Do you you agree that killing innocent babies is not compatible with being 100% kind and loving?

But it didn’t happen, you say it’s a story. So why is god responsible for stories made up about him in an old book?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

I did not say it wasn't a story. I said 'the Bible says he does'.

You said it was a story with no verified evidence it happened. So if it’s a story then why keep banging on about how god is not kind and loving? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Matthew Le God

Matthew Le God

Posted
Posted
Just now, Turkish said:

But it didn’t happen, you say it’s a story. So why is god responsible for stories made up about him in an old book?

1) That is an ill formed question. I don't believe there is claim about a God that has met it's burden of proof. Therefore why would I believe 'he' is responsible for stories in an old book?

2) My point was quite clear and you ignored the question... Do you you agree that killing innocent babies is not compatible with being 100% kind and loving?

Stop ignoring questions!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Matthew Le God

Matthew Le God

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Turkish said:

You said it was a story with no verified evidence it happened. So if it’s a story then why keep banging on about how god is not kind and loving? 

Because many Christians beleive 1) the story happened & 2) God is 100% kind and loving.

But those things are not compatible with each other. They can't both be true.

Edited by Matthew Le God
Link to comment
Share on other sites
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

People under a delusion that a baby murdering God is '100% kind and loving' do not deserve empathy regarding that particular aspect of their life. 

So you think it is your duty to go out of your way to taunt them ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted
Just now, Matthew Le God said:

Getting to the root of them and when you do that you often find they are built on foundations of sand and circular reasoning.

And your crusade is to point out to them the error of their ways ? Who appointed you to this auspicious responsibilty ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Matthew Le God

Matthew Le God

Posted
Posted
Just now, badgerx16 said:

And your crusade is to point out to them the error of their ways ? Who appointed you to this auspicious responsibilty ?

Beliefs impact actions, actions impact other people and wider society.

Religious beliefs can lead to things like I linked to earlier with children dying because their parents prayed for them rather than seeking medical treatment. Ok that is relatively rare, but is one of many harmful impacts irrational belief in deities can lead to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Beliefs impact actions, actions impact other people and wider society.

Religious beliefs can lead to things like I linked to earlier with children dying because their parents prayed for them rather than seeking medical treatment. Ok that is relatively rare, but is one of many harmful impacts irrational belief in deities can lead to.

Why not try out your arguments on this lot

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/westboro-baptist-church

https://www.godhatesfags.com/

Edited by badgerx16
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Matthew Le God

Matthew Le God

Posted
Posted
Just now, badgerx16 said:

I think RB is more 'open minded' than you.

I really doubt that. I'd be intrigued to know what @Raging Bull would say it would take for him to stop believing the Bible is literally true. IIRC he seems to think that it is literally word for word true.

Where as I've said numerous times now, I'm not claiming there is no God. And if I am provided with good evidence God exists... I will believe God exists. So I'm very much open minded, but unlike @whelk and @Raging Bull I apply rational levels of analysis of what constitutes sufficient evidence to believe in something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

I really doubt that. I'd be intrigued to know what @Raging Bull would say it would take for him to stop believing the Bible is literally true. IIRC he seems to think that it is literally word for word true.

 

His appreciation of you is not conditional on you changing your beliefs or opinions, why are you obsessed with trying to persuade him to change his ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Matthew Le God

Matthew Le God

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, badgerx16 said:

His appreciation of you is not conditional on you changing your beliefs or opinions, why are you obsessed with trying to persuade him to change his ?

Beliefs impact actions, actions impact other people and wider society.

He should also be able to answer as the Bible states...

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
egg

egg

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Matthew Le God said:

Yet again... I am not claiming God doesn't exist 🙄

Then what's the point that you're trying to make?! You're not claiming that God doesn't exist, others are not claiming God doesn't exist. We're all agreed. Great. Move on. Have a cuppa. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Matthew Le God

Matthew Le God

Posted
Posted
Just now, egg said:

Then what's the point that you're trying to make?! You're not claiming that God doesn't exist, others are not claiming God doesn't exist. We're all agreed. Great. Move on. Have a cuppa. 

Some in the thread have claimed he does exist. Those making a claim have the burden of proof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
egg

egg

Posted
Posted
Just now, Matthew Le God said:

Some in the thread have claimed he does exist. Those making a claim have the burden of proof.

Hmm. That's your take on it. I'd say given that we are in a COE country, that Christianity is the focus in most schools, that millions worldwide believe in a God, that the presumption is that there is a God. If you think that presumption is rebuttable, the ball is in your court to prove it. Given that you're not claiming (apparently) that there isn't a God, I'm not sure where you're going with this. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Matthew Le God

Matthew Le God

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, egg said:

Hmm. That's your take on it. I'd say given that we are in a COE country, that Christianity is the focus in most schools, that millions worldwide believe in a God, that the presumption is that there is a God. If you think that presumption is rebuttable, the ball is in your court to prove it. Given that you're not claiming (apparently) that there isn't a God, I'm not sure where you're going with this. 

 

1) Are you denying the burden of proof is on the person making the claim?

2) 'We are in a Church of England country' - do you think the UK is a theocracy?

3) 'Christianity is the focus in most schools' - what does that mean? 

4) 'millions worldwide believe in a God' - argumentum ad populum really!? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted
32 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Some in the thread have claimed he does exist. Those making a claim have the burden of proof.

Why do they have to prove anything to you ? Why are you so special ?

What 'evidence' would persuade you that God existed ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

1) Are you denying the burden of proof is on the person making the claim?

 

 

In their view, a Christian / Muslim / Jewish believer has seen all the proof they need. You choose to reject it, which is your right. It does not further burden them with the duty to further prove anything to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
egg

egg

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Matthew Le God said:

1) Are you denying the burden of proof is on the person making the claim?

2) 'We are in a Church of England country' - do you think the UK is a theocracy?

3) 'Christianity is the focus in most schools' - what does that mean? 

4) 'millions worldwide believe in a God' - argumentum ad populum really!? 

 

This is tedious. You do not believe in God, something intangible. Proof in the scientific sense is not possible, hence in your mind, there is no proof. I'm going to work on the presumption of existence, and I'll leave you to provide the evidence to support your claim of non existence...if indeed that is your claim as I'm lost on what your point is tbh. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Matthew Le God

Matthew Le God

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, egg said:

1) This is tedious.

2) You do not believe in God, something intangible.

3) Proof in the scientific sense is not possible, hence in your mind, there is no proof.

4) I'm going to work on the presumption of existence

5) I'll leave you to provide the evidence to support your claim of non existence...if indeed that is your claim as I'm lost on what your point is tbh. 

 

1) It is if you ignore answering questions

2) How do you know God is intangible?

3) What is a more reliable path to truth than science? Faith is not a reliable path as you can believe anything based on faith, both true things and false things.

4) Do you think people should be presumed guilty of crimes and up to them to prove their non guilty status? Is that really a sensible mindset? 

5) It is puzzling how many more times I have to tell you... I have not claimed the non existence of God. Not believing a claim has met it's burden of proof is not the same as claiming something doesn't exist. I have tried to explain this numerous times and you still haven't grasped it!

Edited by Matthew Le God
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Matthew Le God

Matthew Le God

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

In their view, a Christian / Muslim / Jewish believer has seen all the proof they need. You choose to reject it, which is your right. It does not further burden them with the duty to further prove anything to you.

A Christian under 1 Peter 3:15 has a duty to justify their belief.

Quote

Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Peter 3:15&version=NIV

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Kraken

The Kraken

Posted
Posted

I have to say, well done all, this has been cracking reading 🤣

Especially you, MLG. Hats off to you for biting every single time you’re baited, and for answering more questions with questions than I’ve perhaps ever seen before. Jesus loves you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Matthew Le God

Matthew Le God

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

What 'evidence' would persuade you that God existed ?

I don't know, but if there is an all knowing God he would know. Yet he chooses not to. So despite what Christians claim about God wanting everyone to know he exists, he doesn't want me to or millions of other non believers. So that claim is clearly false.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CB Fry

CB Fry

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Matthew Le God said:

I don't know, but if there is an all knowing God he would know. Yet he chooses not to. So despite what Christians claim about God wanting everyone to know he exists, he doesn't want me to or millions of other non believers. So that claim is clearly false.

The fact that God is living rent-free in your head 24/7 is the strongest evidence that he exists that I've ever seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Matthew Le God

Matthew Le God

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, The Kraken said:

for answering more questions with questions than I’ve perhaps ever seen before

What is wrong with answering a question with a question. If a question is ill conceived and the premise the question is built on is unsound then a question is often the best response. Not every question can be answered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

What is wrong with answering a question with a question. If a question is ill conceived and the premise the question is built on is unsound then a question is often the best response. Not every question can be answered.

As you’ve proven on pretty much every post. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Kraken

The Kraken

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Matthew Le God said:

What is wrong with answering a question with a question. If a question is ill conceived and the premise the question is built on is unsound then a question is often the best response. Not every question can be answered.

Yes, I know you believe this to be true.  It’s kind of my point.

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
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...