Blasphemy and Duck Rape

[Raging Bull]

6 hours ago, whelk said:

What is this big contradiction question that the Saintsweb geniuses needs answering? Sorry haven’t got the will to wade too far back but sure it is supersmart and exposes faith/Christianity as a hoax. Cos we have some great minds on here.

 

You just need to remember 1 thing. 
 

Everything that is or has ever been wrong in this world, no matter how nasty, violent, evil, self centred and unpleasant the human race can be, it’s all Gods fault. He ruins everything, always... 

 

Oh and MLG admits there could well be a God. 

[Matthew Le God]

6 minutes ago, Raging Bull said:

1) Everything that is or has ever been wrong in this world, no matter how nasty, violent, evil, self centred and unpleasant the human race can be, it’s all Gods fault. He ruins everything, always... 

2) Oh and MLG admits there could well be a God. 

1) The God of the Bible is described as creating everything and he created the parameters for everything. He is also described as all knowing, so he created things knowing what they would go onto do. That makes free will impossible and also makes God responsible for all evil.

2) I have not said 'there could well be a God'. I'm puzzled how you still time after time fail to grasp that saying 'I don't believe any God claim has met its burden of proof' is not the same as saying it is possible there is a God. How many more times do I need to explain to you those two things are not the same? 

Edited 16 August, 2020 by Matthew Le God

[Raging Bull]

On 06/08/2020 at 22:24, Matthew Le God said:

 

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!

Uwotm8

 

Seems pretty clear you admit there could be. You’re blowing fella

Edited 16 August, 2020 by Raging Bull

[Matthew Le God]

36 minutes ago, Raging Bull said:

Uwotm8

 

Seems pretty clear you admit there could be. You’re blowing fella

🙄

Not believing a claim has met it's burden of proof is not the same as claiming something doesn't exist or thinking 'there could well be a God'. I have tried to explain this numerous times and you still haven't grasped it!

Edited 16 August, 2020 by Matthew Le God

[Golactico]

Let's be honest, there is clearly a lot of space between the statements:

'I do not claim the non-existence of God'

and;

'There could well be a God'

[Matthew Le God]

It doesn't appear clear to @Raging Bull for some strange reason.

Edited 16 August, 2020 by Matthew Le God

[egg]

11 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

I know.

This is not something that has ever been denied, ever.

It is also a parable that is based on a claim.  This really isn't rocket science.

It's not worth the response mate. The story is a parable. The bottom line is this thread has gone a zillion miles off tangent and I have no interest in the Bible, and I suspect that you don't either, so why it matters to you whether a particular bible story is a parable or something else God only knows. 

[egg]

1 hour ago, Matthew Le God said:

🙄

Not believing a claim has met it's burden of proof is not the same as claiming something doesn't exist or thinking 'there could well be a God'. I have tried to explain this numerous times and you still haven't grasped it!

I'm with Raging Bull on his interpretation of ylur position. Sure, your self determined burden of proof of a God hasn't been passed, I get that. You haven't ruled out the possibility of a God as far as I understand. Correct? That means that you're persuadable that there could be. Yes? 

[Lighthouse]

1 minute ago, egg said:

I'm with Raging Bull on his interpretation of ylur position. Sure, your self determined burden of proof of a God hasn't been passed, I get that. You haven't ruled out the possibility of a God as far as I understand. Correct? That means that you're persuadable that there could be. Yes? 

Any atheist could be persuaded if presented with credible evidence but no such thing has ever been put forward. It would have to be something well beyond the boundaries of known science for me. For example a giant bearded man appearing in the sky and giving me clear instructions on Christianity. Even then, I’d be sceptical. I’d be asking other people living nearby if they’d seen the same, seeking a medical checkup, MRI scan and blood tests etc. To make sure it was real.

[Matthew Le God]

3 hours ago, Raging Bull said:

 MLG admits there could well be a God. 

 

4 minutes ago, egg said:

I'm with Raging Bull on his interpretation of ylur position. Sure, your self determined burden of proof of a God hasn't been passed, I get that. You haven't ruled out the possibility of a God as far as I understand. Correct? That means that you're persuadable that there could be. Yes? 

He claimed I said there could be a God. I've said no such thing.

I've said there is no evidence that meets it's burden of proof there is a God. Some descriptions of a God I am 100% certain aren't true as they are self contradictory. The God as described in the Bible falls into that category. 

You are both not grasping the difference between not believing a position has met it's burden of proof vs saying something is not possible. Those two things are not the same.

[Matthew Le God]

4 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Any atheist could be persuaded if presented with credible evidence but no such thing has ever been put forward. It would have to be something well beyond the boundaries of known science for me. For example a giant bearded man appearing in the sky and giving me clear instructions on Christianity. Even then, I’d be sceptical. I’d be asking other people living nearby if they’d seen the same, seeking a medical checkup, MRI scan and blood tests etc. To make sure it was real.

Street magicians still confuse people in the 21st century.

Imagine what 'miracles' sleight of hand could convince an illiterate population of 2,000 years ago!?

[egg]

Just now, Lighthouse said:

Any atheist could be persuaded if presented with credible evidence but no such thing has ever been put forward. It would have to be something well beyond the boundaries of known science for me. For example a giant bearded man appearing in the sky and giving me clear instructions on Christianity. Even then, I’d be sceptical. I’d be asking other people living nearby if they’d seen the same, seeking a medical checkup, MRI scan and blood tests etc. To make sure it was real.

Each to their own Lighthouse. Millions of people worldwide believe in a God (deliberate use of words as this thread has shifted towards Christianity and bible study) and their "proof" is unscientific and intangible. That is enough for them and nobody should doubt what they feel, and they shouldn't have to explain it. Sure, MLG will babble on that it's dangerous for us all to have those beliefs owing to his own assumptions and lack of understanding, but the reality is the peace and comfort that believers get from a relationship with a God is proof enough. To someone that needs your level of proof I appreciate that sounds like bollocks, but as I say, each to their own. 

[egg]

7 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

 

He claimed I said there could be a God. I've said no such thing.

I've said there is no evidence that meets it's burden of proof there is a God. Some descriptions of a God I am 100% certain aren't true as they are self contradictory. The God as described in the Bible falls into that category. 

You are both not grasping the difference between not believing a position has met it's burden of proof vs saying something is not possible. Those two things are not the same.

I grasp it completely. Unless you're being disingenuous, you're saying that you're open to persuasion with evidence. That can only mean that as things stand you are not persuaded by the existence of a God, but haven't ruled out the possibility subject to evidence. If, however, you have been disingenuous, then you've closed your mind and aren't persuadable. I couldn't give a shit which it is, but don't pretend you're open minded when it seems that you're not. 

[Lighthouse]

1 minute ago, egg said:

Each to their own Lighthouse. Millions of people worldwide believe in a God (deliberate use of words as this thread has shifted towards Christianity and bible study) and their "proof" is unscientific and intangible. That is enough for them and nobody should doubt what they feel, and they shouldn't have to explain it. Sure, MLG will babble on that it's dangerous for us all to have those beliefs owing to his own assumptions and lack of understanding, but the reality is the peace and comfort that believers get from a relationship with a God is proof enough. To someone that needs your level of proof I appreciate that sounds like bollocks, but as I say, each to their own. 

If someone derives comfort from the idea of a man in the sky watching over them and that when they die they will be happily reunited with Grandma, Uncle Ray and all their childhood guinea pigs, I don’t have a problem with that. If people want to pray for help, that’s none of my business. I don’t have a problem with belief as such, if it is completely separate from organised religion. The problem is it never is.

 

If you’re telling a child they will go to hell if they commit various sins or don’t say their prayers, that is very much not, "to each their own." That’s child abuse, plain and simple.

[egg]

1 minute ago, Lighthouse said:

If someone derives comfort from the idea of a man in the sky watching over them and that when they die they will be happily reunited with Grandma, Uncle Ray and all their childhood guinea pigs, I don’t have a problem with that. If people want to pray for help, that’s none of my business. I don’t have a problem with belief as such, if it is completely separate from organised religion. The problem is it never is.

 

If you’re telling a child they will go to hell if they commit various sins or don’t say their prayers, that is very much not, "to each their own." That’s child abuse, plain and simple.

I mean no disrespect but the use of the word "never" is an erroneous assumption. Millions of people believe in a God, but don't read holy books and/or follow an organised religion. 

If things like the last paragraph happen, are you saying that you believe it happens because of a belief in God per se, or some kind of religion / cult?  

[Lighthouse]

48 minutes ago, egg said:

I mean no disrespect but the use of the word "never" is an erroneous assumption. Millions of people believe in a God, but don't read holy books and/or follow an organised religion. 

If things like the last paragraph happen, are you saying that you believe it happens because of a belief in God per se, or some kind of religion / cult?  

Any religion which teaches children that they will go to Hell, or some variation thereof. It’s not intentional as it’s mostly just parents passing on what they’ve been raised to believe from their parents etc. However it is morally, IMO, appalling and it’s not just a cult/extremist problem, this is a mainline issue.

[egg]

2 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

Any religion which teaches children that they will go to Hell, or some variation thereof. It’s not intentional as it’s mostly just parents passing on what they’ve been raised to believe from their parents etc. However it is morally, IMO, appalling and it’s not just a cult/extremist problem, this is a mainline issue.

You've swerved the question. What you're referring to is some nutters interpreting a branch of organised religion in particular way. Hanging your point on extremists is a bit desperate. Doris and Fred ain't going to do that after going to Sunday prayers at Romsey Abbey are they. And that's altogether different to someone who believes in a God but not an organised religion, which I trust on reflection, you accept isn't something that can "never" be possible. 

[Lighthouse]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

You've swerved the question. What you're referring to is some nutters interpreting a branch of organised religion in particular way. Hanging your point on extremists is a bit desperate. Doris and Fred ain't going to do that after going to Sunday prayers at Romsey Abbey are they. And that's altogether different to someone who believes in a God but not an organised religion, which I trust on reflection, you accept isn't something that can "never" be possible. 

I haven’t swerved it. It happens because people are teaching their children what they were lead to believe, which going by your two options is a religion, not merely the belief in a god. A belief in Hell isn’t some extremist, cultist idea belong to a few whackos in Mississippi, it’s fairly mainstream and not just in Christianity. Religious belief and teaching is what I take issue with, not those who simply believe in a god (or several).

 

It’s perfectly possible to believe in a god but not religion, I used to think exactly that myself. I basically went from being an agnostic theist to an agnostic atheist. I don’t think I’ve ever denied that on this thread (if I did it’s through my own poor wording more than anything else) The people who still believe something similar I take no issue with as it’s generally harmless and there no religious teaching associated with it.

[Weston Super Saint]

12 hours ago, egg said:

It's not worth the response mate. The story is a parable. The bottom line is this thread has gone a zillion miles off tangent and I have no interest in the Bible, and I suspect that you don't either, so why it matters to you whether a particular bible story is a parable or something else God only knows. 

Just to be clear, are you saying that the parable of the good Samaritan is NOT based on a claim written in the bible?

[Raging Bull]

8 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

I haven’t swerved it. It happens because people are teaching their children what they were lead to believe, which going by your two options is a religion, not merely the belief in a god. A belief in Hell isn’t some extremist, cultist idea belong to a few whackos in Mississippi, it’s fairly mainstream and not just in Christianity. Religious belief and teaching is what I take issue with, not those who simply believe in a god (or several).

 

It’s perfectly possible to believe in a god but not religion, I used to think exactly that myself. I basically went from being an agnostic theist to an agnostic atheist. I don’t think I’ve ever denied that on this thread (if I did it’s through my own poor wording more than anything else) The people who still believe something similar I take no issue with as it’s generally harmless and there no religious teaching associated with it.

Christianity isn’t a religion, it’s a faith, which is very different. 

[Weston Super Saint]

2 minutes ago, Raging Bull said:

Christianity isn’t a religion, it’s a faith, which is very different. 

Not according to Wikipedia :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity#:~:text=Christianity is an Abrahamic monotheistic,chronicled in the New Testament.

Quote

Christianity is an Abrahamic monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. Its adherents, known as Christians, believe that Jesus is the Christ, whose coming as the messiah was prophesied in the Hebrew Bible, called the Old Testament in Christianity, and chronicled in the New Testament.^[1] It is the world's largest religion, with about 2.3 billion followers as of 2015.^[2]

or the Gurdian :

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2015/apr/03/christianity-when-properly-understood-religion-losers

Quote

Christianity, properly understood, is a religion of losers

or Britannica :

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Christianity

Quote

Christianity, major religion stemming from the life, teachings, and death of Jesus of Nazareth (the Christ, or the Anointed One of God) in the 1st century CE.

 

[egg]

19 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Just to be clear, are you saying that the parable of the good Samaritan is NOT based on a claim written in the bible?

This isn't bible study. I ain't a Bible man. I have no interest in the history behind the parable. If it interests you so much, Google is still your friend. Here's a starter for you. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Good_Samaritan

[Weston Super Saint]

Some interesting choices for last meals in this article, also interesting how many appear to be seeking forgiveness on their 'death bed' whilst others don't.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-53758533

[Weston Super Saint]

5 minutes ago, egg said:

This isn't bible study. I ain't a Bible man. I have no interest in the history behind the parable. If it interests you so much, Google is still your friend. Here's a starter for you. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Good_Samaritan

And yet you've spent two days lecturing me that it is a story, a fact at no point have I ever denied.

[egg]

12 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

And yet you've spent two days lecturing me that it is a story, a fact at no point have I ever denied.

Get a grip! I once mentioned it was a parable. You then finally accepted that, but then babbled about it stemming from a claim. I'm not the one interested in the issue. 

[Weston Super Saint]

11 minutes ago, egg said:

Get a grip! I once mentioned it was a parable. You then finally accepted that, but then babbled about it stemming from a claim. I'm not the one interested in the issue. 

At no point have I ever denied it was a parable, even when Turkish was spouting on and on about stories!  There was no 'final acceptance'.

It is a story that also makes a pretty magnificent claim - maybe even a non bible study person like yourself can recognise that!

[egg]

1 minute ago, Weston Super Saint said:

At no point have I ever denied it was a parable, even when Turkish was spouting on and on about stories!  There was no 'final acceptance'.

It is a story that also makes a pretty magnificent claim - maybe even a non bible study person like yourself can recognise that!

I'm pleased that it stoked some interest in you. It's origins hasn't / doesn't in me. 

[Weston Super Saint]

1 minute ago, egg said:

I'm pleased that it stoked some interest in you. It's origins hasn't / doesn't in me. 

Lol.  Your continual debating of the subject suggests otherwise.

Perhaps he doth protest too much?

[egg]

9 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Lol.  Your continual debating of the subject suggests otherwise.

Perhaps he doth protest too much?

Bless you Weston. I haven't raised any bible story on this thread, nor sought to debate this story. I've merely highlighted that the story you raised was a parable as you seemed hard of understanding. I don't pretend to know it history, and have no interest in it. 

[Lighthouse]

1 hour ago, Raging Bull said:

Christianity isn’t a religion, it’s a faith, which is very different. 

What you’d call it is not an argument to anything I’ve posted. I still stand by everything in my previous posts.

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, egg said:

Bless you Weston. I haven't raised any bible story on this thread, nor sought to debate this story. I've merely highlighted that the story you raised was a parable as you seemed hard of understanding. I don't pretend to know it history, and have no interest in it. 

Bless you Egg, all confused once again.

It's not a story I raised, it was raised by Turkish.

For the umpeenth time, I have never claimed it was anything other than a story.

Odd that you would post links to the parable that you have zero interest in  

[Turkish]

11 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Bless you Egg, all confused once again.

It's not a story I raised, it was raised by Turkish.

For the umpeenth time, I have never claimed it was anything other than a story.

Odd that you would post links to the parable that you have zero interest in  

So why the f*ck are you bleating on about checking out the creditability of a fictional story when you know it’s a fictional story? It’s you that’s confused mate, all over the place. 

[Matthew Le God]

2 hours ago, Raging Bull said:

Christianity isn’t a religion, it’s a faith, which is very different. 

I am now intrigued as to your definition of all three of those words.

[egg]

2 minutes ago, Turkish said:

So why the f*ck are you bleating on about checking out the creditability of a fictional story when you know it’s a fictional story? It’s you that’s confused mate, all over the place. 

Amen. 

[Weston Super Saint]

6 minutes ago, Turkish said:

So why the f*ck are you bleating on about checking out the creditability of a fictional story when you know it’s a fictional story? It’s you that’s confused mate, all over the place. 

Because it's based on a claim, come on Turkish, keep up, we've been through this!

For the record, it's you that has stated that claims need to be checked out, but have still failed to answer the question why some do but some don't...

[Matthew Le God]

15 hours ago, Matthew Le God said:

He claimed I said there could be a God. I've said no such thing.

I've said there is no evidence that meets it's burden of proof there is a God. Some descriptions of a God I am 100% certain aren't true as they are self contradictory. The God as described in the Bible falls into that category. 

You are both not grasping the difference between not believing a position has met it's burden of proof vs saying something is not possible. Those two things are not the same.

 

15 hours ago, egg said:

I grasp it completely. Unless you're being disingenuous, you're saying that you're open to persuasion with evidence. That can only mean that as things stand you are not persuaded by the existence of a God, but haven't ruled out the possibility subject to evidence. If, however, you have been disingenuous, then you've closed your mind and aren't persuadable. I couldn't give a shit which it is, but don't pretend you're open minded when it seems that you're not. 

You can't reverse the contradictions in the Bible and still maintain it is 100% accurate. The self contradictory nature of the book renders it flawed.

I am 100% certain it is impossible for the God as described by the Bible to exist. But I do not say no Gods exist. Saying that I say no Gods exist is not the same as saying a God could or might exist. This is a concept you and others don't appear to grasp and no matter how many times it has been explained you keep coming back with points that highlight you don't understand the difference between those positions.

Edited 17 August, 2020 by Matthew Le God

[Matthew Le God]

14 hours ago, egg said:

I mean no disrespect but the use of the word "never" is an erroneous assumption. Millions of people believe in a God, but don't read holy books and/or follow an organised religion. 

If things like the last paragraph happen, are you saying that you believe it happens because of a belief in God per se, or some kind of religion / cult?  

If they don't follow an organised religion or read a holy book then would you agree that their view of the characteristics of God is likely to be unique to them? Essentially they've created their own God.

[Matthew Le God]

13 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

Any religion which teaches children that they will go to Hell, or some variation thereof. It’s not intentional as it’s mostly just parents passing on what they’ve been raised to believe from their parents etc. However it is morally, IMO, appalling and it’s not just a cult/extremist problem, this is a mainline issue.

 

10 hours ago, egg said:

You've swerved the question. What you're referring to is some nutters interpreting a branch of organised religion in particular way. Hanging your point on extremists is a bit desperate. Doris and Fred ain't going to do that after going to Sunday prayers at Romsey Abbey are they. 

You think belief in Hell is a minority belief? And that parents don't threaten their children about the infinite punishment for finite 'crimes'?

Edited 17 August, 2020 by Matthew Le God

[egg]

46 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

 

You can't reverse the contradictions in the Bible and still maintain it is 100% accurate. The self contradictory nature of the book renders it flawed.

I am 100% certain it is impossible for the God as described by the Bible does not exist. But I do not say no Gods exist. Saying that I say no Gods exist is not the same as saying a God could or might exist. This is a concept you and others don't appear to grasp and no matter how many times it has been explained you keep coming back with points that highlight you don't understand the difference between those positions.

Then mine and Raging Bull's interpretation was broadly correct. In not disputing the possible acceptance of a God or Gods, it follows that you must accept that there could be a God - if you felt that there was no such possibility your stance would have to be that you dispute the possible existence of God or Gods. Either you mind is open or closed, you can't have it both ways.

40 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

If they don't follow an organised religion or read a holy book then would you agree that their view of the characteristics of God is likely to be unique to them? Essentially they've created their own God.

I have no opinion about what people may or may not think.

38 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

 

You think belief in Hell is a minority belief? And that parents don't threaten their children about the infinite punishment for finite 'crimes'?

I'm not getting into a hell discussion - God has turned into farcical bible study so God only knows where hell/the devil may end up.

Edited 17 August, 2020 by egg

[badgerx16]

24 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

 

You think belief in Hell is a minority belief? And that parents don't threaten their children about the infinite punishment for finite 'crimes'?

"If you don't tidy your bedroom I'll make you sit and read MLG's posts on the "Duck Blasphemy" thread, over and over again".

[Weston Super Saint]

A question popped into my head this morning whilst out riding in the wind and rain, I passed an empty church and wondered what religion is making of Coronavirus?

I'm assuming that religion is of the opinion that 'God' created the virus - unless the belief is that it is man made and that God gave man the ability to create the virus?

Is God to blame for the virus that is killing innocent people or is it something else's fault?

[badgerx16]

4 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

A question popped into my head this morning whilst out riding in the wind and rain, I passed an empty church and wondered what religion is making of Coronavirus?

I'm assuming that religion is of the opinion that 'God' created the virus - unless the belief is that it is man made and that God gave man the ability to create the virus?

Is God to blame for the virus that is killing innocent people or is it something else's fault?

Probably the same view as they hold for Ebola, Typhoid, Zika, and all other Microbes of Mass Destruction.

Edited 13 December, 2020 by badgerx16

[Matthew Le God]

Happy Ducking Friday everyone

[trousers]

4 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Happy Ducking Friday everyone

Celebrating 'Friday'? I didn't realise you embraced goddesses such as Frigga?

 

Edited 25 December, 2020 by trousers

[Turkish]

11 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Happy Ducking Friday

Happy Hypocrites day MLG!

[Matthew Le God]

3 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Happy Hypocrites day MLG!

Take it to the other thread 🙄

[Turkish]

[Turkish]

15 minutes ago, trousers said:

Celebrating 'Friday'? I didn't realise you embraced goddesses such as Frigga?

 

A holy day is Judaism and Islam. He’s covering all basis with his worship this year!

[Matthew Le God]

26 minutes ago, Turkish said:

You

Don't 

Understand

What 

Hypocrisy

Means

🙄

We keep going through this. But my day today involves no worship of fictional characters. It involves seeing family, eating some nice food and giving them presents. No religion involved at all and therefore no hypocrisy. I've cherry picked the bits I like from the festival, like Christians did from cultures that preceded them. Not sure why I'm explaining this again to you, because time after time you've shown you can't grasp this.

[Turkish]

10 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

You

Don't 

Understand

What 

Hypocrisy

Means

🙄

We keep going through this. But my day today involves no worship of fictional characters. It involves seeing family, eating some nice food and giving them presents. No religion involved at all and therefore no hypocrisy. I've cherry picked the bits I like from the festival, like Christians did from cultures that preceded them. Not sure why I'm explaining this again to you, because time after time you've shown you can't grasp this.

Apart from the fact you’re choosing to do it on a day which is a Christian festival when you could do it on any of the other days of the year. You may not actually be saying prayers to god or singing religious songs but the very fact you are celebrating a religious festival, even in your own way, as an atheist, means you are a hypocrite. Sorry about that.