Six Questions to Ask An Atheist
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
The issue isn't about the logic of it, but the truth of it. While being logical does not mean it is true, being true certainly includes being logical. A true statement is always logical, but a logical statement is not always true. Geddit?
but whatever that you've mentioned neither has logic nor has truth. yet u claim it to be truth. Furthermore i wasen't imploring the logic of the events. its the logic of what you claim to be truth. If whatever i've sad is logical but not the truth, u hit ur own foot because i was just extrapolating your logic. I see your attempt though. -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
The issue isn't about the logic of it, but the truth of it. While being logical does not mean it is true, being true certainly includes being logical. A true statement is always logical, but a logical statement is not always true. Geddit?
oh ya... anytingthat has truth in it is logical. So if yours is not logical, how can it be the truth? I extrapolated your logic on the events. If your events are truth, the logic mus be truth too. Therefore all other events mentioned must b true also.
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
but whatever that you've mentioned neither has logic nor has truth. yet u claim it to be truth. Furthermore i wasen't imploring the logic of the events. its the logic of what you claim to be truth. If whatever i've sad is logical but not the truth, u hit ur own foot because i was just extrapolating your logic. I see your attempt though.EXCEPT that you failed to support your assertion that whatever I mentioned neither has logic or truth. It's just a fallacious cavalier dismissal of my posts.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
EXCEPT that you failed to support your assertion that whatever I mentioned neither has logic or truth. It's just a fallacious cavalier dismissal of my posts.
Neither can u prove your assertions. you always wants ppl to assert their post. But you cant prove your points also. LOL. You yourself are fallicious also in your claims. I just worked on a logical extrapolation on your post. Not sure whatever support you wanted. Basically asking me to do the work for you? To prove that men cannot come from a bone of the woman? how about you prove it? prove your god does it. Or you can keep believing and keep asking for prove. Prove of something u felt it has happen, but canno be proven to happen. -
Every few days i learn something new here. No wonder so few ppl can see the light.
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
oh ya... anytingthat has truth in it is logical. So if yours is not logical, how can it be the truth? I extrapolated your logic on the events. If your events are truth, the logic mus be truth too. Therefore all other events mentioned must b true also.
Firstly, you failed to demonstrate the lack of logic in my posts. You merely asserted that mine is not logical but utterly failed or neglect to demonstrate it.
Secondly, your extrapolation on the events is highly suspect. An event either happened or it did not. It is not really an issue of logic.
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
Neither can u prove your assertions. you always wants ppl to assert their post. But you cant prove your points also. LOL. You yourself are fallicious also in your claims. I just worked on a logical extrapolation on your post. Not sure whatever support you wanted. Basically asking me to do the work for you? To prove that men cannot come from a bone of the woman? how about you prove it? prove your god does it. Or you can keep believing and keep asking for prove. Prove of something u felt it has happen, but canno be proven to happen.Why are you whining when all I am asking you is to back up your assertion that all I wrote were illogical? You don't have to do my work, you just do your own work. You make a claim that whatever I wrote is illogical, demonstrate it, if you can.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Why are you whining when all I am asking you is to back up your assertion that all I wrote were illogical? You don't have to do my work, you just do your own work. You make a claim that whatever I wrote is illogical, demonstrate it, if you can.
Can, prove yours logical first =)
The illogical of what you wrote, does not need to be proven. it is by itself illogical. Unless u can find a women who came from a bone of a man. I will glady want to interview her.
u asked nelstar "Why would God creating a woman from the rib of a man be considered illogical"
Mayb you could try to explain why it should not be considered illogical too.
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
Every few days i learn something new here. No wonder so few ppl can see the light.
I am happy for you that you are learning new things here everyday. A lot of people don't really know the Christianity that they criticise so much and reject out of ignorance.
Actually it is not that few people can see the light but that many do not want to see the light. The Bible says in John 3:19, "God’s light came into the world, but people loved the darkness more than the light, for their actions were evil. All who do evil hate the light and refuse to go near it for fear their sins will be exposed."
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
Can, prove yours logical first =)
The illogical of what you wrote, does not need to be proven. it is by itself illogical. Unless u can find a women who came from a bone of a man. I will glady want to interview her.
u asked nelstar "Why would God creating a woman from the rib of a man be considered illogical"
Mayb you could try to explain why it should not be considered illogical too.
Then the logic of what I wrote does not need to be proven too. And you are being confused again. The Bible teaches that Eve was made out of Adam, and you ask me to find a woman who came from a bone of a man? Who is being illogical? YOU.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
I am happy for you that you are learning new things here everyday. A lot of people don't really know the Christianity that they criticise so much and reject out of ignorance.
Actually it is not that few people can see the light but that many do not want to see the light. The Bible says in John 3:19, "God’s light came into the world, but people loved the darkness more than the light, for their actions were evil. All who do evil hate the light and refuse to go near it for fear their sins will be exposed."
LOL.. Im glad you took it this way. Another thing i learn about christianity. A perfect example of pot calling the kettle black. A ignorant calling other ignorance.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Then the logic of what I wrote does not need to be proven too. And you are being confused again. The Bible teaches that Eve was made out of Adam, and you ask me to find a woman who came from a bone of a man? Who is being illogical? YOU.
Explain your logic... dun escape... explain how it did happen? why arent you explaining? Yours is all correct what. Truth fact history. Explain, how did a women came out from a men. All truths has the logic, xplain it then. Cant? means its false. -
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
Explain your logic... dun escape... explain how it did happen? why arent you explaining? Yours is all correct what. Truth fact history. Explain, how did a women came out from a men. All truths has the logic, xplain it then. Cant? means its false.Explain? I'll just let the Bible speaks for itself.
It is written, "So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep. While the man slept, the Lord God took out one of the man's ribs and closed up the opening. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib, and he brought her to the man." Genesis 2:21
Now would you be so kind as to tell me why the above is illogical and false?
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
LOL.. Im glad you took it this way. Another thing i learn about christianity. A perfect example of pot calling the kettle black. A ignorant calling other ignorance.
I think I have pretty much demonstrated how ignorant most of the atheists here are concerning Christianity. I may be ignorant of many things, but I do know pretty much about Christianity, more than the atheists here at least!
-
"FACT: Tcmc DID concede that objective truth exist. And that means relativism is false."
The relativism was your strawman all along. And you do understand the meaning of concede, don't you?
"My agenda is clear, to show by that there are good reasons to think that theism is true and atheism is false."
So who else but you need to elaborate more...
"I saw that coming, that you would qualify your "statement is an argument" thingy."
Its from your 3rd party link... click any part of the coloured paragraph.
"My examples of objective truths cannot be faulted. It's not my confusion at all. Objective truth is that which corresponds to reality, independent of feelings, time etc etc."
From your above definition, your examples fail to meet the (truth of the statement)independent of feelings and (Singaporean)independent of time criteria. The moment you include time, its time related....
"Then what were you trying to say when you said God was cruel? No different from saying that you like the colour of red?"
But I like blue and you insist that blue is morally wrong, base on your judgement. Until now you fail to show what is wrong with saying God is cruel to other lifeforms.
"Of course I could have chosen not to mention your kids. But does the mere mention of them amounts to trolling? Like I said, if you don't like the mention of your kids, just say so. No need to accuse others of trolling. In any case, I am happy not to talk about them or bring them into the discussion since it is a sensitive spot for you."
What is your intention else than trolling to mention my kids when you could perfectly done so without? I have said I am indifferent to your words and have no power to intervene your priviledge of type whatnots, its you who is dishonorable using others's kids in petty arguments. This is the last chance for you to clarify your intention.
"The Bible was not written by me, not up to me to leave out "chew the cud" just because critics have issues with it, issues that are not really issues at all."
You did mention your expertise in Christianity... so its just flatulence. If its there, its meant to identify and you don't know whats "chewer of the cud"... *sniggles*
"I do take note of your delight and pride in insulting your opponent. Your accusation of hypocrisies are just that, accusations."
You have no sense of shame... there is no way out of your hypocrisies, its in black and white digitally for now.
"While the Bible is not a science textbook, it does speak on things in the real world, so why can't the Bible be used to inform the way we do science? Or history? Or archaeology?"
Of course it can be used. You can use it to your subjects of interest just don't use its as a science text.
"It's OK to own up to your own fallacies which I pointed out. No need to sound so defensive that you were merely testing things out lah."
You were simply wrong in the things you pointed out however you want to deny. I said before I can let you win arguments.... if you wan it bad enough.
"You did insult. And you were proud of it. Nuff said."
I'm proud that I call out your hypocrisies and you cannot rebut. No one can insult one's mother worse than being a hypocrite. Thus there no need for me to add insult to injury.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Exactly what do you mean by judging based on my own ruler? What and Whose ruler should be used then?
Why would God creating a woman from the rib of a man be considered illogical?
BTW, if you don't even believe in aliens, much less their ability to fart out humans, then I would appreciate it if you don't just invoke aliens to parody my beliefs. I mean, are you looking for a serious discussion or not? If not, let's end it.
You are getting daft aren't you?
God creating woman from the rib of a man is logical? Try demonstrate that possibility using scientific method.
Please try to justify how Moses turned a stick into a snake using scientific method.
You asked for scientific comparisons but you can't even justify your own with it.
All your arguments amount to nothing because you can't even prove that.
Similarly, you cannot disprove of alien, alternate reality or any other atheist's views. You are really looking through your silly myopic eyes and have not understood that.
If you cannot even imagine how an atheist can believe in alternate realities, dreams and aliens, an atheist cannot believe in your God and all the fantasy stories found in your Bible's old testament.
Resurrection? Use science to prove it. Maybe that will sound logical.As far as I see, you put down every single thing you think not logical and keep insisting your own myopic views are logical.
Prove it.
Or I will still have my laughs.
-
here's many laughs for the troll BIC
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
1. As mentioned, the belief in aliens is based on belief in evolution. If evolution is false, then so is the belief in aliens. What then about those supposed allegations of alien sightings, alien abductions, and space-ships? Well, there is another interpretation, if interested see http://www.alienintrusion.com/main.html
2. Saying that the OT is fantasy is a question-begging epithet.
3. I'm not talking about how much conviction you have of anything, convictions being pretty subjective and you seem to make it sound just all in the head or due to the sincerity of belief. I'm talking about whether God exists, not how strong your convictions are. The strength of one's convictions does not determine the existence of anything.
4. Why must it be either "true unless proven false" or "false unless proven true"? It's a false dilemma. There must always be good reasons to believe something is false or true. Events that happen must have a cause. The universe must have a cause. What is that cause? You only have two choices, God, or the universe made itself. And if you still want to invoke aliens just for the fun of argument, note that these aliens are still part of the universe and cannot be the cause of the universe.
5. I will be happy to argue evolution with you, if you want. But please know that evolution is not devoid of metaphysical presuppositions and assumptions. If you think it is pure science then you are purely wrong, and I will be happy to show you why.
From the beginning, your arguments are just as flawed as your understanding.
Can you destroy the universe? If you can't, how can you claimed it was created?You talk about everything having a cause, and instead of understanding why people refuse to accept unproven information. You keep insisting there must be a cause. There are many people who can accept that unproven information are a waste of time.
If humans can clone animals, why can't humanity be a clone of another homo sapien species outside earth? Why must it be God? Why must God exists? Can you prove God's existence?I'm not atheist if you realized, but I'm agnostic. That means whether or not they are true or false, I don't really have a problem with either. I don't really have a problem with atheists, they don't preach to me daily to do good for God. They don't care and they won't ask me to join either. You are a typical example of the Christians who goes about preaching without understanding that we cannot be bothered with your unproven information that you read from your Bible. You are the same example of Christians who cannot accept that there are people who can live without God, be morally acceptable (without your Godly standards) and still sleep peacefully without worrying about death, without asking themselves questions whether their lives was worth it.
What I cannot accept is your lack of understanding that your arguments are just as flawed as the guy who insisted on Darwin's evolution.Your method of insisting that we must definitely have an answer to life by tying it to a figure, unit, some random possibility.
Do you really need a "cause" to live your life? If yes, and if Bible is good for you, I have no qualms.Do I need to justify my existence is due to God? Do I need to prove afterlife? Not really and I really don't care. I don't need to. I am proven by science that I exist. Can you prove my existence is due to God? Go ahead and try, I'll laugh at you as much as I laughed at you from the start.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
I think I have pretty much demonstrated how ignorant most of the atheists here are concerning Christianity. I may be ignorant of many things, but I do know pretty much about Christianity, more than the atheists here at least!
Cool, go get a badge of recognition for being more well-versed in Christianity than atheists in sgforums.com.
Wear a printed shirt with the words "I know more about Christianity than the atheists in Sgforums.com"Go on, gloat about it.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
A fact? Are you talking about fact as in objective truth, or is that just true for you but not for me? Anyways....
Christianity and Judaism share the same OT Scriptures. Not surprising since Jesus was a Jew. So Christianity has Jewish roots. But this does not lead to the conclusion that Christianity copied from Judaism. Like that I can also argue that atheism copied or adapted from theism by taking all the affirmative statements in theism and simply negating it. You buy that? See http://www.gotquestions.org/difference-Christianity-Judaism.html
But then again, people makes all sorts of allegations that Christianity copied from other religions. But such allegations commit the genetic fallacy, the error of trying to disprove a belief by tracing it to its source. See http://creation.com/was-christianity-plagiarized-from-pagan-myths
BIC
It is a fact, because part of christianity is from judaism. Practices, name of god (yahweh), OT scriptures, moses, adam and eve.
All these are judaic religious characters/traditions. That is why it is a fact that part of christianity is derived or adapted from an older religion. Jesus also went to synagogues and only used the OT scriptures, my friend.
I never disprove christianity using its source. My point to you is christianity is adapted. I am nto saying whether that is right or wrong. As for you, you just have to acknowledge it is adapted from judaism.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC
It is a fact, because part of christianity is from judaism. Practices, name of god (yahweh), OT scriptures, moses, adam and eve.
All these are judaic religious characters/traditions. That is why it is a fact that part of christianity is derived or adapted from an older religion. Jesus also went to synagogues and only used the OT scriptures, my friend.
I never disprove christianity using its source. My point to you is christianity is adapted. I am nto saying whether that is right or wrong. As for you, you just have to acknowledge it is adapted from judaism.
Earth is created by Franklin Richards.
-
Originally posted by Nelstar:
You are getting daft aren't you?
God creating woman from the rib of a man is logical? Try demonstrate that possibility using scientific method.
Please try to justify how Moses turned a stick into a snake using scientific method.
You asked for scientific comparisons but you can't even justify your own with it.
All your arguments amount to nothing because you can't even prove that.
Similarly, you cannot disprove of alien, alternate reality or any other atheist's views. You are really looking through your silly myopic eyes and have not understood that.
If you cannot even imagine how an atheist can believe in alternate realities, dreams and aliens, an atheist cannot believe in your God and all the fantasy stories found in your Bible's old testament.
Resurrection? Use science to prove it. Maybe that will sound logical.As far as I see, you put down every single thing you think not logical and keep insisting your own myopic views are logical.
Prove it.
Or I will still have my laughs.
oh yes man! same point as me! just saved me an explaination to BIC. I thought it wouldn't even need an explaination. But it would seem that he wont get it.
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
"FACT: Tcmc DID concede that objective truth exist. And that means relativism is false."
The relativism was your strawman all along. And you do understand the meaning of concede, don't you?
"My agenda is clear, to show by that there are good reasons to think that theism is true and atheism is false."
So who else but you need to elaborate more...
"I saw that coming, that you would qualify your "statement is an argument" thingy."
Its from your 3rd party link... click any part of the coloured paragraph.
"My examples of objective truths cannot be faulted. It's not my confusion at all. Objective truth is that which corresponds to reality, independent of feelings, time etc etc."
From your above definition, your examples fail to meet the (truth of the statement)independent of feelings and (Singaporean)independent of time criteria. The moment you include time, its time related....
"Then what were you trying to say when you said God was cruel? No different from saying that you like the colour of red?"
But I like blue and you insist that blue is morally wrong, base on your judgement. Until now you fail to show what is wrong with saying God is cruel to other lifeforms.
"Of course I could have chosen not to mention your kids. But does the mere mention of them amounts to trolling? Like I said, if you don't like the mention of your kids, just say so. No need to accuse others of trolling. In any case, I am happy not to talk about them or bring them into the discussion since it is a sensitive spot for you."
What is your intention else than trolling to mention my kids when you could perfectly done so without? I have said I am indifferent to your words and have no power to intervene your priviledge of type whatnots, its you who is dishonorable using others's kids in petty arguments. This is the last chance for you to clarify your intention.
"The Bible was not written by me, not up to me to leave out "chew the cud" just because critics have issues with it, issues that are not really issues at all."
You did mention your expertise in Christianity... so its just flatulence. If its there, its meant to identify and you don't know whats "chewer of the cud"... *sniggles*
"I do take note of your delight and pride in insulting your opponent. Your accusation of hypocrisies are just that, accusations."
You have no sense of shame... there is no way out of your hypocrisies, its in black and white digitally for now.
"While the Bible is not a science textbook, it does speak on things in the real world, so why can't the Bible be used to inform the way we do science? Or history? Or archaeology?"
Of course it can be used. You can use it to your subjects of interest just don't use its as a science text.
"It's OK to own up to your own fallacies which I pointed out. No need to sound so defensive that you were merely testing things out lah."
You were simply wrong in the things you pointed out however you want to deny. I said before I can let you win arguments.... if you wan it bad enough.
"You did insult. And you were proud of it. Nuff said."
I'm proud that I call out your hypocrisies and you cannot rebut. No one can insult one's mother worse than being a hypocrite. Thus there no need for me to add insult to injury.
Wrong. My point about relativism was not a strawman. Tcmc was arguing for relativism, but then she saw where it was going and agreed that there are objective truths. If that is not conceding the argument I don't know what is.
I have elaborate a lot already on why theism is reasonable and why atheism is not.
And you failed to quote the earlier part which says "Normally, a single statement in isolation does not constitute an argument, but simply a declaration or assertion."
You are confused concerning objective truth and the part about it being independent of time. What it means is that if the fact is that you were born in 1990, then it can't be that 20 years later the truth changes that you were born in 1980. Geddit? And I mentioned this before, the fact that people can be wrong about anything PRESUPPOSES the existence of objective truth. Relativism or subjective truth means no one can ever be wrong since what's true for you is not true for me.
Moreover I will NEVER say that your choice of colour is right or wrong so that's your strawman. I said it before, preferences and tastes are not matters of truth like the earth is round.
I have already clarified my intention, it was merely using your kids as an example. Why would asking you to do experiments with your kids be trolling? 5 kids = 5 experiments = 5 outcomes. Scientific method is repeatable. Problem is that you get personal when there was no need to, though I can understand it would be upsetting for you to be told 5 times by your kids that you are wrong about plants needing nutrients from dead animals in order to grow. They don't NEED it.
No one uses Lev 11:3 to determine which animal chews the cud. Lev 11 already is informing the Israelites what they can or cannot eat, animals that they would typically encounter in their daily lives and is not meant to identify every living animal species under the sky that chews the cud. It seems so desperate that you have to ignore what I said and harp on things beyond what the Bible text is trying to communicate.
What I have written I have written. If what I have written are hypocrisies, then so are yours.
Again I said it before, creationists are NOT using the Bible as a science textbook, but using it to inform us about how we should go about doing science, and providing the lenses through which we interpret the observational data. Mind you we are talking primarily about HISTORICAL science here, not operational science.
Pointed out your fallacies I did, however much you want to deny.
And re the last point, I already said I am not going for a slugfest.
-
Originally posted by Nelstar:
You are getting daft aren't you?
God creating woman from the rib of a man is logical? Try demonstrate that possibility using scientific method.
Please try to justify how Moses turned a stick into a snake using scientific method.
You asked for scientific comparisons but you can't even justify your own with it.
All your arguments amount to nothing because you can't even prove that.
Similarly, you cannot disprove of alien, alternate reality or any other atheist's views. You are really looking through your silly myopic eyes and have not understood that.
If you cannot even imagine how an atheist can believe in alternate realities, dreams and aliens, an atheist cannot believe in your God and all the fantasy stories found in your Bible's old testament.
Resurrection? Use science to prove it. Maybe that will sound logical.As far as I see, you put down every single thing you think not logical and keep insisting your own myopic views are logical.
Prove it.
Or I will still have my laughs.
It's not that I am daft, but that you are confused between matters of logic and matters of scientific demonstration. Not only that, you do not understand the nature of science nor the application of the scientific method, as obvious from your challenge to ask me to use the scientific method to prove the creation of Eve or the miracle of Moses turning his staff into a snake. Your insistence that science be used to prove this or that smacks of scientism. Is science the only way to know what's true?
And why should I disprove aliens or alternate realities when it should be you or those who believe it who should prove them first? I don't have to disprove them, no obligation to at all. I only need to show why there are no good REASONS to believe in them. It's nothing to do with imagining what atheists are capable of believing, but it's a matter of whether there are good reasons to be an atheist. But what's worst is that you apparently do not even believe in these things yet are simply invoking them as arguments against God. In a court of ideas being discussed you would simply be a court jester.
If your views are illogical I will tell you why, but till now you have NOT shown why my views are illogical. You only have assertions, no arguments, much less any proofs to show. Oh yah, and your laughs too. Most atheists can only laugh, which is an easier response than to take time to form coherent and cogent counter-arguments to theism.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
It's not that I am daft, but that you are confused between matters of logic and matters of scientific demonstration. Not only that, you do not understand the nature of science nor the application of the scientific method, as obvious from your challenge to ask me to use the scientific method to prove the creation of Eve or the miracle of Moses turning his staff into a snake. Your insistence that science be used to prove this or that smacks of scientism. Is science the only way to know what's true?
And why should I disprove aliens or alternate realities when it should be you or those who believe it who should prove them first? I don't have to disprove them, no obligation to at all. I only need to show why there are no good REASONS to believe in them. It's nothing to do with imagining what atheists are capable of believing, but it's a matter of whether there are good reasons to be an atheist. But what's worst is that you apparently do not even believe in these things yet are simply invoking them as arguments against God. In a court of ideas being discussed you would simply be a court jester.
If your views are illogical I will tell you why, but till now you have NOT shown why my views are illogical. You only have assertions, no arguments, much less any proofs to show. Oh yah, and your laughs too. Most atheists can only laugh, which is an easier response than to take time to form coherent and cogent counter-arguments to theism.
another learning point today :)