I have not taken your comments out of context. I have simply broken them down so I can address/rebut each one of your points. Why do you think we have a quote feature? Besides, anyone can look at the thread and READ your entire post in its entirety if they want to. The same applies to anyone's quotes on this forum. I don’t understand your argument with that at tall.
It’s not MY style of debate. I did not invent the argumentum ad ignorantiam. I am merely using it to illustrate your logical fallacy, as several other posters have. Here is the link if you don’t believe me.
What I have told you is the burden of proof falls upon the person making the positive assertion. i.e. God exists.
What??? Look over this thread. The only people who are taking the position that a negative needs to be substantiated are those that are Christian or those that feel that we need to prove that "god doesn’t exist" which is a logical fallacy. Shall I go through and mark every post where this point has been brought up?
The title of this thread is:
"Can a rational person believe in the bible? Or any religion?" Are you attempting to tell me with a straight face right now that this will not provoke a certain degree of debate and argument?
And explain how I do that when 9/10 times I have been taking actual passages from the bible? I don’t care who agrees with my position or who does not. This is not a "school yard bully" situation and I stand alone in my opinions. I just happen to agree with certain members like Trish, Crotalus, and Conrad...the list goes on. You probably have people you agree with more often than not also. What difference does that make? None to me.
Well that’s sort of sideways compliment but I will take it. Thanks. I really don’t know all that much. I never claimed to either. Compared to someone else I might appear to know more but that’s all relative. If you got a theologian on this forum, I would not be as knowledgeable as someone like that. Of course not.
Did you read my post? I said Yahweh. Then in summation, I rebutted your argument by stating that god allegedly sent his OWN son as a blood sacrifice.
If you don’t understand anything I have stated, please ask and I will clarify. So far, it’s been fairly straight forward however.
That's a very spatial analogy at best and does not address the Mosaic Law and stoning women and children to death at all.
I am quoting direct passages from the bible? Are you claiming that the Mosaic Law does not exist now?
You might want to try explaining that to all of the men, women and children that were stoned to death under god's law.
Except those children that took the lord's name in vain and were commanded to be stoned to death by god's law. Remember, I’m only stoning you to death because I love you so.
I want nothing to do with him (or Christianity) because it is immoral and is supported by a hateful premise.
I would even take it a step further and state that the position of Agnosticism IS in fact the only correct one. We have no way of knowing this one way or another. At least not while we exist in the natural world.
Most atheists would resent your use of the the word "belief" as that is associated with faith in a religious context.
Because it falls upon the person making the positive assertion to produce the evidence and justify it in some respect. Unless you want to throw logic out of the picture which you can ....I guess.
What does that have to do with this discussion on logical fallacy?
Correlations to what? What are you talking about?
Paganism predated Christianity of course and extends as far back as the Neolithic or early Stone Age. Is that what you are questioning?
Wow, thats quite the subjective comment. Im assuming you are a Christian?
And to what are you referring here? Am I supposed to be "backing up" something specifically? Please name the subject matter or begin another thread and properly identify it.
And the burden of proof would not fall upon the Agnostic either.
Because the atheist is not making a positive assertion. Secondly, a person who rejects an assertion does not need to provide any justification for it. The evidence has to be provided by the party making the assertion. The person rejecting the assertion needs to provide nothing at all. Many theists try to escape this basic fact of life by declaring (in opposition to common sense) that their assertions need to be justified only to themselves in their personal experience. Simply put, that what is true for others might not be true for themselves. Well fine...
No, I was saying that you considered a cougar to be any age older than her mate. So Im asking if I were to be one year older, you would consider me a Cougar?
So you are implying here that since they never detailed the gory physical act of stoning in the bible, it never occurred? We know from a cultural anthropological standpoint that stoning was a very routine punishment. In fact, to this day, it can be utilized.
How would stoning a young woman save millions? It seems to me that she would be used as an example for the rest. Take the word of god seriously or you are next.
Yes.
Actually he gave these laws to Moses.
So he had to depict what a vicious, bloodthirsty tyrant he was and THEN send his son who essentially went against his own father's law and died for it.
Okay so if that allegedly never happened, how can you discern between what actually occurred and what did not take place? The Hebrews believed those were the direct words of god.
Agreed. And he's constantly involved with god's affairs. The very idea that god would feel compelled to make bets with a fallen angel as in the case of Jobe is incompatible with omniscience. Satan never killed anyone either. Not outright. Not that I can locate in the bible. He also didn’t attempt to drown the entire earth in a cataclysmic flood event.
I won’t say that I hate god because I don’t think that he exists (the god of Abraham) but I am upset with the devastation the concept has caused historically.
I just assumed you she was referring to the god of Abraham since she said versus but that was an assumption on my part. Also, that one is so hate comparable.
I’m also not mad at you. Please don’t take any of this personally.
Well I felt like we did a pretty good job of trying to explain this on the Dawkins thread to you. If you still don’t understand all I can say is take it back to that thread and I will read/respond as it’s rude to take this one over for an argument. I don’t consider this debate and is becoming tedious.
Dully noted. Let’s drop this now as we will get banned for arguing if someone complains. Peace.
krimsa Forum Posts (1,345)
I want the one with all the Pauls and Marys.
RE: Can a rational person beilieve in the Bible? or any religion?
I have not taken your comments out of context. I have simply broken them down so I can address/rebut each one of your points. Why do you think we have a quote feature? Besides, anyone can look at the thread and READ your entire post in its entirety if they want to. The same applies to anyone's quotes on this forum. I don’t understand your argument with that at tall.It’s not MY style of debate. I did not invent the argumentum ad ignorantiam. I am merely using it to illustrate your logical fallacy, as several other posters have. Here is the link if you don’t believe me.
What I have told you is the burden of proof falls upon the person making the positive assertion. i.e. God exists.
What??? Look over this thread. The only people who are taking the position that a negative needs to be substantiated are those that are Christian or those that feel that we need to prove that "god doesn’t exist" which is a logical fallacy. Shall I go through and mark every post where this point has been brought up?
The title of this thread is:
"Can a rational person believe in the bible? Or any religion?" Are you attempting to tell me with a straight face right now that this will not provoke a certain degree of debate and argument?
And explain how I do that when 9/10 times I have been taking actual passages from the bible? I don’t care who agrees with my position or who does not. This is not a "school yard bully" situation and I stand alone in my opinions. I just happen to agree with certain members like Trish, Crotalus, and Conrad...the list goes on. You probably have people you agree with more often than not also. What difference does that make? None to me.
Well that’s sort of sideways compliment but I will take it. Thanks. I really don’t know all that much. I never claimed to either. Compared to someone else I might appear to know more but that’s all relative. If you got a theologian on this forum, I would not be as knowledgeable as someone like that. Of course not.
Which I have done.