Humans are not robots, and human designers are not omniscient or omnipotent, so that’s a very poor analogy.
A paedophile, who married and raped a child? Sorry but your idea of good character differs wildly to mine.
Do you think it is moral to kill if a deity tells you to? Even a child, even your own child? The fact this sick story depicts a deity who for once held short of murder, doesn’t make the request, or the willingness to act on it any less immoral or repugnant
2 Likes
[quote=“Nogba, post:186, topic:618”]
why people doesn’t give a shot to quran ?
[/quote] Don’t be silly. Many people are more than happy to shoot the Quaran.
1 Like
I don’t believe in supernatural curses like sin.
I don’t believe in posthumous fantasies.
I don’t believe deities exist outside of the human imagination.
I don’t believe in posthumous torture fantasies.
I don’t believe that claim, or that a deity is even possible.
I don’t believe any deity exists or is possible.
I don’t believe in any deities.
No, this is patently wrong. I fear the giant Japanese hornet, and I know it exists, what I don’t fear are fantasies involving unevidenced deities.
No babies are killed in abortions, they mostly involve an insentient clump of microscopic cells, called a blastocyst.
Atheism is the absence or lack of belief in any deity or deities, it requires no argument, since it involves no claim.
That’s just projection, like many theists you’re utterly closed minded, and incapable of objectively or critically examining the superstitious beliefs you’ve been indoctrinated into.
I don’t believe your claim that there is any risk.
I don’t believe any deity exists or is possible.
That’s a logical contradiction, at the very least knowing what I will do before I do it, would mean any perception of choice or autonomy I have was a delusion. So much for sin…
Then your indoctrination has made you morally bankrupt.
I think you mean it, not he… 
He is a pronoun.
That’s not even close to what believe means, do consult a dictionary before making such idiotic assertions.
You need to look up the definition of claim as well then, and learn what it means.
Given that’s a a begging the question fallacy, that’s pretty ironic. It’s not a logical inference, it is an unevidenced and irrational subjective claim, and your posts are relentlessly irrational, indicating that you haven’t even the most basic grasp of logic.
I would appreciate you not telling me what beliefs I may or may not respect, and I shall lend you the same courtesy.
That’s called subjective bias…
I don’t think obvious mean what you think it means, and this is yet another circular reasoning fallacy, as again it is begging the question?
All organized religions are cults.
People are indoctrinated from a young age and face extensive backlash for leaving. People become shafted from the other memebrs and the community upon leaving.
Lots of abuse usually happens by higher level members and people are scared to deny
Or report inappropriate communications.
I don’t know that you are far off the mark. It seems all organized religions began as cults. However, today, most do not fit the definition of a cult. I had no difficulty at all dropping my religion and moving on. No one cared.
I fully agree that the more involved a person is in a religion the more likely they are to experience problems leaving it. So, ‘cultish’ perhaps. Some religions are certainly more like cults than others.
10 Warning Signs of a Cult
- Absolute authoritarianism without accountability
- Zero tolerance for criticism or questions
- Lack of meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget
- Unreasonable fears about the outside world that often involve evil conspiracies and persecutions
- A belief that former followers are always wrong for leaving and there is never a legitimate reason for anyone else to leave
- Abuse of members
- Records, books, articles, or programs documenting the abuses of the leader or group
- Followers feel they are never able to be “good enough”
- A belief that the leader is right at all times
- A belief that the leader is the exclusive means of knowing “truth” or giving validation
(*A person identified as a leader and the only interpreter of dogma.)
Just because you had the fortune of leaving does not mean others did. Anecdotal evidence isn’t proof that no members have issues leaving.
I have left one of these communities and have been cut off by many family members, hunted down, and many other bad things.
Anything a rabbi did he got off Scot free. For example there was rabbis drinking blood from a circumcised baby penis during bris and not a single person dared to question it.
The leaders also convinced the Jews to do bad things to the Arab people and to follow every word they say, and if they didn’t listen they would be looked down upon in the community.and punished.
When proving to my family why the religion didn’t have evidence supporting it they said of course it does or our smart leaders wouldn’t follow it. There is many elements of blind trust and cult like abuse.
1 Like
And yet you argue with an anecdotal claim? Think about it.
Is this guy just trolling? Anecdotal evidence? I gave you 10 criteria to identify a cult. We have an actual definition of the word cult and what qualifies as a cult. Most religions do not fit the criteria.
You must be trolling. Bro repeats the word I and uses this as evidence that members cannot have an issue leaving religion 
.
I’m actually showing your statement is ignorant because I and many others I know actually did have issues leaving as I am still being hunted down and this does fit into your criteria.
I’ve given you multiple examples how Orthodox Judaism is a cult using your OWN criteria.
No way your real dude. You sound like an apologist
Orthodox Judiasm? WTF — Do you even pay attenton to the sht you say? Your claim was …
Do you need reminding? The Westboro Baptist Church operates like a Cult as well. Does that qualify all religions as cults?
Are you really that ignorant of the claims you make? There are roughly 10,000 different regions in the world. You made the assertion, that all of them are cults. Can you demonstrate your assertion?
[quote=“Cognostic, post:207, topic:618”]
- Absolute authoritarianism without accountability
- Zero tolerance for criticism or questions
- Lack of meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget
- Unreasonable fears about the outside world that often involve evil conspiracies and persecutions
- A belief that former followers are always wrong for leaving and there is never a legitimate reason for anyone else to leave
- Abuse of members
- Records, books, articles, or programs documenting the abuses of the leader or group
- Followers feel they are never able to be “good enough”
- A belief that the leader is right at all times
- A belief that the leader is the exclusive means of knowing “truth” or giving validation
(*A person identified as a leader and the only interpreter of dogma.)
[/quote
Judaism
- Yes
- Yes
- Yes
- Yes
- Yes
- Yes
- Yes
- yes
- Yes
- Yes
I have witnessed personally all these cult aspects in Judaism and many of my friends have. There you go.
Sure it’s anecdotal but you want scientific
Studies on Judaism being a cult.
Also I never claimed people didn’t have an issue leaving like you did. Your statement was ignorant and wrong
If you read any of my paragraph it was about how archaeology and history proves JUDAiSM false. I said it proves a major religion false and I was giving you a bookmark using historical data to prove a religion wrong, which you clearly don’t know how
To do.
I am specifically referencing judaism here but I have lots of evidence for others being historically inaccurate as well if you would like. One at a time boss slow down.
You are larping as an athiest here and really an apologist 
.
First you claim no one can prove any bible events/miracles are false and get proven wrong through history/archeology
Secondly, you claim arrogantly no one believes the exodus is true as written, which is objectively false and you get proven wrong with the orthodox jew example. All orthodox rabbis and students believe it’s true or they wouldn’t celebrate PASSOVER and follow JUDAISM bc this was a major miracle
Then you claim people can pick and choose which parts of the bible are true and this doesnt discredit the religion
Done debating you as you keep moving the goalpost and deflecting the fact that I disproved all your points.
You haven’t offered a shred of evidence explaining how “no one believes in the exodus as literal” and you haven’t proven how the religion can be true if it’s main event is false.
Oh my daddy Bart said you can pick and choose so it’s fine. Laughable.
I think (on this point at least) @Cognostic was largely agreeing with you? See here:
I think the issue is, you do not know how to make a logical claim or argue a claim correctly. “The Jewish Religion is False” is an assertion bordering on complete ignorance.
LOL: Please ‘Prove’ The Jewish religion is wrong.
Your problem lies in the fact that you don’t seem to know how science works. Let’s take the ‘Red Sea’ crossing for example. Either Moses crossed the Red Sea or he didn’t. That is a fact. But there are two propositions here, not one. “Moses crossed the Red Sea.” “Moses did not cross the Red Sea.”
P1: Moses Crossed the Red Sea
(This proposition requires evidence to support the claim) The evidence should be sound, based on reality, or accepted as real (in argumentation) and valid, (each point related to the previous point to draw a pertinent conclusion.) Atheists typically reject this claim based on poor evidence, appeal to miracles, and historical inaccuracies. (Believers on the other hand, cite testimony from their holy books, personal revelation, and appeals to physical evidence.)
Now, there is this little thing called the null hypothesis. Basically, it asserts that there is no connection between two things until the connection can be demonstrated. So, 'There is no connection between Moses and the parting of the Red Sea until such an event can be demonstrated to have occurred. Failing to demonstrate such an event does not mean the event did not occur. (FAILING to demonstrate the event occurred, DOES NOT mean the event did not occur.) It means the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate the event occurred and we cannot reject the null hypothesis. You cannot assert the event did not happen because of a lack of evidence. (With that said, I think most of us believe it did not happen. However, believing it did not happen and demonstrating it are two very different things.) If you say “It did not happen.” you are, in fact, adopting a burden of proof and accepting the second proposition in the above example.
P2: Moses did not split and cross the Red Sea.
(This proposition requires evidence to support the claim). Not a lack of evidence. Now, there is an interesting way to argue a lack of evidence. When a situation in the world would logically leave evidence, we can argue that the lack of evidence is evidence.) While this might apply to a hoard of Jews, traipsing across the desert, and crossing the Red Sea while being followed by the entire Egyptian army, it would not apply to a smaller band being followed by a smaller group of soldiers and a story that grew, as stories do, over time. To disprove the proposition, you would need to disprove every account of it the theists managed to come up with.
The point is, ‘While arguing with a theist,’ regardless of how sure you are of yourself, ‘you have a burden of proof and must demonstrate with facts and evidence that Moses did not cross the Red Sea at any point, at any time, with any number of people.’ A good apologist would make you look foolish. You will not be able to disprove something that has no evidence supporting it. Because the event has no real evidence, the apologist that play the game ‘What if…’ forever. And you, then need to demonstrate their position could not possibly have occurred. “Can you demonstrate a miracle did not occur?” There’s also no reason to go there.
Think about it! Are you willing to go through every inane claim made in the bible and try to disprove them? What a waste of time and energy. The fact is, the claims in the bible have not met their burden of proof. I can’t prove a donkey never talked, but I can certainly ask a Christian who believes such a claim to demonstrate how it was possible. Failing to provide adequate evidence, I can assert that they have not demonstrated their claim to be true.
This is the way logic and inquiry work. This is the way science works. The burden of proof lies on the person making the positive claim. You are running about making claims that you cannot demonstrate to be true. You don’t have the time, evidence, energy, or space in this forum, to demonstrate ‘Judaism is false.’ ‘All religious organizations are cults.’ And other inane assertions you have made.
Your sweeping generalizations, while they may be beliefs you hold, are unjustifiable in argumentation.
Wouldn’t one first have to demonstrate that he actually existed?
3 Likes
Agree.
But then if he didn’t exist, he didn’t cross anything.
Well, unless it was a spiritual crossing…