I do not base my faith on no evidence, Israel exists, Jesus was an actual history figure. The bible is actual history, faith is something everyone uses. Something simple as brushing teeth is faith and morals come from our spirit. Everyone has a spirit. The Holy Spirit is a divine version of our natural spirit.
If you had evidence youâd not need religious faith, and itâs reasonable to assume youâd have offered some, yet you have not.
So what, that doesnât remotely evidence any deity?
This is dubious as the evidence is pretty scant, but again so what, this wouldnât remotely evidence he was anything but human.
Nonsense, utter nonsense. The objective evidence that brushing your teeth increases their longevity is overwhelming, and you are also falsely equating the primary definition of faith with the very different definition of religious faith, so thatâs a false equivalence fallacy, and I already offered you the definition of religious faith, so your preaching your beliefs and ignoring the responses.
faith
noun
- complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
- strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.
Note the two distinctly differing definitions of faith. So if you post this false equivalence again it can only be dishonestly.
Nope, please read my previous response.
I donât believe you, evidence please.
Sigh, evidence please.
1 Like
We brush our teeth to sustain the life of the teeth and also to be attractive to others, that in essence is faith. Morals do come from our spirit, if not then where do the origin of morals come from, even the USA amendments are based on Jewish laws. You are expecting evidence to fall in your lap without any research, my dialogue is not and would never be evidence for you. That comes personally when you go on the journey of discovery. My experiences are not yours and yours not mine. That will never happen. Its almost like you asking me to describe your mother. I have never met her.
Letâs hear some of it thenâŚ
So what? New York City is mentioned in Spiderman comics and moviesâdoes that prove that Spiderman exists?
Where is your evidence for this? I consider the evidence for an historical Jesus to be thin, at best.
The bible is mostly fairy tales concocted by a pre-scientific population of primitive people who had no idea how the universe really worked. Science has shown that many events depicted in the bible, such as the creation in genesis, the flood of Noah, the Exodus, and Jonah and the whale story couldnât have happened.
Thatâs just an assertion. I donât use faith, because, by definition, faith is belief without evidence, and I demand evidence for all facts that I will accept as true.
Jibberish.
Morals are subjective, not absolute. What evidence do you have for the existence of a spirit?
Yet another bald assertion provided without evidence.
2 Likes
Nope, I brush my teeth as the objective evidence demonstrates this will help prolong their lifespan, it has nothing at all to do with religious doctrine or spiritual conviction, so it is not based on faith at all.
This is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, it is irrational to imply a claim gains any credence because of the lack of a contrary explanation or evidence, but I already offered a natural alternative, based on an objective scientific fact.
You and you alone are responsible for evidencing your claims, I am sure as hell not researching them for you.
Ah the old poisoning of the well fallacy, until you present something beyond bare unevidenced assertions we will never know.
Another claim, no evidence though, quelle surprise. have you been on this journey for all the other thousands of deities you don;t believe are real? I am dubious, and this suggests bias on your part.
Personal experience alone is entirely subjective, it is the anthesis of objective evidence, they are on opposite ends of a scale of evidence strength.
I am asking you if you can demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity, or that a deity is even possible. You have not done so, instead reeling off unevidenced claims and subjective beliefs you hold, many of them based on your claims for personal experience. Oddly though you know seem to be acknowledging that your personal experience is entirely subjective.
1 Like
No, that is incorrect, some parts of the bible stories can be validated by archeological and/or corroborated contemporary accounts. The stories of Paul and the gospels cannot be corroborated at all by contemporary accounts except for the existence of places and peripheral historical figures.
Exactly as a work of fiction is constructed. Dickensian London existed, the River Fleet existed, âŚBeadles existedâŚdoes that mean Oliver Twist was real?
Actual history is a discipline which it is obvious by your sweeping statement, that you have no education, or indeed knowledge of at all.
4 Likes
@Prycejosh1987 has been banned for preaching and proselytizing
Tedious assertions all over the place 
4 Likes
Woe! Thatâs a lot of Bullshit⌠Have you ever thought of starting a banana plantation? Banana plants do well in a climate of hot air and dung. We could be partners! You provide all the hot air and bullshit and Iâve got the banana trees.
There is very little evidence to suggest that Jesus was a real person. What little evidence there is, is based on stories about stories and no direct experience or first-hand reports from anyone. No one ever met Jesus in the flesh. No one ever saw or heard him teach. Your assertion is unsupported by evidence.
While the bible does contain some history, it is a fantasy novel set in history. It is no different than the Spiderman comic book being set in New York City. The fact that NYC is real, says nothing about Spiderman. The fact that Israel exists says nothing about Jesus. You have no Biblical âfactsâ that support the existence of a person called Jesus. All you have are biblical stories.
What is this âspiritâ thing you speak of? Demonstrate anything called a spirit that is not a function of the human brain. Demonstrate that everyone has a Holy Spirit. I think you are wholly of shit.
Can you demonstrate even one of the inane claims you are making?
4 Likes
To be fair, and judging from his posts, I suspect this is true of a great many topics. When he said evolution was untrue and just an opinion, while simultaneously claiming to be been taught biology at school, my first thoughts were âbehind the fucking bike sheds no doubtâ.
1 Like
I would start by asking him if he understands what demonstrate and evidence mean, as I am not at all confident he understands the difference between objective evidence, and blind assertion. Especially since he hilariously claimed that species evolution was just my opinion.
Apparently, and I didnât know this, someone found a head in the ground once, and decided it had evolved, and thatâs all it took. You learn something new every day⌠
Yep, an sadly male on male bike shed biology encounters doesnât teach much about anything except pleasure.
1 Like
No itâs not. Thatâs practicing good hygiene and common sense. If you go around with rotten breath and breath on people, some of them wonât want to talk to you.
Morality is not exclusive to religion. I think you need to get your shit straight. According to archeologists and anthropologist studies, Humans began developing morals over 45,000 years.
I found no sources backing this claim. Not a single one. I guess youâre back to making up petty bullshit again.
No, dipshit. We expect people who make claims to meet their burden of proof. You have made a lot of claims that you yourself refuse to give evidence on. So I donât believe a lot of the nonsense that you spew.
That is an excuse. When making a claim, you need give valid sources based on concrete evidence. Something you know little about.
We never asked for your experiences, because they do not offer compelling evidence.
In other words, you have nothing to offer. No evidence. Nothing compelling. Just more horseshit.
1 Like
Indeed sir, and if I may quote The Bard, âthere is no greater love, than between a man and his laptopââŚ
Ok, I may be paraphrasing a little, or am I thinking of the good, the bard, and the ugly? Iâm getting old now, who can say.
1 Like
Sheldon ⌠you brush your teeth because youâre a good boy. Good boyâs brush their teeth.
Even those of us that brush them with rat fur.
This might have been the circulare tautology my mother used 54 years ago to kick start the process, but I have long since learned the objective benefits of continuing to brush them. I was also responding to someone who suggested the act was based on faith (the religious kind).
There it is for context, since those things can be objectively measured, religious faith is required. Though I suspect he was using a false equivalence as well, by misrepresenting religious faith, with the primary defintion of the word, a common duplicity in religious apologetics.
Finally why I recognise that the term good is relative, we could easily objectively evidence people brushing their teeth, who would be considered evil by a broad consensus.
From your numerous past outings here, we know that this is tendentious bollocks. Uncritical acceptance of unsupported mythological assertions is all that you have.
A historian will be the first to tell you that there is a vast canyon between first century Judea and the modern state of Israel in certain important respects, though recently, the penchant for genocidal Lebensraum wars hasnât been one of them.
Garbage. There is ZERO evidence to support this assertion. âMy favourite mythology says soâ isnât âevidenceâ for your cartoon magic man.
Garbage. Genesis 1 is fiction. The "global flood " is a diseased fairy tale. Exodus never happened as asserted in your goat herder mythology. Your mythology was scribbled by piss-stained nomads who were too stupid to count correctly the number of legs that an insect possesses, and who thought genetics was controlled by coloured sticks.
Bullshit. And here, youâre committing the time honoured mistake that ignorant mythology fanboys always make. Namely to mistake âfaithâ, which consists of nothing more than uncritical acceptance of unsupported assertions, with inference from insufficient data. Which is what people routinely do in their daily lives. When we are taking account of data, even insufficient data, âfaithâ isnât involved.
Complete and utter poppycock. Oh wait, we have DATA informing us that the instance of periodontal disease has declined with the development of dental hygeine.
Did you have a school to attend as a child?
Utter bullshit.
Since you never learned this during your pathetically inadequate homeschooling, Iâll now inform you that there exists an abundant scientific literature, documenting in exquisite detail the evidence for the evolutionary and biological basis of [1] our capacity for ethical thought, and [2] the motivation to act thereupon.
Topics covered in said literature include:
[1] The evolution of brain development genes expressed in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain known to be implicated in ethical decision making for over a century;
[2] Observed and experimentally tested instances of ethical behaviour in non-human species, none of which know anything about your sad little goat herder mythology or your imaginary cartoon magic man.
Indeed, some time ago, I was introduced to two scientific papers, documenting ethical behaviour in RATS. Which were found via experimental test, to avoid engaging in behaviours resulting in harm of suffering being inflicted upon another rat, even when offered a large and tempting reward as an inducement to perform said behaviour.
In short, rats exhibit better moral behaviour than many mythology fanboys.
Correction, everyone has a brain. Though I see mythology fanboys failing to use it all too often.
Garbage. Blind assertion and unwanted sanctimonious panhandling in one tiny but nauseating package of mendacity.
3 Likes
Why do theists say we, when then mean I?
Mermaids turn invisible when we look at them, because theyâre shy.
Since weâre reeling off unevidenced bs.
2 Likes
Wow, fascinating, I always wondered how they built those suckers, dumbass that I am, I assumed they had complicated plans, and every aspect of the engineering was carefully calculated to ensure they werenât creating a death trap, go figure, all this time it was the same vapid wishful thinking theists love, that keeps those suckers from falling down.
Christ but theists say the stupidest things.
Like magic beans you mean? My old gran had some of those, she could predict the weather almost 10% of the time, it was uncannyâŚcourse I also got a earful if I opened an umbrella in the house, or left shoes on a table, but everyone knows youâre inviting bad luck being that stupidâŚ
1 Like
Oh look, itâs more blind assertions and ex recto apologetic fabrications. Somehow this missed my in tray first time around.
No such thing exists. All we have from mythology fanboys can be summarised as âmy favourite mythology says so, therefore itâs trueâ. Except that mythologies are littered with farcical errors and ridiculous assertions about the natural world, rendering them laughably unreliable as purported sources of âknowledgeâ, other, of course, than informing us of the propensity of the authors thereof to make shit up.
Until you provide genuine evidence that your cartoon magic man actually exists, all your assertions on the subject can be safely dismissed, with the same lack ofveffort you exerted to present them.
This is infantile gibberish.
There are countless examples of actions thst humans perform, because they know what the outcome will be, and aim directly for that outcome.
Bullshit.
Humans build skyscrapers because they learned to apply physics to the business of constructing large buildings. Your apologetics are laughably inept.
Four centuries of successful development of physics says otherwise.
Bullshit. The so-called âspiritualâ has only ever been asserted to exist.
You obviously never attended a school that taught even basic physics.
Bullshit. We can compare your map to a previously existing map thatâs known to be reliable.
That you peddle this drivel in an age where Google Maps has been in existence for at least 20 years, is hilarious.
Bullshit. See above.
We can cross check your map with maps known to be reliable. Weâve been able to do this on smartphones for 20 years.
Do you really think youâre fooling anyone with this drivel?
See above as to why your apologetics are farcical drivel.
Bullshit. Your cartoon magic man has only ever been asserted to exist, and within a made up shit mythology at that.
Did you have a school to attend as a child?
Bullshit. There is simply âfaithâ, which is nothing more than uncritical acceptance of unsupported assertions. And as such, us utterly useless as a purported source of âknowledgeâ.
Which Iâve already destroyed, by noting that we can cross check your map with maps known to be reliable.
That you persist with this infantile nonsense, merely demonstrates the vacuoty of mythology fanboy apologetics.
And once again, we see a mythology fanboy miss the point entirely.
Namely, that using your map as the sole basis for a journey isnât an âact of faithâ, but a direct experimental test of the reliability of your map.
That you failed to understand this elementary concept speaks volumes.
Until someone provides genuine evidence that their choice of cartoon magic man actually exists, all assertions on the subject are safely discardable. All you have at this point is fabrication.
Bullshit. We determine the correctness of an assertion by testing that assertion.
Once again, did you have a school to attend as a child?
Learn quickly this elementary concept. Proof does not exist inthe concrete realm, only observational data supporting a postulate. Proof is restricted to the
abstract realm, and specifically to formal axiomatic systems.
No, thatâs observational data supporting the postulate. Proof in rigorous circles involves error-free derivation of a conclusion from axioms or previously established theorems, via an appropriate formal deductive mechanism.
Once again, did you have a school to attend as a child?
Meanwhile, I see that the drivel continues âŚ
Gibberish.
What part of the concept of reportage did you fail to learn about?
Plus, you have yet to establish that thereâs anything to âdenyâ with your merely asserted âspiritual evidenceâ.
Reportage isnât âspiritual evidenceâ. Are you deliberately trying to be stupid?
Plus, emotions can be directly correlated to brain chemistry. But thatâs probably way over your head.
There are no such things as either of your above merely asserted entities.
You might want to spend some time reviewing your naive ideas about âtruthâ.
Matthew 7:5 much?
All that youâve presented here is blatant fabrication.
You canât even get the basics right.
Epistemology is the study of how we acquire knowledge, and indeed the very word âepistemologyâ derives directly from the Greek word for âknowledgeâ.
Indeed, while an important part of knowledge acquisition consists of learning to distinguish between correct and incorrect statements, another important part consists of gathering observational data .
Try devising reliable methods of testing assertions and applying them.
Correction. âTest every assertion to destructionâ is how statements are assigned a truth-value in rigorous circles.
None of which youâve deployed here.
Bullshit. The so-called âspiritualâ has only ever been asserted to exist.
Bullshit. âFaithâ is nothing more than uncritical acceptance of unsupported assertions, and is useless as a corollary.
Mere discardable blind assertion again.
Bullshit. âFaithâ delivers knowledge of nothing.
Bullshit. History teaches us that uncritical acceptance of unsupported assertions is not merely idiotic, but frequently dangerous.
I wondered when bullshit âdesignâ apologetics would appear. Iâve already devoted numerous column inches here to the duplicity thereof.
Not this creationist bullshit again.
In case you never learned this, those of us who paid attention in science classes, donât subscribe to the creationist caricature of âit happened by accidentâ. Instead, we recognise what scientists tell us, namely that testable natural processes , involving well-defined entities and interactions, were responsible, not magic poofing by an imaginary cartoon magic man from a Bronze Age mythology.
Just because youâre too stupid to learn how testable natural processes operate, doesnât mean that âMagic Man did itâ.
Bullshit, and another mere discardable blind assertion.
Oh wait, there is abundantly documented scientific evidence, that non-human species seek to improve their circumstances, while knowing nothing of tne ridiculous mythologies and cartoon magic men that humans have invented.
Bullshit. Itâs the product of empathy and our evolutionary origins as a social species.
As for your shitty religion, there are numerous places in your sad little Bronze Age mythology, where the message presented is âkill all who do not conformâ.
Once again, the vacuity of mythology fanboys knows no bounds.