You don’t need supernatural explanations like gods etc to explain the existence of the world and how it works. Natural sciences will suffice.
I think you will struggle with the evidence for this one. For the story to check out, you will basically have to prove God.
And I wonder how many of us had to remind him of that multiple times and he refuses to listen. The only thing @Fabian has proven is that he has selective hearing. We ask for evidence and instead he ignores us and makes more superstitious claims. I’ve come to the conclusion that Fabian is a “schemer”. The Joker describes them perfectly in this scene.
You can think whatever you like, and I can post as I am minded to.
Is that a yes or no on the objective evidence? Your assertion seems like you’re trying to bait me, and I visit other forums, the theists have always been as reticent as you when the request for objective evidence is made.
I respect people, but I don’t respect unevidenced woo woo, if that offends then the cure is the evidence theists keep implying they can demsonrate, yet never do.
You quoted my reply, the reason is in there, I suggest you re-read it.
Your assumption is incorrect, and I respect people, but as I have said no one can demand their beliefs or ideas are respected.
Really? Theists are usually delightful about atheism and atheists, and just for the record all I’ve ever seen atheists do is challenge unevidenced beliefs and claims, I’ve lost count of the theists who came here and cheerfully damned me to everlasting torture, quite gleefully some of them. I sometimes got the impression they would like to speed things along. I never complained of course, as I don’t believe in hell or an afterlife, so the threat has no meaning to me, but the sentiment was not lost either.
I have absolutely no interest in dishonest semantics, however if that contains any objective evidence just post whatever you think is the most compelling. that shouldn’t be hard, nor do i see what you have to lose.
I’ve ridiculed no one, and only do so to ideas and beliefs when endless unevidenced claims are made and requests for evidence not answered, and it’s a basic tenet of free speech that you cannot ringfence any belief or idea from criticism. An idea or belief must stand on its own merit, you can’t demand a priori they are respected.
I love the way you insist your ideas are respected, yet make assumptions me, that satisfy your need to preserve the belief. I deny nothing, I just disbelieve claims that are unevidenced, and those are both bare claims not evidence, you can’t evidence a bare assertion with two more bare assertions. that’s why I asked for objective evidence, not just subjective beliefs you hold.
Again your assumptions about me are erroneous, and opinions are fine, but if they are not able to support them with objective evidence then I must withhold belief.
That’s one aspect. Another aspect is that any thread is organic(*), so what’s relevant in the beginning of the thread can be less important later on, and vice versa. Therefore, I find it quite disingenuous to complain that others are not interested strictly in the OP topic, but take an interest in the metadiscussion, which can also be very relevant for the main topic of the thread. As for myself, I am totally uninterested in the main topic, but parts of the current metadiscussion I find interesting enough to throw in the odd comments.
(*) in the sense that the topic and the discussion evolves, discusses other relevant matters, includes metadiscussions, and goes off on tangents.
Especially given that the thread question seems to be predicated on a straw man, as others have pointed out, the argument is not meant as a refutation to theism in a generic sense, but rather to refute a deity possessing specific characteristics. originally aimed at the ancient Greek pantheon, though many philosophers think it has implications for contemporary monotheism.
I don’t ignore that, I just don’t think pointing at existence and then saying a god is responsible is evidence, or an explanation. It is an argument from ignorance fallacy. The fact that there may not currently be a scientific explanation for the existence of the universe, does not mean your god explanation gets to win the most likely explanation, by default.
The existence of the universe, the world, or life, is not evidence of a god, it is evidence that those things exist.
The existence of a god responsible for those things, requires demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, and valid and sound logic to support the claim. Got any?
What evidence is there for this claim? The Bible? Sorry to inform you, but the Bible is not evidence, the Bible IS THE CLAIM. The Gospels weren’t even written by eyewitnesses.
And please don’t bring up Pliny the younger, Josephus, Suetonius, etc. None of those people wrote during the time Jesus would have been alive.
J. Warner Wallace?! Seriously? There are so many holes in his book (yes, I read it), it’s hard to know where to start. He claims to follow standard police procedures, but even his ‘witnesses’ would get laughed out of court.
Been there, done that, was treated horribly.
What I find interesting is that the ancient Greeks accepted that most of their gods were assholes and jerks. Their morals were questionable, which adds a lot of spice to the original Euthyphro’s dilemma. But in the case of the biblical god, who is pictured as perfect and loving in every sense, applying Euthyphro’s dilemma to it does definitely question the morality and character of such god.
Zeus and other gods often slipped into the bedrooms of innocent young virgins and impregnated them. Ooops, god banged Mary.
“Lucky” you. I’ve had many theists tell me to read books by that author, but they won’t provide them; and I’m not paying money for them.
Why does it cost money to “learn about god”? Based on their rhetoric, you might guess they’d be giving it away, but that just isn’t the case. It is one of the reasons I tell people these apologistics are for people who already believe; as it seems they are the only people gullible enough to pay for them.
Sadly, this level of indolence I see all the time from mythology fanboys. Of course, if you had bothered to read it all, and in addition spend time assimilating the details, you would have learned that the post was a perfectly pertinent response to your remarks. In particular, your duplicitous piece of well poisoning, in which you assert that our dissection of the absurdities and iniquities endemic to mythology fanboyism purportedly constitutes “emotional bias and rage” against religion. I pointed out several pertinent facts applicable to the the assertions of various brands of mythology fanboyism, said facts destroying many of those assertions wholesale. Recognising this isn’t “emotional bias or rage”, no matter how much you choose to misrepresent it as such, like so many other mythology fanboys before you. Not that after 14 years of dealing with mythology fanboy discoursive duplicity, I expect anything better, but that’s a separate topic.
Now, out of the facts 1 to 5 I posted in that post, please explain to us all which of these are purportedly the product of “emotional bias and rage”? I’ll enjoy seeing you fail dismally to do so.
Those of us who know in advance we’re entering hostile terrain, do so prepared.
Indeed, the best experience I’ve had in theists forums, is someone who blindly parrots an endless list of unevidenced assertions, then insists I’m blind to god’s love at the end, and damned to hell forever by implication of course.
This is not the experience I’ve had.
I have joined several theist forums in the past, with the sole goal to have good and honest discussions, and the results are always the same. I go in with the most congenial attitude, never get close to using objectionable or offensive language, never insulting, without being condescending at all, always with an open mind, and always willing to have a discussion.
And all I have ever done, is point out when a theist uses fallacious arguments, makes an assertion that is unsupported, misinterprets science, etc.
And every time, I have been banned within days. Simply for asking questions and pointing out fallacies.
It is so much harder for theists to get banned from atheist forums. Usually preaching will get a theist banned.
The truth has nothing to fear from rational scrutiny, so why do atheists get banned from theist forums, but atheist forums love when intellectually honest theist interlocutors join atheist forums?
As an admin, that is my very last recourse for action. I welcome free speech and a healthy exchange of opinions and ideas.
Unfortunately, I had to ban an individual just a few days ago. It was regretful. The ban was not for his attitude or the shit he was spouting, but for posting what may belong to others, plagiarism. If this forum was posting someone else’s intellectual property, that places this forum into legal jeopardy, it could be shut down, or even worse.
That is strange, isn’t it? The all-time champion in this category is Scientology, which charges their cult members tens of thousands of dollars for their various “courses”.
A family member kept trying to convert me. He would constantly give me apologetics books (Josh McDowell, Strobel, WJC, and Wallace). Which I read.
I believe Wallace’s book was the last one I read. But there is really no need to read any more. The one thing I can say about Wallace’s book over the others, it is just written horribly.
They all offer the same flawed arguments, and the same borderline* dishonest readings of history and science.
Read one version of Kalam, teleological or the Ontological augment in one book, how many more times does one have to read it again in another book? A fallacious argument is a fallacious argument, no matter who spews it.
At least I got a half of a bookshelf of apologetics books out of the deal to refer to, if needed.
*I say “borderline” to be charitable. In reality, these apologists pretty plainly lie.
I’d be interested in seeing that discussion myself.
This counts for you, Simon Moon, @David_Killens and @Sheldon, who have also voiced the same experience.
I guess just like this public forum, also those discussions are publicly available, right?
I’d really like to have a peek at how that went. Can you provide a link?
Yes, just as soon as you demsonrate some of the objective evidence for a deity you keep implying exists. No more bare assertions or unevidenced claims, or vague deepities like the resurrection of Jesus, which is a claim, or the world around us which is meaningless as it tells us nothing.
I cannot verify any of this because 1) I used a different name and 2) it was many months (years?) ago and the conversations went through many pages and weeks.
It’s been a couple of years, at least.
I doubt there would be any remnants of the very few postings I had.
If I feel up to it over the next couple of days, maybe I’ll try joining another theist forum. Things might have changed since I tried before.