This is how some theist organizations operate?

Debate Room
41

  • To the ancient Greeks, Zeus was the deity who ruled over the sky and weather, and Poseidon was god of the sea

  • Crowds gather in Ayodhya, India, Jan. 22, 2024, for the opening of a temple dedicated to Hindu deity Lord Ram, a grand event expected to galvanize Hindu voters before India’s general election.

  • Patel’s directorial feature debut, Monkey Man is inspired by the legend of Hindu deity Hanuman, who embodies strength and courage.

Yes you may ask! Anyone may ask. I just do not command well.

In one of my 1st postings I stated, “I am here to learn.” That remains my goal. I’m interested in all religions as well as the opinions/beliefs of the non-religious.

Please understand, my participation has no planned end game. I am here to learn… however that may manifest itself.

Peace

42

Okay, you’ve offered evidence that people believe in the existence of deities. That was not what was asked, and it’s not relevant because everyone agrees that people believe in deities–that’s not in question. Please provide objective evidence for the existence of any deity (not that you or others believe that they exist).

2 Likes
43

All deities are “defined” uniquely by their followers.

I know of no objective evidence for any deity.

44

So why do you claim to be a theist? Do you also believe in Santa Claus, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, unicorns, leprechauns?

45

It was a blank I had to fill it in!

I’m assuming “silly” is an accepted Debate Room topic? If so…I’m not interested. Thanks though.

Peace

46

Ah, I see. “Troll” wasn’t an available option, so you chose “Theist” instead. Got it.

1 Like
47

Finally, an honest response, how hard was that? So perhaps you can now tell us what deity you believe exists, and why? One assumes you don’t form beliefs without any reason?

That’s obviously disingenuous, as a) you could have filled in atheist, or agnostic, and b) you have also made a claim about a deity.

So I don’t believe it is just a blank you filled in.

It’s a question, and it is salient as you have claimed to believe in a deity you now admit you know of no objective evidence for, just as there is none for the concepts that @SodaAnt listed. A bias for or against a belief or idea is defined as closed minded, it’s poor reasoning, so this is why you’re being asked if you believe anything else exists without any objective evidence.

I have to admit I am trying a lot harder than @Unique, to avoid this conclusion.

48

Google is not adequate objective evidence for the existence of a deity. Try again.

1 Like
49

Why would you offer something you find wholly inadequate? Just state plainly which deity or deities you believe exist, and since you admit you don’t know of any objective evidence, give the best reason you think you have. Why all the evasion and obfuscating?

50

Learn what, specifically?

Edited to add…
I’ll repeat what I wrote earlier to which you’ve not responded - @Unique, you self-identified as theist. Are you willing to identify and describe the god in which you believe, indicate if you think that god is real, say why you think that, indicate if there is evidence for its existence, and, if so, list that evidence?

3 Likes
51

:rofl: Oh, I can assure you I do not “command” well either. A person generally gets better results by ASKING me… UNLESS, of course, I’m in a military unit where such things are S.O.P., in which case I will absolutely get commanded and immediately follow that command. OR… unless, in this case, I happen to respect the individual (@CyberLN ) giving the “command” in a setting/site where such rules should be followed. But I digress…

Okay, cool. Pretty much why I’m here too. (Well, that, and to annoy the piss out of a few of my old-timer buddies on here.) So, what are you trying to learn exactly? And speaking of learning, I have to admit I am curious to learn what a few others here have been asking you. Namely, I would be interested in knowing which god(s) you believe in and worship. What is your god’s name? What are its attributes? More importantly, though, why are you so reluctant to speak of it? (And, please, for the love of god, do not say, “It’s not relevant to the discussion.”)

(Edit for lazy punctuation procedures.)

1 Like
52

You need to answer this.

53

Given his profile indicates he has at least looked at (maybe read) 358 posts, I am curious hat this thirst for knowledge has provided, and why?

54

At first read this post appears glib … words clothed as a “low blow” to archaic superstitions but… looking closer at the words “we can’t be sure” begs to ask… I have 2 different questions 1) by your words it would appear that you have an open door to believing archaic superstitions (Some forums refer to it as "On the fence!) and 2) who is this “we” you speak of? No generalities, names only! Anything other than that will be considered a deflection!

This is what I find interesting… an honest debate that everyone can learn from.

55

SHIT!!! :tired_face: :tired_face: My Irony Meter just exploded! And to think I just had it upgraded to extra industrial strength. Dammit… I hope it’s still covered by the warranty. :expressionless:

56

Your inquiry demonstrates you have no understanding of logic.

Does not beg to ask whether or not someone has “an open door.” It is a statement of fact. Do you have any specific, concrete, irrefutable evidence for the characters of the archaic past? Jesus for example? Love to hear about it. What you have is a book of stories and not much else. So, ‘we can’t be sure’ begs no question. The real question is “How in the hell could you possibly be sure given the complete lack of good evidence?”

Anyone with the ability to reason honestly and logically.

2 Likes
57

No, the words were sincere, but also an attempt at levity, they’re not mutually exclusive after all. It is an objective fact that selfless people help others who need it, I have no objective evidence Jesus if he existed at all was anything but human, as your assertion implied in that post where you thanked him. Would you like a quote for context?

Archaic
adjective
very old or old-fashioned.

Superstition
noun
excessively credulous belief in and reverence for the supernatural.

That seems reasonable accurate to me? perhaps you could explain why I should consider either word to be a “low blow”?

Oh am I obliged to answer yours then? Even though you have point blank refused to answer mine? I’ll tell you what since I am interested in honest debate I won’t reciprocate to your dishonest evasion. Though I will take the opportunity to point it out.

Nope, that’s a straw man fallacy, I can only suggest you read it again more carefully. I will even give you a clue, your error is in the context of the three words after the ones you emboldened in the quote, but also in your use here of what has all the appearance of an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, not knowing something does not rationally demonstrate that the opposite is true, probable or even possible.

Everyone, since we all have the same scant evidence that Jesus existed.

You may consider it any way you are minded to, I shall let others decide which of us has resorted to dishonest deflection and misdirection, and you only have to defend 34 posts, whereas I have created 7.4k according to my profile. If you’d like we can take turns offering posts of each other that we think evidence, dishonest misdirection, deflection, or evasion?

Well lets see you address my answers honestly then, and when you’re done, perhaps you can tell us which deity you claimed has “ordained everything that has been written”, then why you believe it exists, or is even possible. As I have answered your questions honestly, without pretext or evasion.

2 Likes
58

Was this the infamous “Blue Book” by the JWs? Only I had one of them leave me a copy. It’s hilarious.

A bad collection of infantile apologetics, that’s about 80 years behind even the understanding of science taught in schools, let alone present in cutting edge peer reviewed scientific papers. It reads as if it’s aimed at an audience with a mental age of three.

It’s known as the “Blue Book” because it’s presented in a plain cover coloured in a reasonably pleasing shade of sky blue, with the title in faux gold lettering. It’s been a staple of JW propaganda for years, and looks as if it was last updated sometime in the early 1950s at the latest. Illustrations are all hand drawn, with that kitschy aura of American depictions of Stepford Wife family life elevated to some sort of divine mandate. If memory serves, the people are all soap powder advert white.

1 Like
59

I’m not sure, I threw it out, though gold lettering seems to ring a bell. It was the usual laughable nonsense of course, that much was clear. As I said they had the same false dichotomy fallacy we see used often and at the core of creationist arguments, creation vs evolution. Even were evolution not an objective scientific fact, it creation has not been objectively evidenced at all.

60

That’s not a question? Also it is not remotely what I said or even implied, unless one thinks not being sure whether a character from an anonymous unevidenced and archaic superstition even existed at all, represents an “open door to believing” those same archaic myths, and it’s hard to imagine how anyone would. Since even were the existence of Jesus an established fact, it would not on its own remotely be sufficient to objectively believe he were anything but human.

Paradoxically if he did not exist then that would quite obviously render the claim he was a deity made flesh entirely moot. So the fact we have scant evidence he existed at all, rather belies the claim that his untimely visit to planet earth 2k years ago, of all places to visit the ignorant and extremely superstitious people of ancient Palestine, is the most important event there ever has been, or will be. Especially as this was allegedly orchestrated by a deity with limitless power and knowledge, who can manage no more evidence for the existence of Jesus than the scant and inconclusive amount we have.

One could also ponder what this deity was up to for the 13.8 billion years it waited after allegedly creating the universe, before popping around to visit its pets with its garbled and contradictory message a mere 2k years ago, especially since humans had evolved at least 200k years before that? I have yet to see a religious apologists of any stripe offer any semblance of a coherent answer.

we
pronoun

  1. used by a speaker to refer to himself or herself and one or more other people considered together.

Deflection indeed, he was funny, given he’s just been banned for his own dishonesty and relentless deflection where he refused to engage in honest debate or answer any questions about his claims as well.

1 Like