Why Are Theist So Sure Of Their God?

Hmmm :face_with_raised_eyebrow:

Believing shit without evidence is absurd. Is this the same standard you hold for everything people say?

Blah blah blah - off you go Cranks quoting the wrong Ten Commandments! :wink:

1 Like

A complete misrepresentation of my position followed by a slew of insults. If you want to engage in debate, that’s fine. I’m happy to do so. But to blatantly misrepresent me and then insult your straw-man, while calling me a faux intellectual is quite rich.

It’s in your answer? Or do you have a different definition of “transcendental epistemology” ? Viz:

transcendental philosophy . any philosophy based upon the doctrine that the principles of reality are to be discovered by the study of the processes of thought, or a philosophy emphasizing the intuitive and spiritual above the empirical: in the U.S., associated with Emerson
In other words:

Transcendentalism, An American Philosophy. … Transcendentalism is a very formal word that describes a very simple idea. People, men and women equally, have knowledge about themselves and the world around them that “transcends” or goes beyond what they can see, hear, taste, touch or feel.

You just seem to have decided to tack “revelation by god” to bolster up your own half digested ideas. I recommend this site Transcendental Arguments (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) where your inadequacies and puerile processes are exposed.

Did you get the fingers and toes answer yet or still working on it?

That is a lame attempt to deflect and reverse the question. It was not about whether atheists give a shit, but rather the immorality endorsed by your god in the bible.

I have read your responses and all you are doing is attempting to shift the burden of proof away from defending why theists believe in a god.

"You can’t say anything is ultimately wrong with them."

I sure can, watch.

Your god is an immoral thug, and anyone who follow the practices endorsed by this god has forfeited practicing morality and accepted the pretense of appearing moral.


Well, as a former JW I guess you know the bible better than I. When I’m wrong it would be peachy if you could explain why. Just telling me I’m wrong is rather irritating.

I quoted the First commandment in full, as written in Exodus.

My point is perhaps a bit pedantic: The Commandment says “You shall have no other gods before me” . That infers there are other gods. If there were not, shouldn’t the commandment read ;“you shall have no false gods before me?”


I am going to hell then as Fievel is my god.


Actually, Fievel smiles down on you and you are guaranteed a place in Feivel’s heaven. :wink:


AWWWWW FUCK A presuppositional apologist. Before you can assert anything comes from a God you must first demonstrate your version of God exists. You do not get to assume a God into existence.


Much better than a heaven with the attitude of the Christian god.

Yup - vs 14 covers off the whole “no other gods” bit.

Funny…I got your point - did you get mine?

Ohhhh - sorry, eh? Forgot the fucking Catholics knew their bibles inside and out.

Got it. My bad – I meant to say, I hold to a revelational epistemology. The argumentation is the Transcendental argument. It isn’t derived from Emerson. A modern example of a Christian Transcendental (in terms of methodology, here) is Cornelius Van Til or Dr. Greg Bahnsen. I just mistyped that. I’m not saying I have knowledge that transcends reality, I’m saying that I’m appealing to something outside of myself to even account for my knowledge.

You’re not appealing to any ultimate authority to justify those claims though. You think anyone who practices “thou shall not murder” has forfeited practicing morality? lol.

Tbh I’ve been waiting for this response lol.

Says who? You’re assuming the validity of your own reasoning, which is circular and fallacious, while I’m appealing to an ultimate authority that is outside of my own reasoning.

Do any of you use Discord? is there a server set up for legitimate debate?

Your entire presentation is predicated on presupposing a god. Since at the beginning of our conversation I requested you prove a god, you have failed at that task. And since you have failed to prove a god, everything that follows is hollow and unsubstantiated.

1 Like

Oh dear oh dear. Kindergarten presuppositional apologetics.

No, you do not get to assert (without any conclusive evidence) that your particular version of a god or gods is necessary for all knowledge/creation/understanding. That is a nonsense. Febrile reasoning that gets you nowhere close to the god of your choice.

You have done yourself no favors by confusing one set of discredited theological apologetic claptrap with the transcendental nonsense.

Back to the drawing board, attend some classes and, this time, pay attention.

1 Like

Being a presuppositional apologist , you wouldn’t recognise a legitimate debate if it bit you on the arse. BY that I mean you assume that the existence of god is a given and absolute. It is neither. The existence of god(s) needs to clearly established. When I say “I don’t believe” ,unfounded claims won’t change my mind. I demand empirical evidence. Without it ,I’m unable to share your beliefs.

Please don’t think I’m being bloody minded, I am not. My journey to atheism from Catholicism was long and sometimes painful, taking over 20 years. I really wanted to believe, but finally could not. My atheism was an inevitable conclusion, and was never a choice. Still isn’t.

Cognostic is assuming nothing. He is merely following basic principles of logic. Your approach may work with your fellow ignoramuses, but not here. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to be familiar with accepted scholarly method and principles of logic. You don’t get to make up your own rules.

So far all you’ve accomplished here is to make yourself appear closed minded and ignorant. This not good a start. Right now at least to me, you have neither credibility nor respect. Both need to be earned. They may not be demanded or assumed, and I do not suffer fools.

Bored now.


The statement is subjectively defined but objectively verifiable. I’m defining morality so that it determines right and wrong; the best model is the one that benefits humanity as a whole to the maximum.
Before you attack that, I’ll clarify that I say “best model” only because I am directly affected by how other humans behave. While this system can be made to work in a locality, we cannot assess exactly what affects the state of the society in said locality and hence the best path would be to include all of humanity.

There is no apparent need for “transcedental authority” regardless of whether morality is subjectively defined.
You have to first show how it’s even possible to have something like that, then we can go from there.
Keep in mind, you cannot use only arguments to prove the existence of a deity.
Till now all your arguments have been unsurprisingly presuppositional; I’d ask you to stop invoking your god before you evidentially satisfy his existence but I doubt you know how to.

Hopefully this answers all your morality related crap up there.


You have literally reasoned that you must appeal to an authority :neutral_face:

And your reasoning is fallacious as the default position is not knowing whether anything exists. I’m not talking about existence being real, that is a different topic. I’m talking about what we can know to exist in our respective perceived realities.

Most of what I believe is highly evidenced and the things that aren’t usually have minimal harm in believing them.

If you claim to know something exists there has to be reason and evidence to show that it does, not everyone takes it on faith. You have to use reasoning in every case because doing what you suggest is a circular argument and shows us nothing.

On that note, you admit it’s circular which is admitting it’s logically fallacious, but you continue to use it. I’ve shown you above how our logic is anything but circular and you ignored that, so it really does seem pointless discussing this.
Either reevaluate your position without the same mistakes in every post or don’t bother at all.

1 Like

I’m not assuming shit. The starting point is zero. No need to assume a damn thing without some reason to do so. Demonstrate that I need move one inch towards your assertion of a god. There is no impetus to move in any direction without reason. Before you can assert anything at all comes from your “God” thing… you must demonstrate the existence of this thing. That is elementary. A blind assertion of existence, without evidence can simply be rejected without evidence. There is no reason at all to believe your inane crap.


So we just have to take your word for this? I’m not prepared to believe this without any objective evidence, anymore than I am prepared to believe alien abduction fantasies. It’s also a claim that is ubiquitous in other religious, and you can’t all be right, though you can all be wrong of course.




Misrepresent you, you say, physician, heal thyself.

Which of course would be true of all delusions and fictions, so not a promising category to place your beliefs in.

I can’t speak for others, but my criteria for accepting the validity of claims is that sufficient objective evidence be demonstrated for them. If that position is likely to mean I am wrong about everything then we could believe nothing. How likely is it that earth is not spherical and is at the centre of the universe after all?

The fact the earth isn’t flat or at the centre of the universe, may have to remain tentative, and open to revision in light of new evidence, but they are nonetheless objective facts, supported by objective evidence that puts them beyond any reasonable or rational doubt.

You haven’t been able to demonstrate one single shred of objective evidence for any deity, and your arguments have used multiple known common logical fallacies.

You dont get to ask loaded questions like that, and then insist we limit ourselves to facile responses that suit your clearly biased agenda in favour of archaic superstition over sound rational and epistemological reasoning.

That’s not how debate works.

What a truly idiotic assertion, atheism is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, it only makes rational sense in the absence of any extant deity.

Your rationale is very confused. However what is clear, is that you seem to think god of the gaps polemic, using argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies, are compelling, they’re not.

Nonsense, it’s sufficient to demonstrate that the behaviour and actions of the deity depicted in the bible falls well short of subjective human morals, you’re appealing to the moral authority of a deity depicted as committing and encouraging , ethnic cleansing, sex trafficking prisoners, genocide, infanticide, slavery etc, to name but a few, it even tortures a newborn baby to death because it was conceived in an adulterous affair. If you think that is moral, let alone an absolute moral authority, then your argument has demonstrably defeated itself.

Which you cannot demonstrate any objective evidence for.

Irony overload…


Anyone else getting dizzy from the contradictions and circular reasoning?

Oh dear…


What a derkball! Ask for evidence of his assertion and he accuses you of having a presupposition. Hey derkball, what fucking presupposition would that be? Can you qualify your assertion in any way at all.

You made the assertion; (1) “You are appealing to an ultimate authority outside of your own reasoning.” (2) “Everything you know has come through revelation from God.”

Then when we ask for evidence of this God thing and assert that you have a burden of proof to demonstrate it exists prior to assuming it has some sort of influence on the world or you, you want to accuse us of “presuppositional reasoning.” What presuppositions? All we did is ask you for evidence?

Demonstrate this thing outside yourself.
Demonstrate these presuppositions you speak of.
You have offered Buttkiss. Zilch. Nada. Kwang. Zero. NOTHING AT ALL BUT AN INANE ASSERTION.