As I explained: “I don’t believe any deity or deities exist, but if the one depicted in the bible or koran existed, I’d want nothing to do with it, as I find the deity described to be morally repugnant.”
Genocide, indiscriminate murder, the endorsement of slavery, torturing a newborn baby to death, just of the top of my head, all while encouraging its human followers to commit acts of ethnic cleansing, and sex trafficking female prisoners even children, slaughtering entire tribes to the last individual etc etc. How else should I find the deity depicted thus?
I would believe any deity existed, if and only if that existence was supported by sufficient objective evidence.
Yeah if you think at this point I will accept prima facie a bare claim you’re making, especially about scientific research, then you are very much mistaken, That aside you used, and are using a false equivalence fallacy, I requoted my original claim for context, and have explained why, go back and read it.
.
I could care fucking less what you were implying, it is amply defined in any dictionary, I offered a credible dictionary as a source with the definition quoted, it does not support your straw man claim about my original assertion, I claimed to believe inert matter existed, and you created a straw man claim about qualia and rocks.
Quote my original assertion, and explain carefully why you think this is significant to it.
Hells bells, I am a reasonably patient man, but this is getting silly.
Wow, two more false equivalences, are you really equating a model with a conclusion, and an idea accepted as correct, with something that is incorrect or even partially incorrect?
You think his confidence in science is justified, “because it works for him”?
You don’t think science ever uncovers objective facts about reality then?
Does your definition of truth include all of the horrible nastiness that’s done in the name of religion?
My definition of truth does not include Christian nationalism, the rampant homophobia, firebombing abortion clinics, resistance against adoption by gay couples, and so on.
If I have to choose between the fundemental honesty of science or the violence of organized religion–when deciding on a definition of truth–I’ll pick science.
I may end up believing the Abrahamic God is morally repugnant because of all the horrible stuff (including genocide) that’s done in the name of God.
This doesn’t mean that every definition of God is morally repugnant.
Bondye (aka “Gran Maitre”) in Voodoo (also called–more properly–Voudun) created the Universe and its fundamental rules . . . and instilled humans with free will, set up loa spirts to satisfy our spiritual needs, and then took a “hands-off” approach so that we could be responsible for our own destiny.
The catch is that Bondye cannot be appealed to by prayer, as we are responsible for the consequences of our actions . . . and cursing Bondye or appealing to Bondye makes no difference.
So, Bondye is neutral.
I think this is much more rational than the Abrahamic God.
Even in science, there is a satisfying justification for believing in life after death.
I–for example–am an ex-paramedic and am currently an RN. I save lives for a living, I am a published writer, and I do believe that the ways that I have contributed to the world will outlive me. The babies that I’ve helped deliver are still alive, and I will play a part in anything they do after I’m dead.
The ideas of people like Benjamin Franklin still influence us today, and we are better for it.
Things like this are a form of life after death. People can have influence and purpose after they die if they live their lives well.
When we consider these points, then who needs an eternal paradise that’s predicated on endless praise of the Creator of the Universe . . . which accomplishes nothing except to eternally satisfy this being’s narcissism? Eternal life in this context has no meaning beyond assauging this being’s ego.
Quite possibly, but I am not sure what point you’re making sorry?
If you highlight text in a post, the quote icon appears, when you click on it, a new post opens, and automatically quotes the highlighted text, with a link to the original post.
Quote the relevant part of my post, then explain what it is you’re asking. hells bells is a pretty common exclamation where I live, often used to express surprise or exasperation, or outright annoyance, it has a variety of uses.
Truth is what exists. Science informs us about what we can perceive, measure, and understand. It’s practical, but we already know that not everything can be studied this way.
You are misdiagnosing the problem, and therefore offering the wrong solution. You won’t solve anything by removing religion—quite the opposite, in fact.
Science can also be used to create nuclear weapons. It is far more important to control the motivations of individuals.
Do you really imagine when you clip my posts to misrepresent what I say or ask, that I don’t always check? I don’t see my original assertion there for proper context, just how deep are you prepared to dig this mendacious hole?
Nope.
ARE-THEY-EVER-TRUE?
Try for once answering what I actually asked, and not some straw man.
You really need to learn what words mean, before you make these absurd claims.
Straw man fallacy, and you ignored his question completely.
Which has precisely nothing to do with what he said, nothing. A rock can be used to kill someone, does this make rocks dangerous? The opposite of knowledge is ignorance. Science is just a method(s) that helps us gain knowledge.
No, they are a representation that matches reality.
There is a difference between a picture of reality and reality itself.
Yes, science does not equate to truth
You offered a vague answer of no value in an attempt to refute the fact that the two most important models we use to explain reality are clearly self-contradictory.
We could go on forever with your sophistic techniques, but that’s enough. I’ve concluded that you’re not interested in the truth; you’re merely playing with words, which means I will probably refrain from responding to you.
A claim to believe inert matter exists, and you have lied your pants on fire endlessly to misrepresent this. Here it is for context:
Are your stock in trade, yes I agree.
An endless line of unevidenced irrational assertions, using duplicitous and irrational straw men.
Never learn anything, beyond blind adherence to unevidenced superstition, as you’re obviously utterly closed minded.
It’s not nice when someone dishonestly clipes your posts just to endlessly misrepresent them…So either stop doing it, or prepare to have it back. Same for your endless straw men.
My primary reason is that, theists have not met their burden of proof for their claims that a god or gods exist.
I used to be a theist, but then I noticed that I never evaluated my god beliefs in the same way I evaluated other supernatural claims. As soon as I applied critical thinking, logic, good standards of evidence to my god beliefs, it was easy to see they just did not hold up. And I quickly became a non-believer.
Let me add, that my atheism is a provisional position, not a dogmatic position.
As long as theists continue to be unable to provide demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, and valid and sound logical arguments for the existence of a god, my atheism will continue.
Respectfully, other than mathematics and science
(Which man created) non- theists have no more proof of how our existence came into being any more than theists claim they have. Is it safe to say we all put our Faith in something?
If you are referring to the way theists use the word faith, no, I do not have faith. I have reasonable expectations based on observations and evidence.
It doesn’t take faith to be almost certain that a chair will support me when I sit.
The rest of your post is classic “god of the gaps”.
