Is there no honor?

[Zzyzx]

.
From another thread:

It is painfully clear to me and other readers viewing this thread that you [a member I shall not identify] are not interested in improving your ability to debate, educating yourself on the subject matter, or even researching your own claims in order to prove them. You are merely here to repeat your beliefs ad nauseum as though they were fact under the guise of "debating" against non-believers.

I agree with Negative Proof and add that I wonder why those who attribute high moral standards to their chosen religious beliefs do not act ethically in debate.

Is it because the position they attempt to defend CANNOT be rationally defended in ethical and equitable debate " wherein substantiation of claims is required?

In my two years of debating here and years before that elsewhere I have encountered only a handful of Theists who debate with what I consider honor, integrity, ethics, civility and reason. NONE of them (with one possible exception) has attempted to defend Fundamental Christianity or literal bible interpretation.

WHY do those of supposed "high moral standards" and "instructions from god" so often FAIL and REFUSE to debate honorably?

[olavisjo]

....there is no other philosophy in this world that makes any sense compared to Christianity.

This is clearly an opinion.

You are quite entitled to hold it, but you are not entitled to pretend that it is in any way probative, persuasive, or relevant to this debate, which is about ethics and integrity.

It may be an opinion, but I can say as a matter of fact that I have never heard of anything that makes more sense than Christianity, and I am always open to new things.

....In my metaphor I was just saying that since I know that I am going to live with God for all eternity, then nothing that happens to me in this life is going to matter in comparison, so I can sleep comfortably.

Again, this is an opinion. It is not a fact, and so is not relevant here -

Except in that presenting opinion, in this case religious dogma, as probative fact is a pretty good example of "preaching under the false pretense of debate," which is both dishonest and unethical.

I can see how that may sound like preaching, especially to those who suffer from insomnia, but it was meant to be an honest response to Flail regarding why theists feel comfortable enough to sleep well.

. Are you NOT aware (or do you deny) that many here are EX-Christians who were indoctrinated into Christianity as children but later in life rejected super-naturalism?

....in my religion to become a Christian one must be born again, not indoctrinated again.

A statement of religious doctrine; not a fact relevant to a debate on the subject of ethics.

Off topic? Yes, but a response to the off topic question posed by Zzyzx. If we started a new thread every time we veered from a topic, there would be more threads around here than in granny's sewing room.

....There is no probably about it, I know I would be lost without Jesus. But now I know who I am, where I am going, and where I will be for all eternity.

This is also an opinion. It is also an implicit claim of superiority and authority, and therefore improper and unethical in debate.

Let's make it explicit, if I did not claim superiority, there would be no reason for me to be here, what is the point of debating things which can be clearly demonstrated with reason and evidence? All you would have is a big intellectual love fest.
To me debate is like taking a sauna bath, if you can't feel the sting there is not much point to it. There is not much point to a debate that does not make you feel uncomfortable.

Also, naturalism denies that morality and free will exist....

This is also a plain falsehood.

Attributing views to others that they do not hold, aka "putting words in their mouths," or redefining the convictions of others to suit one's arguments, is neither honest nor ethical.

I suppose you are right. It is like a vegan can hold the view that there is nothing wrong with eating meat. But what is the point of calling yourself something if you are not going to follow it to it's logical conclusion?

The very words 'values', 'ethics', 'judgment' and 'rely' all demonstrate that you accept morality and free will.

Which proves that your statement above is a falsehood. There is no Apostles' Creed of Naturalism which states that one who takes that approach cannot or must not believe in either morality or free will, and you have no right to dictate that naturalists must believe such a doctrine. Further, assuming that either is dependent on a belief in God is nothing more than sectarian arrogance as well as abject ignorance of non theist thought.

No, it proves that Zzyzx is inconsistent in his thinking, he lacks belief in god(s) because of a lack of evidence, yet he accepts morality and free will even though it can not be demonstrated that morality and free will exist.

Bear in mind that I am a theist, not an atheist. My beliefs are my own, and I do not press them on others or claim that I can prove them to be objectively true. They are my opinions, and I claim no more than that. I do not presume to tell other people what they can, should, or do believe.

Here, you have done all three.

That is not debate; that is preaching. Period, full stop.

You lack confidence in your God, may I suggest you wrestle it out with him as Jacob allegedly wrestled with God and saw him face to face and lived.

[olavisjo]

What nonsense is this ?

I can show you morality in computer programs. You will not find a single line of code that points at "God".

This is how debate should be, first you tell your opponent that he is full of nonsense and then you make a claim without any evidence. At this point I can accept what is said or I can counter.
As I am very curious to know what he has in mind with his moral computer program I will ask him to tell me more about it. See, simple debate with no honor involved or needed.

The only thing that I can think of that he might be talking about would be along the lines of tit for tat which was first introduced by Anatol Rapoport in Robert Axelrod's two tournaments, held around 1980.

The fact that the Universe began in the Big Bang is evidenced by the CMBR. The laws of nature were formed when the Universe formed. This is not a contradiction.

Again a claim without evidence, but I am sure that byofrcs can provide a link to some scientist who believes that the laws of nature were formed when the universe formed. Let's see what he does.

Your distortion of truth that Naturalism denies that morality and free will exist, which you then twist so that you can claim that only morality and free will can be of theistic source. This is a fabrication that has been the root of much of humanities distress over many centuries, culminating in the genocides of modern times. You stoop low to repeat this lie.

We make decisions on behaviour according to a complex set of rules. We have built-in rules that have evolved and we also learn what are acceptable behaviours and rules from society according to how our society is organised i.e. the rules form spontaneously as part of the complex system of behaviours that result. These rules are not predictable but they form. They don't form from God but society and the societies can be animal, software or human. This forms the basis of our morality (or rather ethics).

Do not be naive to presume these are deterministic unless you also consider the n-body problem a trivial calculation. We can guess the average behaviour but it becomes harder to predict an individuals behaviour.

What it does mean is that it is patently nonsense to, for example, teach Children to kill and then saying that they have free will to not kill. If they are taught humanism then they will choose to be human.

Theology reduces our evolved human origin to the status of god-pet and perverts our morality with book-bound rules, whilst pontificating that we have free will. It has made us irresponsible.

Theology has failed spectacularly to date and I would hope that over time theology is proscribed as we now proscribe other bad behaviours such as Genocide. Certainly nearly 2000 years of Christianity have taken quite a few decades of Humanism to undo the harm so I think any Christian is on the losing side.

I suppose that this rant may pass for honorable debate to some.

When you tell someone that they are distorting the truth, you should also tell them how they are twisting the truth.

As far as twisting goes, when I speak with atheists about morality they will twist the definition of morality from "right and wrong behaviour" to "favorable and unfavorable behavior". If you want to set me straight on how atheist morality works you can do it here.

You seem to be making the claim, that if you make a system complex and unpredictable enough, free will magically materializes. If you want to set me straight on how atheist free will works you can do it here.

[olavisjo]

.

And that may be true for most Christians, but in my case I am so deluded, deceived, insane and or psychotic that I honestly do see the clothes.

Statements like these bother me, because they expect to be respected.

Such statements bother me because they indicate a person admittedly (even proudly) "sees" clothing that is not present " and is apparently proud to be "deluded, deceived, insane and/or psychotic" enough to see things that do not exist.

I am simply admitting that my ability to think is, from time to time, flawed. Are you able to make such an admission?
You saw 'proudly', which was not there. Negative Proof saw 'expect to be respected' which was not there either. It is just human to see things that are not there, and not see things that are.

.
We recently had a president who also "saw" things that did not exist and ACTED upon those delusions " taking the country with him. It is not uncommon for religious "leaders" or "prophets" to "see" things that cannot be shown to exist.

Having such people in positions of "authority" and influence is VERY disturbing to me. Strong opposition voices MUST be raised to expose delusion, deceit, insanity and psychosis " otherwise we experience despotism, including theocracy.

Which recent president are you trying to slander Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy, George H. W. Bush, William J. Clinton or George W. Bush? And I am sure you have evidence that this president saw something that did not exist, or are you relying on your omniscience.

It is a point of pride for many theists that they cling to their belief in the face of any and all evidence to the contrary. Blind faith is considered a virtue.

I have never seen any such evidence. If you have it, please bring it out.

.
In religion and in armies, "Do as you are told without thinking" is standard fare (but is usually at least somewhat limited in the military).

Even those who promote "belief without evidence" in their religion usually do not apply the same standard to decisions in the real world. They do not promote taking the word of a used car salesman or a politician "on faith alone". They look for signs of deceit just like everyone else. However, what is said by favored priests and "prophets" (or ancient bible storytellers) is evidently exempt from examination for truth.

Thus, aside from religious decisions, Christians seem to be inclined to "check the facts" before investing their money or effort. However, a friend who is the best con man I ever knew and outspoken as a Christian told me that Christians are usually easier to con than Non-Christians " by a fellow Christian. Perhaps this accounts for the success of televangelists and celebrity preachers and "prophets".

To head off the typical Apologist response, "He wasn't REALLY a Christian"; he said he was a Christian, he read the bible, he said he was "born again", he said he accepted Jesus as his savior AND he appeared to believe that his sins would be forgiven (including conning fellow Christians). I am unaware of any criteria by which his Christianity can be denied.

This discussion is an example of what I consider the value of debating these issues " to expose to READERS the delusion, deceit, insanity and psychosis associated with "believe on faith alone" doctrine and mind-set. Statements such as Olavisjo's above must make more rational religionists cringe (though I wonder why so few protest).

Once people start asking critical questions they often find that non-religious answers make far more sense than church dogma.

Forgive me if I don't respond to this, other than to say you can preach it just as good as any Southern Baptist.

[Zzyzx]

.

And that may be true for most Christians, but in my case I am so deluded, deceived, insane and or psychotic that I honestly do see the clothes.

Statements like these bother me, because they expect to be respected.

Such statements bother me because they indicate a person admittedly (even proudly) "sees" clothing that is not present " and is apparently proud to be "deluded, deceived, insane and/or psychotic" enough to see things that do not exist.

I am simply admitting that my ability to think is, from time to time, flawed. Are you able to make such an admission?

I readily admit that my thinking is not flawless.

HOWEVER, I do NOT characterize myself as "deluded, deceived, insane and/or psychotic". I am aware of the definitions of those terms and do not regard them as applying to me.

I do not disagree with your self-analysis.

You saw 'proudly', which was not there.

Are you saying that there pride was "not there" when you stated, ". . . I honestly do see the clothes"?

If you did not make the statement about seeing non-existent clothing with a measure of pride, I will retract the word "pride" from my comment. If you are ashamed of making such a comment, I will understand.

It is just human to see things that are not there, and not see things that are.

I agree that the human imagination and other mental processes are capable of causing one to "see" or think they see what is not actually present. Various optical illusions demonstrate the effect " as do "visions" " and hallucinations.

I agree that humans can fail to see or notice things that are present.

We recently had a president who also "saw" things that did not exist and ACTED upon those delusions " taking the country with him. It is not uncommon for religious "leaders" or "prophets" to "see" things that cannot be shown to exist.

Having such people in positions of "authority" and influence is VERY disturbing to me. Strong opposition voices MUST be raised to expose delusion, deceit, insanity and psychosis " otherwise we experience despotism, including theocracy.

Which recent president are you trying to slander Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy, George H. W. Bush, William J. Clinton or George W. Bush? And I am sure you have evidence that this president saw something that did not exist, or are you relying on your omniscience.

The defense against slander is truth. Bush made statements to the effect, "god told me to strike Saddam . . . etc". Whether he saw or "only" heard "god" is of no great significance to the discussion " so I will modify my statement to read "heard" rather than "saw". '

I maintain that having in position of authority a person who sees OR hears "gods" and acts upon what "god says" is ATROCITY " particularly when the actions include taking a nation to war and invading nations that pose no threat.

It is a point of pride for many theists that they cling to their belief in the face of any and all evidence to the contrary. Blind faith is considered a virtue.

I have never seen any such evidence. If you have it, please bring it out.

Do you disagree that "blind faith is considered a virtue" in many religions?

Do you NOT agree that it is a point of pride for many theists to cling to their beliefs in the face of evidence to the contrary?

If you HONESTLY disagree with these statements, kindly say so plainly (as in "I do not think that blind faith is considered a virtue in some religions" and "I do not agree that it is a point of pride for many theists to cling to their beliefs in the face of evidence to the contrary"). I am confident that examples WILL be provided if you HONESTLY do not think the statements are true.

It is not uncommon for some debaters (particularly those presenting a weak argument) to demand proof of statements that they, in all probability, know are truthful.

In religion and in armies, "Do as you are told without thinking" is standard fare (but is usually at least somewhat limited in the military).

Even those who promote "belief without evidence" in their religion usually do not apply the same standard to decisions in the real world. They do not promote taking the word of a used car salesman or a politician "on faith alone". They look for signs of deceit just like everyone else. However, what is said by favored priests and "prophets" (or ancient bible storytellers) is evidently exempt from examination for truth.

Thus, aside from religious decisions, Christians seem to be inclined to "check the facts" before investing their money or effort. However, a friend who is the best con man I ever knew and outspoken as a Christian told me that Christians are usually easier to con than Non-Christians " by a fellow Christian. Perhaps this accounts for the success of televangelists and celebrity preachers and "prophets".

To head off the typical Apologist response, "He wasn't REALLY a Christian"; he said he was a Christian, he read the bible, he said he was "born again", he said he accepted Jesus as his savior AND he appeared to believe that his sins would be forgiven (including conning fellow Christians). I am unaware of any criteria by which his Christianity can be denied.

This discussion is an example of what I consider the value of debating these issues " to expose to READERS the delusion, deceit, insanity and psychosis associated with "believe on faith alone" doctrine and mind-set. Statements such as Olavisjo's above must make more rational religionists cringe (though I wonder why so few protest).

Once people start asking critical questions they often find that non-religious answers make far more sense than church dogma.

Forgive me if I don't respond to this, other than to say you can preach it just as good as any Southern Baptist.

You are "forgiven" for not responding to that which you cannot refute. As I said, "In religion and in armies, 'Do as you are told without thinking' is standard fare (but is usually at least somewhat limited in the military) " and Even those who promote 'belief without evidence' in their religion usually do not apply the same standard to decisions in the real world."

Do you regard either of these as false statements? Do you propose that "the faithful" believe used car salesmen as readily as they believe their "prophets and priests"? I simply treat all salesmen the same and ask that they demonstrate the truth of what they claim.

Do you NOT realize that "do as you are told without thinking" IS characteristic of the military and many religions (as well as any organizations that value conformity over individuality).

[byofrcs]

What nonsense is this ?

I can show you morality in computer programs. You will not find a single line of code that points at "God".

This is how debate should be, first you tell your opponent that he is full of nonsense and then you make a claim without any evidence. At this point I can accept what is said or I can counter.
As I am very curious to know what he has in mind with his moral computer program I will ask him to tell me more about it. See, simple debate with no honor involved or needed.

The only thing that I can think of that he might be talking about would be along the lines of tit for tat which was first introduced by Anatol Rapoport in Robert Axelrod's two tournaments, held around 1980.

Given I have already mentioned Iterated PD before I would expect you to know that tit-for-tat is one mechanism.

So do you think you can see God in the code of a tit-for-tat program ?

The fact that the Universe began in the Big Bang is evidenced by the CMBR. The laws of nature were formed when the Universe formed. This is not a contradiction.

Again a claim without evidence, but I am sure that byofrcs can provide a link to some scientist who believes that the laws of nature were formed when the universe formed. Let's see what he does.

No, it's just plan common sense in that it makes little sense that the laws of nature would have existed before the universe (i.e. nature) existed. It's like saying a car does 0-60 in 5.4 seconds only we haven't actually made the car yet, or the test track.

I guess theists, with their specialism in the invisible can try to sell a product that hasn't actually been made but the rest of us really would like to see the evidence of what you are talking about before we comment further.

Your distortion of truth that Naturalism denies that morality and free will exist, which you then twist so that you can claim that only morality and free will can be of theistic source. This is a fabrication that has been the root of much of humanities distress over many centuries, culminating in the genocides of modern times. You stoop low to repeat this lie.

We make decisions on behaviour according to a complex set of rules. We have built-in rules that have evolved and we also learn what are acceptable behaviours and rules from society according to how our society is organised i.e. the rules form spontaneously as part of the complex system of behaviours that result. These rules are not predictable but they form. They don't form from God but society and the societies can be animal, software or human. This forms the basis of our morality (or rather ethics).

Do not be naive to presume these are deterministic unless you also consider the n-body problem a trivial calculation. We can guess the average behaviour but it becomes harder to predict an individuals behaviour.

What it does mean is that it is patently nonsense to, for example, teach Children to kill and then saying that they have free will to not kill. If they are taught humanism then they will choose to be human.

Theology reduces our evolved human origin to the status of god-pet and perverts our morality with book-bound rules, whilst pontificating that we have free will. It has made us irresponsible.

Theology has failed spectacularly to date and I would hope that over time theology is proscribed as we now proscribe other bad behaviours such as Genocide. Certainly nearly 2000 years of Christianity have taken quite a few decades of Humanism to undo the harm so I think any Christian is on the losing side.

I suppose that this rant may pass for honorable debate to some.

I am parroting the Theist. It is fun.

When you tell someone that they are distorting the truth, you should also tell them how they are twisting the truth.

...no I don't I just have to keep repeating what I say.

As far as twisting goes, when I speak with atheists about morality they will twist the definition of morality from "right and wrong behaviour" to "favorable and unfavorable behavior". If you want to set me straight on how atheist morality works you can do it here.

Done. I simply paraphrased you. I did ask that any theist trying to kill themselves to avoid using planes etc.

You seem to be making the claim, that if you make a system complex and unpredictable enough, free will magically materializes. If you want to set me straight on how atheist free will works you can do it here.

Yup done. Theist free will is a worrying concept of contra-causal random actions that makes as much sense as giving someone 'shrooms. It's just plain stupid. I now call this concept Schrdinger Morality - like the cat you don't have a clue what the Theist will do until you see them doing something.

[Negative Proof]

It is a point of pride for many theists that they cling to their belief in the face of any and all evidence to the contrary. Blind faith is considered a virtue.

I have never seen any such evidence. If you have it, please bring it out.

The Flat Earth(Job 38:14, Matthew 4:1-12, others) - refuted

The Geocentric Solar System (Job 9:7) - refuted

The Loving God (multiple) - refuted

The Just God (multiple) - refuted

The Omnipotent God (multiple) - refuted

The Omniscient God (multiple)- refuted

This list is far from exhaustive, but since you said you had never seen "any" evidence contrary to your beliefs, I figured these would be a good start.

[olavisjo]

.
I readily admit that my thinking is not flawless.

HOWEVER, I do NOT characterize myself as "deluded, deceived, insane and/or psychotic". I am aware of the definitions of those terms and do not regard them as applying to me.

I do not disagree with your self-analysis.

Many non believers consider Christians to suffer from one form of mental illness or other. There is even a popular book which explains the God delusion in evolutionary terms. My feeling is that if Christianity is an illness, I don't want to recover from it.

.

You saw 'proudly', which was not there.

Are you saying that there pride was "not there" when you stated, ". . . I honestly do see the clothes"?

If you did not make the statement about seeing non-existent clothing with a measure of pride, I will retract the word "pride" from my comment. If you are ashamed of making such a comment, I will understand.

Pride is not the word I would use, grateful would work better, it is like a blind person who recovers his ability to see, he would be grateful for the gift.

.

We recently had a president who also "saw" things that did not exist and ACTED upon those delusions " taking the country with him. It is not uncommon for religious "leaders" or "prophets" to "see" things that cannot be shown to exist.

Having such people in positions of "authority" and influence is VERY disturbing to me. Strong opposition voices MUST be raised to expose delusion, deceit, insanity and psychosis " otherwise we experience despotism, including theocracy.

Which recent president are you trying to slander Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy, George H. W. Bush, William J. Clinton or George W. Bush? And I am sure you have evidence that this president saw something that did not exist, or are you relying on your omniscience.

The defense against slander is truth. Bush made statements to the effect, "god told me to strike Saddam . . . etc". Whether he saw or "only" heard "god" is of no great significance to the discussion " so I will modify my statement to read "heard" rather than "saw". '

I maintain that having in position of authority a person who sees OR hears "gods" and acts upon what "god says" is ATROCITY " particularly when the actions include taking a nation to war and invading nations that pose no threat.

In hindsight it would appear that Iraq did not pose a threat, but did Bush know it at the time?
Christians speak a little different than others, for example when Jimmy Carter said "I've committed adultery in my heart many times" people got the wrong idea about what he was trying to say.
The actual words used by Bush as far as I can tell were "God inspired me to hit al Qaeda, and so I hit it," Bush said, according to The Post account. "And I had the inspiration to hit Saddam [Hussein], and so I hit him...", There was no auditory hallucination, only inspiration and the Saddam inspiration was his own, but the al Qaeda inspiration he attributed to God. Either way let me give you my personal assurance that the nation was never in any real jeopardy, or at least no more jeopardy than Isaac was in when God allegedly told Abraham to sacrifice the lad.
Also if free will is an illusion, there is not much point talking about how things could have turned out any different, as it would appear that the future is just as rigidly fixed as the past.

.

It is a point of pride for many theists that they cling to their belief in the face of any and all evidence to the contrary. Blind faith is considered a virtue.

I have never seen any such evidence. If you have it, please bring it out.

Do you disagree that "blind faith is considered a virtue" in many religions?

Do you NOT agree that it is a point of pride for many theists to cling to their beliefs in the face of evidence to the contrary?

If you HONESTLY disagree with these statements, kindly say so plainly (as in "I do not think that blind faith is considered a virtue in some religions" and "I do not agree that it is a point of pride for many theists to cling to their beliefs in the face of evidence to the contrary"). I am confident that examples WILL be provided if you HONESTLY do not think the statements are true.

It is not uncommon for some debaters (particularly those presenting a weak argument) to demand proof of statements that they, in all probability, know are truthful.

You misunderstood my response, I was responding to the existence of actual evidence that contradicts theism. I have never seen any such evidence. And whether blind faith is a virtue or not, or to be proud of or not, is not important to me, it may be to some. I have faith in a God that I know, so my faith is not blind and as I said I have never seen any evidence that contradicts theism, so I can't say that I cling to my belief in the face of evidence to the contrary.

.
You are "forgiven" for not responding to that which you cannot refute. As I said, "In religion and in armies, 'Do as you are told without thinking' is standard fare (but is usually at least somewhat limited in the military) " and Even those who promote 'belief without evidence' in their religion usually do not apply the same standard to decisions in the real world."

Do you regard either of these as false statements? Do you propose that "the faithful" believe used car salesmen as readily as they believe their "prophets and priests"? I simply treat all salesmen the same and ask that they demonstrate the truth of what they claim.

Do you NOT realize that "do as you are told without thinking" IS characteristic of the military and many religions (as well as any organizations that value conformity over individuality).

At the risk of being off topic (which never bothered me much before).
When I was in the military, we were told not to follow "illegal orders" but we were not told clearly what such orders were, I suppose they assumed that our God given conscience would distinguish which orders were illegal.
If you believe a car salesman, you will get what a car salesman has to offer.
If you believe a prophet or priest you will get what a prophet or priest has to offer.
If you believe God, you will get what God has to offer.

"Do as you are told without thinking" eliminates hesitation, which can be fatal in combat. But I have never been a member of a religious organization that made that requirement, so I find it hard to speak to that point without some research.

[olavisjo]

The Flat Earth(Job 38:14, Matthew 4:1-12, others) - refuted

The Geocentric Solar System (Job 9:7) - refuted

The Loving God (multiple) - refuted

The Just God (multiple) - refuted

The Omnipotent God (multiple) - refuted

The Omniscient God (multiple)- refuted

This list is far from exhaustive, but since you said you had never seen "any" evidence contrary to your beliefs, I figured these would be a good start.

That may be evidence against the Christian God or the Christian Bible or just evidence that we do not understand what the Bible is. You do make a good argument, if the Bible had been written by God then he certainly did put some major land mines in there to make skeptics stumble. I have found that there is more to the Bible than the obvious and since there is nothing better to answer the more difficult questions in life, I am content to see the Bible as a communication from God to us.
As for the problem of evil and suffering, we find it emotionally hard to believe that a loving God could allow such things to happen, but there is no reason why a God and evil can't both exist.
We can find evidence against any specific man made god, but philosophers generally agree that the concept of theism is non-falsifiable, so it would be impossible to prove that theism is false, therefore I have not seen any evidence contrary to theism.

[Negative Proof]

The Flat Earth(Job 38:14, Matthew 4:1-12, others) - refuted

The Geocentric Solar System (Job 9:7) - refuted

The Loving God (multiple) - refuted

The Just God (multiple) - refuted

The Omnipotent God (multiple) - refuted

The Omniscient God (multiple)- refuted

This list is far from exhaustive, but since you said you had never seen "any" evidence contrary to your beliefs, I figured these would be a good start.

That may be evidence against the Christian God or the Christian Bible or just evidence that we do not understand what the Bible is. You do make a good argument, if the Bible had been written by God then he certainly did put some major land mines in there to make skeptics stumble.

These "land mines" are not a problem for skeptics. Skeptics realize that these problems are irreconcilable with who and what the bible says god is. They also realize that since these falsehoods and inconsistencies exist in a book that is supposed to be communication from a god who knows everything, it is far more likely that it was simply a book written and inspired by humans who knew no better at the time.

For example, humans may have thought that the world was flat at the time of the bible, but an all knowing god would have known. Even if he isn't all knowing, the creator god would still have known. The fact that the flat earth is referenced multiple times clearly suggests that either god did not know the shape of what he had created, or that man's knowledge was used, and passed off as god's when writing scripture.

I have found that there is more to the Bible than the obvious[...]

What more is there? How did you find this "extra knowledge"? What was your method? Can you prove existence of this "knowledge"?

[...]and since there is nothing better to answer the more difficult questions in life, I am content to see the Bible as a communication from God to us.

And in doing so, you commit a fallacy- the argument from ignorance.

With all of the holes I've already demonstrated are present in the bible, why would you trust it to be accurate on the most important questions in life? From experience, I can tell you that it is not terribly uncomfortable to just say "I don't know." This is also the most true statement that anyone can make at this time.

As for the problem of evil and suffering, we find it emotionally hard to believe that a loving God could allow such things to happen, but there is no reason why a God and evil can't both exist.

Actually, if god is both loving and omnipotent, then there is a reason both could not exist- he would not let them both exist. Especially not in the form of horrific birth defects and needless suffering for the innocent.

Since these things do exist, either god is not omnipotent, or he is not benevolent. The christian religion teaches that he is both, which is clearly false.

We can find evidence against any specific man made god, but philosophers generally agree that the concept of theism is non-falsifiable, so it would be impossible to prove that theism is false, therefore I have not seen any evidence contrary to theism.

You are correct- I can provide no evidence against deism, which is the term you're intending to use there. Any of the various theisms that exist do have evidence to discredit them. However, this is inevitably what happens when evidence is presented that discredits an individual's faith: that person retreats to a watered down version of deism, forsaking any of the sources that can be shown to be in error.

I argued against christianity because your usergroups show that you are a fundamentalist christian. Since I've (I believe) adequately shown that your religion's idea of god is not possible, I wonder now if you will change to the deist usergroup and philosophy, or if you will cling to your belief in the face of any and all evidence to the contrary.

Edit - I also note your change in position and claim prior to responding to my post. Your original statement:

It is a point of pride for many theists that they cling to their belief in the face of any and all evidence to the contrary.

I have never seen any such evidence. If you have it, please bring it out.

Note that the original statement referred to your belief, to which you responded you had never seen evidence to the contrary. In your most resent posts to Zzyzx and myself, you change the statement to mean "deism", though you use the word "theism."

To Zzyzx:

You misunderstood my response, I was responding to the existence of actual evidence that contradicts theism. I have never seen any such evidence.

To me:

We can find evidence against any specific man made god, but philosophers generally agree that the concept of theism is non-falsifiable, so it would be impossible to prove that theism is false, therefore I have not seen any evidence contrary to theism.

As I stated above, this is what happens when the theist is cornered while defending their beliefs.