« Previous 1 ... 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 ... 403 Next »
(17-02-2014 10:00 AM)Im_Ryan Wrote:
have you taken a look at your evidence? your an atheist and yet have no proof or really any reasonable possibility exept theories of what kicked off the big bang. you asked if where is your gods start. I told you and The bible is proof of it really if you want to go down that road.
(17-02-2014 09:59 AM)Alex_Leonardo Wrote:
(17-02-2014 09:52 AM)Im_Ryan Wrote: Once again, you're pleading from ignorance.
17-02-2014, 10:08 AM
(17-02-2014 10:01 AM)Logisch Wrote:
ya but a mythical creature didn't send a book of predicted prophecies
Do everyone a favor and go kill yourself. It's win win you get to go meet Jesus and the world is a better place without your stupidity dragging the planet down. You are the reason America is falling behind the rest of the world.
Chas (17-02-2014), WillHopp (17-02-2014), Tartarus Sauce (17-02-2014)
(17-02-2014 10:08 AM)goldenmustache Wrote:
(17-02-2014 10:01 AM)Logisch Wrote: But it isn't, because you don't even explain:
17-02-2014, 10:14 AM (This post was last modified: 17-02-2014 10:23 AM by Logisch.)
(17-02-2014 10:05 AM)goldenmustache Wrote:
(17-02-2014 10:00 AM)Im_Ryan Wrote: Then prove it, validity does not suffer from lack of evidence nor personal perception.
How is the bible proof of it any more than the qu'ran is proof of their god?
By this logic, we could also conclude that Laws of Manu is proof of Shiva, Vishni or Devi. Since the epic of gilgamesh is a known, proven ancient artifact, how could you dismiss that it is proof of an ancient flood caused by the gods when it's clear that Ishtar exists. I mean she's mentioned in it right? Clearly Ishtar exists too.
Atheism requires no evidence because it is a stance on the subject. It is literally, "I lack belief in a god or gods." there is no need to meet a burden of proof there as it is the default stance of many things. If someone makes a claim and cannot bring evidence to meet their burden of proof, the default stance of the person who is skeptical is not that they are in a sub sect of non-belief. They simply don't believe it.
If someone says you are guilty of murder, is it not on them to prove that you did it since they are the one posting the claim? For those who are on the end of the jury, the default is to not make an accusation in lieu of evidence. No evidence, can't hold them guilty.
In this same way, god is either guilty or not guilty of existing. You are posting the claim, and you say, "my evidence is a book." and we are saying, "then why are the other books false and YOURS true?" and all you are going back to is, "Book." I'm saying, "Your book doesn't meet this criteria any more than any other ancient book." and that your evidence is lacking. Aside from citing the same website over and over, you are failing to explain why and how your holy book is a convincing manner to prove that:
- the bible is true
- god exists outside time and space
- how you know this
If you cannot meet the burden of proof to these claims, then my default stance is, "god is not guilty of existing. the bible is not guilty of being correct. god is not guilty of being outside of time and space. goldenmustache is not guilty of knowing this is true."
You're doing a tapdance avoiding the questions and then telling us, who are the ones skeptical of your claim that we need proof of our skepticism. This is not how skepticism and non-belief works. Someone who does not believe something is not the person who is required to post the evidence, the person staking the claim does.
So tell me, why is your book the correct book. Why are the Laws of Manu incorrect? Since you're using ancient text as your proof, you're going to need to explain to me why every other ancient text of other religions are false and only yours is correct.
17-02-2014, 10:16 AM
(17-02-2014 09:55 AM)docskeptic Wrote:
(16-02-2014 10:17 PM)DLJ Wrote: From the Intro thread:
I had a revelation from god.
Genesis is a creation myth like hundreds of others throughout hundreds of other cultures. Nothing more.
You shouldn't believe it because there is no evidence to back up the story and many parts of the story do not match real observations of the universe and the beginnings of it's expansion. Nothing about it is factual. It is fictional.
Animals weren't created. Humans weren't created. Everything wasn't created.
We know this because we observed reality and discovered the evolution of all biology and have shown how it's all connected.
We know how stars form and how solar systems form. We know that for heavier elements to exist, they need to form in stars and those stars then need to explode, casting out those heavy elements, like carbon, so all of that matter can form a new star system in which life has the potential to arise.
The story of genesis reads like the ramblings of a homeless person.
The fact that you would believe it, indicates a high level of brain washing.
The reason why I'm atheist is because I looked at the proof. I've taken courses in biology, chemistry, physics, and geology. I plan on taking anthropology and psychology in college. The difference is understand what's being told, you don't know. You can't even cite a single scrap of evidence when pressed, you shift the blame onto me like I'm the one with the burden of proof. I have some bad news for you...
(17-02-2014 10:08 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:
(17-02-2014 10:06 AM)goldenmustache Wrote: yeah and evolution doesn't prove that.
« Previous 1 ... 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 ... 403 Next »
(17-02-2014 10:00 AM)Im_Ryan Wrote:
have you taken a look at your evidence? your an atheist and yet have no proof or really any reasonable possibility exept theories of what kicked off the big bang. you asked if where is your gods start. I told you and The bible is proof of it really if you want to go down that road.
(17-02-2014 09:59 AM)Alex_Leonardo Wrote:
(17-02-2014 09:52 AM)Im_Ryan Wrote: Once again, you're pleading from ignorance.
17-02-2014, 10:08 AM
(17-02-2014 10:01 AM)Logisch Wrote:
ya but a mythical creature didn't send a book of predicted prophecies
Do everyone a favor and go kill yourself. It's win win you get to go meet Jesus and the world is a better place without your stupidity dragging the planet down. You are the reason America is falling behind the rest of the world.
Chas (17-02-2014), WillHopp (17-02-2014), Tartarus Sauce (17-02-2014)
(17-02-2014 10:08 AM)goldenmustache Wrote:
(17-02-2014 10:01 AM)Logisch Wrote: But it isn't, because you don't even explain:
17-02-2014, 10:14 AM (This post was last modified: 17-02-2014 10:23 AM by Logisch.)
(17-02-2014 10:05 AM)goldenmustache Wrote:
(17-02-2014 10:00 AM)Im_Ryan Wrote: Then prove it, validity does not suffer from lack of evidence nor personal perception.
How is the bible proof of it any more than the qu'ran is proof of their god?
By this logic, we could also conclude that Laws of Manu is proof of Shiva, Vishni or Devi. Since the epic of gilgamesh is a known, proven ancient artifact, how could you dismiss that it is proof of an ancient flood caused by the gods when it's clear that Ishtar exists. I mean she's mentioned in it right? Clearly Ishtar exists too.
Atheism requires no evidence because it is a stance on the subject. It is literally, "I lack belief in a god or gods." there is no need to meet a burden of proof there as it is the default stance of many things. If someone makes a claim and cannot bring evidence to meet their burden of proof, the default stance of the person who is skeptical is not that they are in a sub sect of non-belief. They simply don't believe it.
If someone says you are guilty of murder, is it not on them to prove that you did it since they are the one posting the claim? For those who are on the end of the jury, the default is to not make an accusation in lieu of evidence. No evidence, can't hold them guilty.
In this same way, god is either guilty or not guilty of existing. You are posting the claim, and you say, "my evidence is a book." and we are saying, "then why are the other books false and YOURS true?" and all you are going back to is, "Book." I'm saying, "Your book doesn't meet this criteria any more than any other ancient book." and that
 your evidence is lacking. Aside from citing the same website over and over, you are failing to explain why and how your holy book is a convincing manner to prove that:
- the bible is true
- god exists outside time and space
- how you know this
If you cannot meet the burden of proof to these claims, then my default stance is, "god is not guilty of existing. the bible is not guilty of being correct. god is not guilty of being outside of time and space. goldenmustache is not guilty of knowing this is true."
You're doing a tapdance avoiding the questions and then telling us, who are the ones skeptical of your claim that we need proof of our skepticism. This is not how skepticism and non-belief works. Someone who does not believe something is not the person who is required to post the evidence, the person staking the claim does.
So tell me, why is your book the correct book. Why are the Laws of Manu incorrect? Since you're using ancient text as your proof, you're going to need to explain to me why every other ancient text of other religions are false and only yours is correct.
17-02-2014, 10:16 AM
(17-02-2014 09:55 AM)docskeptic Wrote:
(16-02-2014 10:17 PM)DLJ Wrote: From the Intro thread:
I had a revelation from god.
Genesis is a creation myth like hundreds of others throughout hundreds of other cultures. Nothing more.
You shouldn't believe it because there is no evidence to back up the story and many parts of the story do not match real observations of the universe and the beginnings of it's expansion. Nothing about it is factual. It is fictional.
Animals weren't created. Humans weren't created. Everything wasn't created.
We know this because we observed reality and discovered the evolution of all biology and have shown how it's all connected.
We know how stars form and how solar systems form. We know that for heavier elements to exist, they need to form in stars and those stars then need to explode, casting out those heavy elements, like carbon, so all of that matter can form a new star system in which life has the potential to arise.
The story of genesis reads like the ramblings of a homeless person.
The fact that you would believe it, indicates a high level of brain washing.
The reason why I'm atheist is because I looked at the proof. I've taken courses in biology, chemistry, physics, and geology. I plan on taking anthropology and psychology in college. The difference is understand what's being told, you don't know. You can't even cite a single scrap of evidence when pressed, you shift the blame onto me like I'm the one with the burden of proof. I have some bad news for you...
(17-02-2014 10:08 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:
(17-02-2014 10:06 AM)goldenmustache Wrote: yeah and evolution doesn't prove that.