|
![]() ![]() ![]() |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology |
![]() |
laconicsax
![]() |
Sat Aug-07-10 11:42 PM Original message |
Challenge to theists |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OneTenthofOnePercent
![]() |
Sat Aug-07-10 11:45 PM Response to Original message |
1. Beliefs are personal opinions. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
laconicsax
![]() |
Sat Aug-07-10 11:54 PM Response to Reply #1 |
2. If you make a claim in the public forum (eg there is a god) that claim is open to scrutiny |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Realityhack
![]() |
Tue Aug-10-10 04:34 PM Response to Reply #1 |
86. I missed where anyone said otherwise. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
cleanhippie
![]() |
Wed Aug-11-10 09:27 AM Response to Reply #1 |
99. Not so, when someone claims they have the "truth" and that we should all believe or be killed |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Zadoc
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 02:57 AM Response to Reply #1 |
117. Sure, they have the right... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Warpy
![]() |
Sat Aug-07-10 11:54 PM Response to Original message |
3. Even Genesis called it a collaborative enterprise |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
laconicsax
![]() |
Sat Aug-07-10 11:57 PM Response to Reply #3 |
4. Using the Bible is circular. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Warpy
![]() |
Sun Aug-08-10 12:06 AM Response to Reply #4 |
6. The Elhoistic portion of Genesis, the creation myth before |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
laconicsax
![]() |
Sun Aug-08-10 12:41 AM Response to Reply #6 |
11. The polytheism is sort of like bookends... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Warpy
![]() |
Sun Aug-08-10 12:43 AM Response to Reply #11 |
12. Well, it's a bit different at the end, sort of a |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
laconicsax
![]() |
Sun Aug-08-10 12:46 AM Response to Reply #12 |
13. It's both. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Leontius
![]() |
Sun Aug-08-10 09:12 AM Response to Reply #4 |
24. There seems to be a constant "truth" the Bible cannot be |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
laconicsax
![]() |
Sun Aug-08-10 06:31 PM Response to Reply #24 |
37. Sure. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Leontius
![]() |
Sun Aug-08-10 07:05 PM Response to Reply #37 |
45. Your answer failed to address my question, try again if you wish. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
laconicsax
![]() |
Sun Aug-08-10 07:58 PM Response to Reply #45 |
47. That "worn out example" is all that's needed--circular argument isn't valid. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Leontius
![]() |
Sun Aug-08-10 08:21 PM Response to Reply #47 |
51. Failed again but do keep trying you may actually hit on |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
laconicsax
![]() |
Sun Aug-08-10 09:13 PM Response to Reply #51 |
52. Maybe you'd like to explain why you think the Bible is a reliable source. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
cleanhippie
![]() |
Tue Aug-10-10 04:23 PM Response to Reply #51 |
85. Failed again? How so? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ZombieHorde
![]() |
Sun Aug-08-10 09:32 PM Response to Reply #45 |
53. What is wrong with the classics? nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
humblebum
![]() |
Tue Aug-10-10 04:35 PM Response to Reply #37 |
87. that is a rather weak argument, but one bandied about as standard atheist |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
darkstar3
![]() |
Tue Aug-10-10 08:45 PM Response to Reply #87 |
94. You're telling the rest of us you can't see outside the circle in that argument? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
skepticscott
![]() |
Tue Aug-10-10 09:53 PM Response to Reply #87 |
96. And you know for certain what the authors of the Bible |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
humblebum
![]() |
Tue Aug-10-10 10:55 PM Response to Reply #96 |
97. "...idiotic and intellectually dishonest a characterization of empiricism..." |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
darkstar3
![]() |
Wed Aug-11-10 12:00 AM Response to Reply #97 |
98. Buzz! Wrong. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
cleanhippie
![]() |
Wed Aug-11-10 09:32 AM Response to Reply #97 |
100. "The Bible can most certainly be used as part of any research toward or attempt in understanding an" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
skepticscott
![]() |
Wed Aug-11-10 04:58 PM Response to Reply #97 |
104. What you said was |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
humblebum
![]() |
Wed Aug-11-10 05:59 PM Response to Reply #104 |
106. First question. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
skepticscott
![]() |
Wed Aug-11-10 08:18 PM Response to Reply #106 |
109. Another non-answer |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
humblebum
![]() |
Wed Aug-11-10 11:17 PM Response to Reply #109 |
110. I'm beginning to see that you are just rambling to give people |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
darkstar3
![]() |
Wed Aug-11-10 11:53 PM Response to Reply #110 |
111. There's that projection again...n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
laconicsax
![]() |
Thu Aug-12-10 12:10 AM Response to Reply #111 |
112. Something tells me he has a bitter rivalry with a measurement device. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
darkstar3
![]() |
Thu Aug-12-10 12:43 AM Response to Reply #112 |
113. Well done. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
skepticscott
![]() |
Thu Aug-12-10 05:33 PM Response to Reply #110 |
115. Still more non-answers |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
RandomThoughts
![]() |
Sun Aug-08-10 12:02 AM Response to Original message |
5. Why would someone think there is more then One True God? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
laconicsax
![]() |
Sun Aug-08-10 12:35 AM Response to Reply #5 |
10. That has to be the most arrogant thing I've read in a while. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
RandomThoughts
![]() |
Sun Aug-08-10 01:05 AM Response to Reply #10 |
14. I understand people have different views. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Angry Dragon
![]() |
Sat Aug-14-10 10:12 PM Response to Reply #5 |
116. And what is the One True God?? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TreasonousBastard
![]() |
Sun Aug-08-10 12:20 AM Response to Original message |
7. He can stick his challenge back up his atheistic ass... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
laconicsax
![]() |
Sun Aug-08-10 12:31 AM Response to Reply #7 |
8. I'll make sure to PM you with links to each and every instance I find... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
RandomThoughts
![]() |
Sun Aug-08-10 02:24 AM Response to Reply #8 |
17. By definition faith is not making a true or false claim. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
laconicsax
![]() |
Sun Aug-08-10 03:59 AM Response to Reply #17 |
20. A couple things. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
darkstar3
![]() |
Sun Aug-08-10 12:32 AM Response to Reply #7 |
9. Shall we genuflect and call you "master" as well? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
RandomThoughts
![]() |
Sun Aug-08-10 01:29 AM Response to Reply #7 |
15. I try not to worry about it either. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
laconicsax
![]() |
Sun Aug-08-10 02:07 AM Response to Reply #15 |
16. The challenge is to prove the foundation of an argument. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
RandomThoughts
![]() |
Sun Aug-08-10 02:31 AM Response to Reply #16 |
18. Oh you want proof of what the supernatural is. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
laconicsax
![]() |
Sun Aug-08-10 03:39 AM Response to Reply #18 |
19. That's not at all what I said, nor is it what I meant. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
RandomThoughts
![]() |
Sun Aug-08-10 04:44 AM Response to Reply #19 |
21. Ok you might be missing my point. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
laconicsax
![]() |
Sun Aug-08-10 03:24 PM Response to Reply #21 |
30. No, I got your point. It just happens to be completely off the mark from what I'm saying. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
RandomThoughts
![]() |
Sun Aug-08-10 05:01 AM Response to Reply #19 |
22. Can you agree that proof is subjective. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
laconicsax
![]() |
Sun Aug-08-10 03:29 PM Response to Reply #22 |
31. Only for some things. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ironbark
![]() |
Sun Aug-08-10 09:14 AM Response to Reply #19 |
25. The persuasion of probability is not and cannot be proof. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
laconicsax
![]() |
Sun Aug-08-10 03:18 PM Response to Reply #25 |
29. I never said it was the argument...I said it was an argument. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ironbark
![]() |
Sun Aug-08-10 06:55 PM Response to Reply #29 |
43. “The” or “an”, the parameters are too limited to be any kind of “argument”. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
laconicsax
![]() |
Sun Aug-08-10 08:13 PM Response to Reply #43 |
49. Argumentum ad ignorantiam, arugumentum ad populum, circular argument. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Name removed
![]() |
Sun Aug-08-10 10:12 PM Response to Reply #49 |
55. Deleted message |
laconicsax
![]() |
Sun Aug-08-10 11:17 PM Response to Reply #55 |
58. Ad hominem. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
cleanhippie
![]() |
Wed Aug-11-10 09:36 AM Response to Reply #15 |
101. "If God wanted everyone to know exactly what was what, they would." |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
laconicsax
![]() |
Thu Aug-12-10 05:09 PM Response to Reply #101 |
114. That actually follows logically from omnipotence. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rug
![]() |
Sun Aug-08-10 09:02 AM Response to Original message |
23. The second god would not be god. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rrneck
![]() |
Sun Aug-08-10 11:36 AM Response to Reply #23 |
26. For you or for everybody? nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rug
![]() |
Sun Aug-08-10 11:41 AM Response to Reply #26 |
27. If there is a god it is for everybody. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rrneck
![]() |
Sun Aug-08-10 01:58 PM Response to Reply #27 |
28. If your god is for everybody, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rug
![]() |
Sun Aug-08-10 05:52 PM Response to Reply #28 |
32. It's not "my" god and if there is one there are no others to supersede. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rrneck
![]() |
Sun Aug-08-10 06:09 PM Response to Reply #32 |
34. Whose god if not yours? nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rug
![]() |
Sun Aug-08-10 06:13 PM Response to Reply #34 |
35. Ours. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rrneck
![]() |
Sun Aug-08-10 06:29 PM Response to Reply #35 |
36. Then whatever gods |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rug
![]() |
Sun Aug-08-10 06:34 PM Response to Reply #36 |
39. No, whether god does or does not exist does not depend on belief or disbelief. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rrneck
![]() |
Sun Aug-08-10 06:38 PM Response to Reply #39 |
40. Then how'd you get the first one |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rug
![]() |
Sun Aug-08-10 06:43 PM Response to Reply #40 |
41. Belief no more makes a god than disbelief destroys it. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rrneck
![]() |
Sun Aug-08-10 06:51 PM Response to Reply #41 |
42. Revelation of what exactly? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rug
![]() |
Sun Aug-08-10 06:55 PM Response to Reply #42 |
44. I can't but he does |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rrneck
![]() |
Sun Aug-08-10 07:44 PM Response to Reply #44 |
46. Can you not describe your own god? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rug
![]() |
Sun Aug-08-10 10:46 PM Response to Reply #46 |
57. For one thing, you don't have to accept it. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rrneck
![]() |
Sun Aug-08-10 11:25 PM Response to Reply #57 |
59. According to you I have to accept it. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rug
![]() |
Sun Aug-08-10 11:35 PM Response to Reply #59 |
60. You don't have to accept global warming either. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rrneck
![]() |
Sun Aug-08-10 11:57 PM Response to Reply #60 |
63. Is god as real as global warming? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rug
![]() |
Sun Aug-08-10 11:59 PM Response to Reply #63 |
64. Yes. No. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rrneck
![]() |
Mon Aug-09-10 12:09 AM Response to Reply #64 |
66. *sigh* It happens all the time. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ironbark
![]() |
Sun Aug-08-10 08:08 PM Response to Reply #44 |
48. Interesting article. Thanks for the link. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rug
![]() |
Sun Aug-08-10 10:35 PM Response to Reply #48 |
56. Glad you found it interesting. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
cleanhippie
![]() |
Wed Aug-11-10 09:41 AM Response to Reply #41 |
102. "What is disbelief based on?" - Are you serious? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rrneck
![]() |
Wed Aug-11-10 11:26 AM Response to Reply #102 |
103. Witnessing cognitive dissonance |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rug
![]() |
Wed Aug-11-10 05:34 PM Response to Reply #102 |
105. Deadly serious. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
cleanhippie
![]() |
Wed Aug-11-10 06:01 PM Response to Reply #105 |
107. Lack of evidence. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rug
![]() |
Wed Aug-11-10 06:06 PM Response to Reply #107 |
108. What do you use to weigh the evidence? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
laconicsax
![]() |
Sun Aug-08-10 08:17 PM Response to Reply #23 |
50. So monotheism is the only possibility? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rug
![]() |
Sun Aug-08-10 11:51 PM Response to Reply #50 |
61. There really is no true polytheism. Even Hinduism has Svayam Bhagavan. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
laconicsax
![]() |
Mon Aug-09-10 12:09 AM Response to Reply #61 |
65. So the limits of polytheism must be defined by what has already been imagined? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rug
![]() |
Mon Aug-09-10 12:18 AM Response to Reply #65 |
67. Convince me. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rrneck
![]() |
Mon Aug-09-10 12:40 AM Response to Reply #67 |
68. Why would anybody want to do that |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
laconicsax
![]() |
Mon Aug-09-10 12:54 AM Response to Reply #67 |
69. Of what? I asked you a question. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ZombieHorde
![]() |
Sun Aug-08-10 09:33 PM Response to Reply #23 |
54. Why not? nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rug
![]() |
Sun Aug-08-10 11:52 PM Response to Reply #54 |
62. A god that is second is, ipso facto, limited. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ZombieHorde
![]() |
Mon Aug-09-10 03:12 AM Response to Reply #62 |
70. Why would the second god be limited, why couldn't they be equal? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rug
![]() |
Mon Aug-09-10 12:02 PM Response to Reply #70 |
74. If something is limited it cannot be god. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ZombieHorde
![]() |
Mon Aug-09-10 02:04 PM Response to Reply #74 |
78. The Greek and Roman gods were limited and the Old Testament portrays god as limited. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rug
![]() |
Mon Aug-09-10 02:16 PM Response to Reply #78 |
79. The classical gods were more conceits than divinities. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ZombieHorde
![]() |
Tue Aug-10-10 02:16 PM Response to Reply #79 |
83. The Greek gods were worshiped, especially Demeter and Dionysus. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rug
![]() |
Tue Aug-10-10 07:16 PM Response to Reply #83 |
89. The OT is as much a description of human nature as it is of God's. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ZombieHorde
![]() |
Tue Aug-10-10 07:28 PM Response to Reply #89 |
91. Creating gods is an aspect of human behavior (nature). |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
laconicsax
![]() |
Tue Aug-10-10 03:55 PM Response to Reply #79 |
84. Too bad the Bible doesn't agree. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rug
![]() |
Tue Aug-10-10 07:17 PM Response to Reply #84 |
90. Yes that's exactly what that one line means. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
laconicsax
![]() |
Tue Aug-10-10 08:21 PM Response to Reply #90 |
92. It's exactly what that one line says. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rug
![]() |
Tue Aug-10-10 08:41 PM Response to Reply #92 |
93. He was waiting for Sisera |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
laconicsax
![]() |
Tue Aug-10-10 08:49 PM Response to Reply #93 |
95. I accept your apology. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
frogmarch
![]() |
Sun Aug-08-10 06:00 PM Response to Original message |
33. I watched the long version too. Excellent! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
laconicsax
![]() |
Sun Aug-08-10 06:32 PM Response to Reply #33 |
38. Nice. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
WolverineDG
![]() |
Mon Aug-09-10 10:13 AM Response to Original message |
71. Why? Scientists can't agree on how the universe was formed |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rrneck
![]() |
Mon Aug-09-10 11:08 AM Response to Reply #71 |
72. Try it and see. Maybe you both will learn somenting. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
WolverineDG
![]() |
Mon Aug-09-10 11:56 AM Response to Reply #72 |
73. Again, why? Nothing I say will be accepted anyway nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rrneck
![]() |
Mon Aug-09-10 12:02 PM Response to Reply #73 |
75. Does acceptance matter? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
WolverineDG
![]() |
Mon Aug-09-10 12:15 PM Response to Reply #75 |
76. Yes, it does |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rrneck
![]() |
Mon Aug-09-10 12:20 PM Response to Reply #76 |
77. Suit yourself. No hard feelings. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
laconicsax
![]() |
Mon Aug-09-10 07:27 PM Response to Reply #71 |
80. No one's asking you to prove your beliefs. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
WolverineDG
![]() |
Mon Aug-09-10 07:37 PM Response to Reply #80 |
81. Oh please stop being disingenuous |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
laconicsax
![]() |
Mon Aug-09-10 10:10 PM Response to Reply #81 |
82. You couldn't be further from the truth. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ironbark
![]() |
Tue Aug-10-10 05:57 PM Response to Reply #81 |
88. The evidence supports your pov. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Sun Jun 23rd 2024, 04:58 PM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology |
![]() |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC