Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Logical Disproofs of a Biblical Type God
#76

Logical Disproofs of a Biblical Type God
(06-04-2021, 08:11 PM)JohnJubinsky Wrote:
(06-04-2021, 07:30 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(06-04-2021, 06:26 PM)JohnJubinsky Wrote: It is clear from my remarks associated with worship in disproof 1.) that by worship I meant the free desire to hold others in prostration. I hope you are not sayings that good beings could freely desire to hold others in prostration.

Since you never ever provided the definition of the god you're talking about, it's pointless to continue with these irrelevant points.
Is there anywhere in the Bible that says that any god wants to hold anyone "in prostration" ? No. You can't even post a textual reference.  
Your point is meaningless, as there is nowhere in the texts called the "Bible", that says that. You made it up.
Just like you made up/invented most of the things you say about this god.  

Your present values may be what you claim about a god,
but being an ignorant about history in general, cultural history, Comparative Mythology, World Religions, etc etc  
disqualifies you from this discussion. Your personal present ("self-evident" ... LOL) opinions are determinative of nothing.

The first commandment in the Bible says a Biblical type god wants to hold others in prostration. Moreover, the definition of a Biblical type god that I used in the disproofs is that of a god that is at least all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good and freely wants to be worshiped by others.

"I am the Lord thy god, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage."

This just identifies who G-d is. I've been taught that it means that this G-d is saying he's the deity of the Hebrew people, and that the Hebrew people should not worship others. I don't see where you're seeing anything about people prostrating themselves.
Reply
#77

Logical Disproofs of a Biblical Type God
(06-04-2021, 08:54 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(06-04-2021, 08:11 PM)JohnJubinsky Wrote:
(06-04-2021, 07:30 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: Since you never ever provided the definition of the god you're talking about, it's pointless to continue with these irrelevant points.
Is there anywhere in the Bible that says that any god wants to hold anyone "in prostration" ? No. You can't even post a textual reference.  
Your point is meaningless, as there is nowhere in the texts called the "Bible", that says that. You made it up.
Just like you made up/invented most of the things you say about this god.  

Your present values may be what you claim about a god,
but being an ignorant about history in general, cultural history, Comparative Mythology, World Religions, etc etc  
disqualifies you from this discussion. Your personal present ("self-evident" ... LOL) opinions are determinative of nothing.

The first commandment in the Bible says a Biblical type god wants to hold others in prostration. Moreover, the definition of a Biblical type god that I used in the disproofs is that of a god that is at least all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good and freely wants to be worshiped by others.


Wrong again.

Quote:I am the Lord thy God! Thou shalt have no other gods before me!

Nothing about "prostration". Do you even know what the word means ?
Apparently not.
Commandment #1 is about the "covenant" the Hebrews made with one of the gods, (the god of war), (they were not monotheistic, they were monolateralist polytheists) ...
that they would worship only him, in exchange for help in battle. You actually never took even one class on the Bible, or the history of the period did you ?
And in fact, it actually leaves room for other gods, as long as Yahweh is first, (which was how it worked ... he had a wife, and they worshipped her also).

For you to make a *claim* concerning a "Biblical type god", you need to reference the texts that demonstrate the Bible says what you *claim* it says.
Then you get to reference scholars who actually support that the texts are saying what you *claim* it says.

You STILL have in no way supported the concept that your personal opinions about gods, and what they should or should not be, ... is, or ought to be a standard for anything.
All you're doing is "projeceting", and then claiming you proved something.

Philosophers and thinkers have been attempting to disprove the gods for thousands of years.
There are still billions of theists.
Why is it you actually think any of this baloney is somehow original ?
Atheists don't need "help". You don't actually, for one second, think theists would find this "stuff", based on nothing but your personal opinions, ... convincing, do you ?

The first commandment says that a Biblical type god holds that it should be worshiped second to none. Moreover, a Biblical type god is one that is at least all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good and freely wants to be worshiped by others. One does not have to have a PhD in theology to know these things. Most Christians and Jews know them because of their religious upbringings. I for example was a confirmed Catholic before becoming a secular humanist. These things were taught to me by the Catholic church through the scriptures. Claiming that others cannot possibly think for themselves because they do not have formal religious degrees is a copout. I know enough about a Biblical type god to recognize from the above characteristics that it has a self-contradictory definition and, therefore, cannot exist. The disproofs are founded in this and could be helpful to atheists who are defending themselves against theists. You almost sound like you want to be worshiped yourself.
The following 1 user Likes JohnJubinsky's post:
  • Alan V
Reply
#78

Logical Disproofs of a Biblical Type God
Oh, so I have to get out the special Catlicker dictionary of theology. Give me a minute. I think it's in the back room.
[Image: sea-stones-whimsy-7-sm.jpg]
Reply
#79

Logical Disproofs of a Biblical Type God
(06-04-2021, 09:59 PM)JohnJubinsky Wrote: The first commandment says that a Biblical type god holds that it should be worshiped second to none.

It says nothing about "prostration". Moving the goal posts is not helping you.

Quote:Moreover, a Biblical type god is one that is at least all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good and freely wants to be worshiped by others. One does not have to have a PhD in theology to know these things.

Not because you, a non-scholar who can't even come up with references, textual or scholarly, says so.

Quote:Most Christians and Jews know them because of their religious upbringings.

Really ? Prove it. Please cite your poll of these people.

Quote:I for example was a confirmed Catholic before becoming a secular humanist. These things were taught to me by the Catholic church through the scriptures. Claiming that others cannot possibly think for themselves because they do not have formal religious degrees is a copout.

I never said that. Resorting to lying now ?
If what you say is true, you should be able to provide evidentiary support for what you claim.
There are 33,000 sects of Christians ... they all believe different things about the god(s), there are all kinds of Catholics who pick and chose what they accept, which is why there is the expression "cafeteria Catholic". You assumption that the vast array of theist beliefs can be boiled down to a "Biblical-type god" is totally false. You're jousting at windmills.

Quote:I know enough about a Biblical type god to recognize from the above characteristics that it has a self-contradictory definition and, therefore, cannot exist. The disproofs are founded in this and could be helpful to atheists who are defending themselves against theists. You almost sound like you want to be worshiped yourself.

Maybe, but you don't know enough to provide references, either Biblical or scholarly. You also have not said by what system of logic you say it cannot exist. There are many systems of logic, and some do not apply. Why is it yours does, without so much as a word explaining why ? You have not demonstrated how you know deity contradictions prove they can't exist. What if they're just different aspects of the god ? Humans have contradictory aspects of their personalities, and they exist. Clearly you have never debated a theist. They're not going to accept any of this crap, based on nothing but your personal, unsupported, uneducated opinions.

I don't need to be worshiped.
What is important is that people who *think* they're making sound arguments, but lack even the basic knowledge of what they're pretending they know something about,
lack basic knowledge of logics, and what they allow someone to generalize from, and provide absolutely no supporting evidence other than a recitation of their personal opinions, and when asked, say "it's self-evident" ... who actually think their shit is *so* good it needs to be copyrighted, ... what is important is that someone disabuse them of their deusions.
Reply
#80

Logical Disproofs of a Biblical Type God
(06-04-2021, 10:32 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(06-04-2021, 09:59 PM)JohnJubinsky Wrote: The first commandment says that a Biblical type god holds that it should be worshiped second to none.

It says nothing about "prostration". Moving the goal posts is not helping you.

Quote:Moreover, a Biblical type god is one that is at least all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good and freely wants to be worshiped by others. One does not have to have a PhD in theology to know these things.

Not because you, a non-scholar who can't even come up with references, textual or scholarly, says so.

Quote:Most Christians and Jews know them because of their religious upbringings.

Really ? Prove it. Please cite your poll of these people.

Quote:I for example was a confirmed Catholic before becoming a secular humanist. These things were taught to me by the Catholic church through the scriptures. Claiming that others cannot possibly think for themselves because they do not have formal religious degrees is a copout.

I never said that. Resorting to lying now ?
If what you say is true, you should be able to provide evidentiary support for what you claim.
There are 33,000 sects of Christians ... they all believe different things about the god(s), there are all kinds of Catholics who pick and chose what they accept, which is why there is the expression "cafeteria Catholic". You assumption that the vast array of theist beliefs can be boiled down to a "Biblical-type god" is totally false. You're jousting at windmills.

Quote:I know enough about a Biblical type god to recognize from the above characteristics that it has a self-contradictory definition and, therefore, cannot exist. The disproofs are founded in this and could be helpful to atheists who are defending themselves against theists. You almost sound like you want to be worshiped yourself.

Maybe, but you don't know enough to provide references, either Biblical or scholarly. You also have not said by what system of logic you say it cannot exist. There are many systems of logic, and some do not apply. Why is it yours does, without so much as a word explaining why ? You have not demonstrated how you know deity contradictions prove they can't exist. What if they're just different aspects of the god ? Humans have contradictory aspects of their personalities, and they exist. Clearly you have never debated a theist. They're not going to accept any of this crap, based on nothing but your personal, unsupported, uneducated opinions.

I don't need to be worshiped.
What is important is that people who *think* they're making sound arguments, but lack even the basic knowledge of what they're pretending they know something about,
lack basic knowledge of logics, and what they allow someone to generalize from, and provide absolutely no supporting evidence other than a recitation of their personal opinions, and when asked, say "it's self-evident" ... who actually think their shit is *so* good it needs to be copyrighted, ... what is important is that someone disabuse them of their deusions.

Very respectfully, you are entitled to your opinion.
Reply
#81

Logical Disproofs of a Biblical Type God
(06-04-2021, 11:11 PM)JohnJubinsky Wrote:
(06-04-2021, 10:32 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(06-04-2021, 09:59 PM)JohnJubinsky Wrote: The first commandment says that a Biblical type god holds that it should be worshiped second to none.

It says nothing about "prostration". Moving the goal posts is not helping you.

Quote:Moreover, a Biblical type god is one that is at least all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good and freely wants to be worshiped by others. One does not have to have a PhD in theology to know these things.

Not because you, a non-scholar who can't even come up with references, textual or scholarly, says so.

Quote:Most Christians and Jews know them because of their religious upbringings.

Really ? Prove it. Please cite your poll of these people.

Quote:I for example was a confirmed Catholic before becoming a secular humanist. These things were taught to me by the Catholic church through the scriptures. Claiming that others cannot possibly think for themselves because they do not have formal religious degrees is a copout.

I never said that. Resorting to lying now ?
If what you say is true, you should be able to provide evidentiary support for what you claim.
There are 33,000 sects of Christians ... they all believe different things about the god(s), there are all kinds of Catholics who pick and chose what they accept, which is why there is the expression "cafeteria Catholic". You assumption that the vast array of theist beliefs can be boiled down to a "Biblical-type god" is totally false. You're jousting at windmills.

Quote:I know enough about a Biblical type god to recognize from the above characteristics that it has a self-contradictory definition and, therefore, cannot exist. The disproofs are founded in this and could be helpful to atheists who are defending themselves against theists. You almost sound like you want to be worshiped yourself.

Maybe, but you don't know enough to provide references, either Biblical or scholarly. You also have not said by what system of logic you say it cannot exist. There are many systems of logic, and some do not apply. Why is it yours does, without so much as a word explaining why ? You have not demonstrated how you know deity contradictions prove they can't exist. What if they're just different aspects of the god ? Humans have contradictory aspects of their personalities, and they exist. Clearly you have never debated a theist. They're not going to accept any of this crap, based on nothing but your personal, unsupported, uneducated opinions.

I don't need to be worshiped.
What is important is that people who *think* they're making sound arguments, but lack even the basic knowledge of what they're pretending they know something about,
lack basic knowledge of logics, and what they allow someone to generalize from, and provide absolutely no supporting evidence other than a recitation of their personal opinions, and when asked, say "it's self-evident" ... who actually think their shit is *so* good it needs to be copyrighted, ... what is important is that someone disabuse them of their deusions.

Very respectfully, you are entitled to your opinion.

The important difference is, I provide support for my opinions.
I don't just say they are "self-evident".

It is a FACT you have not stated or supported you system of logic, or told us how you know it's applicable to the gods.
It is a FACT you have not demonstraed that what you call "contradictions" prove something doesn't exist.

Chuckle
Reply
#82

Logical Disproofs of a Biblical Type God
(06-04-2021, 03:11 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(06-04-2021, 12:24 AM)JohnJubinsky Wrote:
(06-03-2021, 09:27 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: There is no "simple basic right and wrong". Some cultures hold some things wrong, and some do not.
The underlying assumptions in the OP are hardly "simple basic right and wrong".
They are not "common knowledge".
About 1/2 of the US population calls abortion cold-blooded murder.
About 1/2 does not.
All your assumptions are without basis.
Criminal insanity, (and its definition) is irrelevant in a logical argument. Two totally different things.

You arguments fail totally.
You cannot define what a "Biblical-type god" even is.

The premises that I used, although not expressly stated, are self-eviident. You have the right to disagree with them.

Fail, and fail again.
They may be "self-evident" to you, but no one else even knows what they are.
Your assumption that everyone accepts what, to you, is "self-evident" betrays your level of ignorance and naivete.
In no world except the tiny little one you apparently live in, does that crap fly as an argument.  
BTW, you STILL have not defined the god(s) you're talking about.
You clearly know nothing about the Bible. The god of the Bible was said to be incomprehensible. How is it, your god of the Bible is, and you seem to know a great deal about it ?
If you can't state them, you don't have any. You're just a really lazy debater.
No one ever has come here with this particular line of bullshit.
Are you like 12 ? It's self evident you never ever debated or argued a topic with anyone.

In fact, your "self-evident" shit, is a fallacy. And it even has a name.
https://www2.humboldt.edu/act/HTML/tests...0incorrect.
"SELF EVIDENT TRUTHS (appeal to beliefs): arguing that a claim should be accepted based on evidence that is not presented, but is asserted to be well known or obvious, when the information is either not well known or is incorrect."

Grow up. Maybe you could join the debate club when you get to high school, and learn how this really works.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence
"A logical argument for a self-evident conclusion would demonstrate only an ignorance of the purpose of persuasively arguing for the conclusion based on one or more premises that differ from it (see ignoratio elenchi and begging the question). You really have no clue how this works, what your premises are, and what your spoken and unspoken assumptions are, do you ?

You haven't even begun to tell us which logic system you chose to use, and how it is you determined that one was the appropriate one for proving things about the gods ?

Maybe, if he needs to learn about these fallacies, you could teach him about them without being an asswipe about it.

It's that whole honey-vs-vinegar thing Mom hopefully told you about.

Just a thought.
Freedom isn't free.
The following 3 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • Alan V, Dom, Dancefortwo
Reply
#83

Logical Disproofs of a Biblical Type God
John,

You should place Bucky on ignore. He is not entitled to his "opinion," since he has behaved that way with a lot of different posters.
The following 5 users Like Alan V's post:
  • Dānu, Dom, Aliza, Thumpalumpacus, Percie
Reply
#84

Logical Disproofs of a Biblical Type God
(06-04-2021, 11:26 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(06-04-2021, 11:11 PM)JohnJubinsky Wrote:
(06-04-2021, 10:32 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: It says nothing about "prostration". Moving the goal posts is not helping you.


Not because you, a non-scholar who can't even come up with references, textual or scholarly, says so.


Really ? Prove it. Please cite your poll of these people.


I never said that. Resorting to lying now ?
If what you say is true, you should be able to provide evidentiary support for what you claim.
There are 33,000 sects of Christians ... they all believe different things about the god(s), there are all kinds of Catholics who pick and chose what they accept, which is why there is the expression "cafeteria Catholic". You assumption that the vast array of theist beliefs can be boiled down to a "Biblical-type god" is totally false. You're jousting at windmills.

Maybe, but you don't know enough to provide references, either Biblical or scholarly. You also have not said by what system of logic you say it cannot exist. There are many systems of logic, and some do not apply. Why is it yours does, without so much as a word explaining why ? You have not demonstrated how you know deity contradictions prove they can't exist. What if they're just different aspects of the god ? Humans have contradictory aspects of their personalities, and they exist. Clearly you have never debated a theist. They're not going to accept any of this crap, based on nothing but your personal, unsupported, uneducated opinions.

I don't need to be worshiped.
What is important is that people who *think* they're making sound arguments, but lack even the basic knowledge of what they're pretending they know something about,
lack basic knowledge of logics, and what they allow someone to generalize from, and provide absolutely no supporting evidence other than a recitation of their personal opinions, and when asked, say "it's self-evident" ... who actually think their shit is *so* good it needs to be copyrighted, ... what is important is that someone disabuse them of their deusions.

Very respectfully, you are entitled to your opinion.

The important difference is, I provide support for my opinions.
I don't just say they are "self-evident".

I have a master's degree in mathematics so I know something about logic. However, I don't see the point in talking to you about the disproofs any further because I don't think you are in good faith concerning them. It is my opinion that no matter how well I explain them you will simply attack some other trivial point regarding them just to avoid admitting that they are valid. Very respectfully, I do not care to discuss them with you any further. 

It is a FACT you have not stated or supported you system of logic, or told us how you know it's applicable to the gods.
It is a FACT you have not demonstraed that what you call "contradictions" prove something doesn't exist.

Chuckle
Reply
#85

Logical Disproofs of a Biblical Type God
(06-04-2021, 11:48 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(06-04-2021, 03:11 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(06-04-2021, 12:24 AM)JohnJubinsky Wrote: The premises that I used, although not expressly stated, are self-eviident. You have the right to disagree with them.

Fail, and fail again.
They may be "self-evident" to you, but no one else even knows what they are.
Your assumption that everyone accepts what, to you, is "self-evident" betrays your level of ignorance and naivete.
In no world except the tiny little one you apparently live in, does that crap fly as an argument.  
BTW, you STILL have not defined the god(s) you're talking about.
You clearly know nothing about the Bible. The god of the Bible was said to be incomprehensible. How is it, your god of the Bible is, and you seem to know a great deal about it ?
If you can't state them, you don't have any. You're just a really lazy debater.
No one ever has come here with this particular line of bullshit.
Are you like 12 ? It's self evident you never ever debated or argued a topic with anyone.

In fact, your "self-evident" shit, is a fallacy. And it even has a name.
https://www2.humboldt.edu/act/HTML/tests...0incorrect.
"SELF EVIDENT TRUTHS (appeal to beliefs): arguing that a claim should be accepted based on evidence that is not presented, but is asserted to be well known or obvious, when the information is either not well known or is incorrect."

Grow up. Maybe you could join the debate club when you get to high school, and learn how this really works.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence
"A logical argument for a self-evident conclusion would demonstrate only an ignorance of the purpose of persuasively arguing for the conclusion based on one or more premises that differ from it (see ignoratio elenchi and begging the question). You really have no clue how this works, what your premises are, and what your spoken and unspoken assumptions are, do you ?

You haven't even begun to tell us which logic system you chose to use, and how it is you determined that one was the appropriate one for proving things about the gods ?

Maybe, if he needs to learn about these fallacies, you could teach him about them without being an asswipe about it.

It's that whole honey-vs-vinegar thing Mom hopefully told you about.

Just a thought.

You should practice what you preach.
Reply
#86

Logical Disproofs of a Biblical Type God
(06-05-2021, 12:08 AM)Alan V Wrote: John,

You should place Bucky on ignore.  He is not entitled to his "opinion," since he has behaved that way with a lot of different posters.

Yeah.
I don't suffer fools.
Get over it.
The following 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post:
  • Phaedrus
Reply
#87

Logical Disproofs of a Biblical Type God
(06-04-2021, 09:59 PM)JohnJubinsky Wrote: [

The first commandment says that a Biblical type god holds that it should be worshiped second to none. Moreover, a Biblical type god is one that is at least all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good and freely wants to be worshiped by others. One does not have to have a PhD in theology to know these things. Most Christians and Jews know them because of their religious upbringings. I for example was a confirmed Catholic before becoming a secular humanist. These things were taught to me by the Catholic church through the scriptures. Claiming that others cannot possibly think for themselves because they do not have formal religious degrees is a copout. I know enough about a Biblical type god to recognize from the above characteristics that it has a self-contradictory definition and, therefore, cannot exist. The disproofs are founded in this and could be helpful to atheists who are defending themselves against theists. You almost sound like you want to be worshiped yourself.

I don't remember much of the bible, it's been many decades since I read it and I didn't like it and I won't read it again. I have better things to do with my time.

But, you don't have to know anything about it to understand that an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent god would have to be a real shit head to have created a world such as we have and be running it the way it is.

And when he doesn't like his work, he just drowns everyone and everything and starts over - with the same design. What's that saying about insanity and doing the same thing again expecting different results? 

That's all I need to know.

And Bucky, save your ad hominems for people who deserve it. You are in the wrong thread.
[Image: color%5D%5Bcolor=#333333%5D%5Bsize=small%5D%5Bfont=T...ans-Serif%5D]
The following 2 users Like Dom's post:
  • Phaedrus, Thumpalumpacus
Reply
#88

Logical Disproofs of a Biblical Type God
(06-05-2021, 01:24 AM)Dom Wrote:
(06-04-2021, 09:59 PM)JohnJubinsky Wrote: [

The first commandment says that a Biblical type god holds that it should be worshiped second to none. Moreover, a Biblical type god is one that is at least all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good and freely wants to be worshiped by others. One does not have to have a PhD in theology to know these things. Most Christians and Jews know them because of their religious upbringings. I for example was a confirmed Catholic before becoming a secular humanist. These things were taught to me by the Catholic church through the scriptures. Claiming that others cannot possibly think for themselves because they do not have formal religious degrees is a copout. I know enough about a Biblical type god to recognize from the above characteristics that it has a self-contradictory definition and, therefore, cannot exist. The disproofs are founded in this and could be helpful to atheists who are defending themselves against theists. You almost sound like you want to be worshiped yourself.

I don't remember much of the bible, it's been many decades since I read it and I didn't like it and I won't read it again. I have better things to do with my time.

But, you don't have to know anything about it to understand that an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent god would have to be a real shit head to have created a world such as we have and be running it the way it is.

And when he doesn't like his work, he just drowns everyone and everything and starts over - with the same design. What's that saying about insanity and doing the same thing again expecting different results? 

That's all I need to know.

And Bucky, save your ad hominems for people who deserve it. You are in the wrong thread.

You're entitled to your opinion.
Reply
#89

Logical Disproofs of a Biblical Type God
(06-05-2021, 01:50 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(06-05-2021, 01:24 AM)Dom Wrote:
(06-04-2021, 09:59 PM)JohnJubinsky Wrote: [

The first commandment says that a Biblical type god holds that it should be worshiped second to none. Moreover, a Biblical type god is one that is at least all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good and freely wants to be worshiped by others. One does not have to have a PhD in theology to know these things. Most Christians and Jews know them because of their religious upbringings. I for example was a confirmed Catholic before becoming a secular humanist. These things were taught to me by the Catholic church through the scriptures. Claiming that others cannot possibly think for themselves because they do not have formal religious degrees is a copout. I know enough about a Biblical type god to recognize from the above characteristics that it has a self-contradictory definition and, therefore, cannot exist. The disproofs are founded in this and could be helpful to atheists who are defending themselves against theists. You almost sound like you want to be worshiped yourself.

I don't remember much of the bible, it's been many decades since I read it and I didn't like it and I won't read it again. I have better things to do with my time.

But, you don't have to know anything about it to understand that an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent god would have to be a real shit head to have created a world such as we have and be running it the way it is.

And when he doesn't like his work, he just drowns everyone and everything and starts over - with the same design. What's that saying about insanity and doing the same thing again expecting different results? 

That's all I need to know.

And Bucky, save your ad hominems for people who deserve it. You are in the wrong thread.

You're entitled to your opinion.

I don't need you to tell me that. It's not only my opinion, others feel the same way. It's the wrong thread for this. We have threads it fits with though. Perhaps take out your frustrations over there.
[Image: color%5D%5Bcolor=#333333%5D%5Bsize=small%5D%5Bfont=T...ans-Serif%5D]
Reply
#90

Logical Disproofs of a Biblical Type God
(06-05-2021, 01:56 AM)Dom Wrote:
(06-05-2021, 01:50 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(06-05-2021, 01:24 AM)Dom Wrote: I don't remember much of the bible, it's been many decades since I read it and I didn't like it and I won't read it again. I have better things to do with my time.

But, you don't have to know anything about it to understand that an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent god would have to be a real shit head to have created a world such as we have and be running it the way it is.

And when he doesn't like his work, he just drowns everyone and everything and starts over - with the same design. What's that saying about insanity and doing the same thing again expecting different results? 

That's all I need to know.

And Bucky, save your ad hominems for people who deserve it. You are in the wrong thread.

You're entitled to your opinion.

I don't need you to tell me that. It's not only my opinion, others feel the same way. It's the wrong thread for this. We have threads it fits with though. Perhaps take out your frustrations over there.

Care to show me in the rules where it says moderators get to tell people where they may post ?
It is MORE than just a coincidence, that you (and the others) are doing this in a thread about disproving a god.
How sadly tribal.
Reply
#91

Logical Disproofs of a Biblical Type God
(06-05-2021, 02:12 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(06-05-2021, 01:56 AM)Dom Wrote:
(06-05-2021, 01:50 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: You're entitled to your opinion.

I don't need you to tell me that. It's not only my opinion, others feel the same way. It's the wrong thread for this. We have threads it fits with though. Perhaps take out your frustrations over there.

Care to show me in the rules where it says moderators get to tell people where they may post ?
It is MORE than just a coincidence, that you (and the others) are doing this in a thread about disproving a god.
How sadly tribal.

Did I say anything about rules? Did I use my admin colors? No. I am telling you what I think. Chasing off newbie atheists because you feel like dragging someone through the mud isn't a good thing. There are chew toys for that. The rest of us, or most of us, want John to stick around and get to know us. You are making that very difficult.

I may have to think of a better way to ensure we can welcome new members. All forums need new blood. We are no exception.
[Image: color%5D%5Bcolor=#333333%5D%5Bsize=small%5D%5Bfont=T...ans-Serif%5D]
The following 2 users Like Dom's post:
  • Aliza, Thumpalumpacus
Reply
#92

Logical Disproofs of a Biblical Type God
(06-05-2021, 03:00 AM)Dom Wrote:
(06-05-2021, 02:12 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(06-05-2021, 01:56 AM)Dom Wrote: I don't need you to tell me that. It's not only my opinion, others feel the same way. It's the wrong thread for this. We have threads it fits with though. Perhaps take out your frustrations over there.

Care to show me in the rules where it says moderators get to tell people where they may post ?
It is MORE than just a coincidence, that you (and the others) are doing this in a thread about disproving a god.
How sadly tribal.

Did I say anything about rules? Did I use my admin colors? No. I am telling you what I think. Chasing off newbie atheists because you feel like dragging someone through the mud isn't a good thing. There are chew toys for that. The rest of us, or most of us, want John to stick around and get to know us. You are making that very difficult.

I may have to think of a better way to ensure we can welcome new members. All forums need new blood. We are no exception.

Pointing out the errors in "so called" logic is not chasing off anyone.
I posted a "matter-of-fact" objection to the garbage in the OP.
He did not, and STILL has not answered it. So I got more assertive.

He chose to post that shit here.
If you can't take the heat, ... don't post shit.

In fact you admit the issue here is your discriminatory position.
If it's an atheist, (albeight one who never argued anything), then it's not OK.
If it's a "chew toy" then it is OK. How is it, you tell the difference ? Do you consult a medium ?
If pointing out errors is "making it difficult", then I'm done.

You said: "Did I say anything about rules? Did I use my admin colors? No."
And in the same post "I may have to think of a better way to ensure we can welcome new members".
Right. Do non-admins say that ? You appear to be very confused, and do BOTH in the same post.

Thanks for the long run.
Last past time to move on.
The following 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post:
  • Szuchow
Reply
#93

Logical Disproofs of a Biblical Type God
How do you know this isn't the type of red-in-tooth debate experience John is looking for? Making an awful lot of assumptions about somebody you just met, aren't you?
[Image: sea-stones-whimsy-7-sm.jpg]
Reply
#94

Logical Disproofs of a Biblical Type God
(06-03-2021, 06:19 PM)JohnJubinsky Wrote: I have noticed that a lot of people including many atheists think it is impossible to logically disprove the existence of a Biblical type god.

I'm not sure where you've been finding your atheists but you won't see much of that around here. Biblical god is an absenity.

I'll go so far as to admit that a deistic god-o-the-gaps style god cannot be conclusively disproven. I'll also go on record as never having heard a coherent definition of such a deity and that you'll have to go a long way to find anybody evangelizing for it. The half-wits writing busybody laws in the name of their dear and fluffy lord aren't fooling anybody by yammering about some nebulous deity that wound the universe up and let it go.

At the end of the day it's far easier to go with the burden of proof. No need to disprove what can't even be properly defined.
The following 2 users Like Paleophyte's post:
  • Cavebear, Thumpalumpacus
Reply
#95

Logical Disproofs of a Biblical Type God
Play nice Bucky. John's great crime is failing to lurk and get to know us better. He's hardly the first to make that mistake. If you want to chew on somebody there's always  Percie lowering the bar on the behavioural standards for deities to that of your average Hollywood denizen. The poor boy made a funny and doesn't even know it.
The following 1 user Likes Paleophyte's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus
Reply
#96

Logical Disproofs of a Biblical Type God
(06-05-2021, 06:09 AM)Paleophyte Wrote:
(06-03-2021, 06:19 PM)JohnJubinsky Wrote: I have noticed that a lot of people including many atheists think it is impossible to logically disprove the existence of a Biblical type god.

I'm not sure where you've been finding your atheists but you won't see much of that around here. Biblical god is an absenity.

I'll go so far as to admit that a deistic god-o-the-gaps style god cannot be conclusively disproven. I'll also go on record as never having heard a coherent definition of such a deity and that you'll have to go a long way to find anybody evangelizing for it. The half-wits writing busybody laws in the name of their dear and fluffy lord aren't fooling anybody by yammering about some nebulous deity that wound the universe up and let it go.

At the end of the day it's far easier to go with the burden of proof. No need to disprove what can't even be properly defined.

Disproving another's claim is never required. But liked your post.
Atheist born and when I die, still an atheist...
Reply
#97

Logical Disproofs of a Biblical Type God
(06-05-2021, 12:33 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: You should practice what you preach.

You let me know when you see me jump all over a new member, insulting them, because I misread what they wrote.

I've been an asshole to you, Jerry, and others, because I make change in the coin tendered.

You should refrain from offering any advice to others. I've seen trash-cans with more wisdom and insight than you display at this forum.
Freedom isn't free.
Reply
#98

Logical Disproofs of a Biblical Type God
(06-04-2021, 12:08 AM)JohnJubinsky Wrote:
(06-03-2021, 11:00 PM)julep Wrote: Woof!  

At best, you’ve provided some evidence that the bible god is an unreliable narrator who doesn’t conform to human ethics or expectations. 

I agree that if that god existed, it wouldn’t be worthy of worship, but you haven’t disproved its existence. 

However, welcome to the forum.  I hope you enjoy your time here.

I have shown that a Biblical type god has a self-contradictory definition and, therefore, cannot exist as defined. Thanks for welcoming me to the forum.

I'm not sure that's even necessary.  The burden of proof is on the claimant, and while I agree that a god as defined in the Bible does not exist (nor any other), it's up to believers to prove their position, not non-believers to disprove it.  Picking up the burden of proof when it's not yours only feeds into one of their favorite tactics, to simply assume their position without actually supporting or defending it in any meaningful way, and demanding to be proven wrong... when of course they will not accept any argument that actually does prove them wrong.

That's not our job.  They make the claim, they need to prove it is.
"Aliens?  Us?  Is this one of your Earth jokes?"  -- Kro-Bar, The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra
The following 4 users Like trdsf's post:
  • Dancefortwo, julep, brunumb, Paleophyte
Reply
#99

Logical Disproofs of a Biblical Type God
(06-05-2021, 01:49 PM)trdsf Wrote:
(06-04-2021, 12:08 AM)JohnJubinsky Wrote:
(06-03-2021, 11:00 PM)julep Wrote: Woof!  

At best, you’ve provided some evidence that the bible god is an unreliable narrator who doesn’t conform to human ethics or expectations. 

I agree that if that god existed, it wouldn’t be worthy of worship, but you haven’t disproved its existence. 

However, welcome to the forum.  I hope you enjoy your time here.

I have shown that a Biblical type god has a self-contradictory definition and, therefore, cannot exist as defined. Thanks for welcoming me to the forum.

I'm not sure that's even necessary.  The burden of proof is on the claimant, and while I agree that a god as defined in the Bible does not exist (nor any other), it's up to believers to prove their position, not non-believers to disprove it.  Picking up the burden of proof when it's not yours only feeds into one of their favorite tactics, to simply assume their position without actually supporting or defending it in any meaningful way, and demanding to be proven wrong... when of course they will not accept any argument that actually does prove them wrong.

That's not our job.  They make the claim, they need to prove it is.

This ^ ^ ^

Billions of people believe in a god or gods yet no theist has ever produced any evidence a god or gods exist.   Believing in a god is not evidence of a god.
                                                         T4618
Reply

Logical Disproofs of a Biblical Type God
(06-05-2021, 02:31 PM)Dancefortwo Wrote:
(06-05-2021, 01:49 PM)trdsf Wrote:
(06-04-2021, 12:08 AM)JohnJubinsky Wrote: I have shown that a Biblical type god has a self-contradictory definition and, therefore, cannot exist as defined. Thanks for welcoming me to the forum.

I'm not sure that's even necessary.  The burden of proof is on the claimant, and while I agree that a god as defined in the Bible does not exist (nor any other), it's up to believers to prove their position, not non-believers to disprove it.  Picking up the burden of proof when it's not yours only feeds into one of their favorite tactics, to simply assume their position without actually supporting or defending it in any meaningful way, and demanding to be proven wrong... when of course they will not accept any argument that actually does prove them wrong.

That's not our job.  They make the claim, they need to prove it is.

This ^ ^ ^

Billions of people believe in a god or gods yet no theist has ever produced any evidence a god or gods exist.   Believing in a god is not evidence of a god.

If the mountain won't come to Mohammed, then Mohammed must go to the mountain.
[Image: sea-stones-whimsy-7-sm.jpg]
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)