Prove there's a god.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#770617 Aug 18, 2014
Susie D wrote:
<quoted text>Well, on the contrary. If I brought a God, then that would be proof there was a God. So basically you conceded because you cannot prove there is not a God! Thanks, that is all I needed from you.
Actually.. it proves you can't bring one, but if you do try...I'll prove you wrong.
bang bang

“Are you a Problem or Solution?”

Since: Mar 09

Ann Arbor, MI

#770618 Aug 18, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
Explain why theism is a belief but atheism isn't.
<quoted text>
O..........kay.
But why do you think theism is a belief but atheism isn't.
You almost answered; "Theists have a belief".
So do atheists...
Do you believe that Bigfoot exists? I don't think that there is any proof of Bigfoot. Show me proof that I can analyze (not hearsay, fuzzy photographs, and such), I may change my opinion. In my opinion it is the same. I can't convince someone of God, I can live my life in accordance with what I believe and trust that God will deliver the message. Smo.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#770619 Aug 18, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
You're required to misunderstand and/or misrepresent me to maintain disagreement. That's okay. I know you just want someone to talk to.
Calling a pencil a taco does not make a pencil a taco. No transformation takes place.
Defining "a pencil" as a taco tells us we're talking about a taco. Definitions tell us what we're talking about. You could further define what you mean by defining "taco" as a cylindrical writing instrument, made of wood, with a graphite core. For people that already have a concept for what tacos and pencils are, that could get really confusing.
I didn't steer the conversation towards these poor fitting analogies.
If John is a married bachelor, John does not exist.
If Christians define their deity in logical contradictions, their deity cannot exist.
If a person claims that their deity is defined by the Bible, because that definition contains logical contradictions, their deity cannot exist.
Christians are free to submit alternate claims for review. I'm not unreasonable.

"If John is a married bachelor, John does not exist."

That's a false representation of your premise.

Your premise is:

If John is alleged to be a married bachelor, John does not exist.

The premise is false.

"If a person claims that their deity is defined by the Bible, because that definition contains logical contradictions, their deity cannot exist."

-False.

The person could be lying about their deity. The person could be mistaken about their deity. The person could be right about some features of their deity, wrong about others. The person could be relying on tentative information about their deity. Their deity may have disguised features, and someone misinterpreted them.

Fallacy of the Excluded Middle.

Your argument is utter nonsense.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#770620 Aug 18, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
Hey, if you're going to be a cheerleader for Buckaroo, buy yourself some pom poms.
Hey man, if you want me to wear that skirt again all you gotta do is ask.

Since: Apr 14

Location hidden

#770621 Aug 18, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
That's lightbeamrider's handiwork. He promised he would report my posts and try to recruit others to join him. I called you a dead beat in it right after he threatened me. How did that work out for everybody?
Have you found your post that you claimed you were certain had been deleted? I have.
So how are you liking the Topix belief / unbelief threads so far? It must be a pleasure for somebody with a hair trigger for firing defamatory accusations that she can never support, a habit that causes much of the thread to express disapproval for her. Does it mean nothing at all to you that in an effort to spread the love of your god, that you have alienated so many? Does evidence ever feed back into your "strategizing"?
Yeah and you changed my words, liar. I said others told me it was deleted. I can see it because I haven't deleted my history and cookies. Are you lost? Seriously, obviously, I can see it just fine. I have been posting it for a few days now. Wake up and catch up. Read all the posts like I do. You don't work right. If I can keep up and be off here working for 10+ hours a day, surely you can.

IANS started denigrating me and others long before I ever let go on him. I don't have time to go back and show them to you. You go back and read them all, like I have. I gave him a taste of his own medicine. My motto - Don't like it, don't do it to others. I am not the one who owes an apology. I do not have a problem with anyone's views. It is you all who attack, bully, and denigrate others for their views. What I have a problem with is those who obviously haven't had their parents teach them respect, manners, and how to treat others. Either that or you all just didn't heed your parents teachings. I have been on no other thread, except this one and a couple I created. So, I don't know about any other threads. The only reason anyone has a problem with me is because they are threatened by me and want to run me off from the thread. It has happened since I came here. Now, if you have something worthwhile to say, then do so. Otherwise, go away, you little pest. Prove there is no God. Yeah, I know you can't. BuhBye.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#770622 Aug 18, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Buck wrote:
"This reasoning is obviously erroneous because of an implicit supposition of a further proposition that is not contained in your premise - that being that the claim alleged is universally true.
Compounding your error, not only is the supposition not universally true, and not only is its truth not contained in the premise, the premise assumes it to be universally false.
In summary, your conclusion is reached by false assumption of a false property, and the false assumption of the false property is given definitive value.
I cannot imagine a worse argument."
Tide with Beach wrote:
"Word salad."
----------
There's the problem.
You don't understand the argument.
My post disemboweled your argument with surgical precision.
And you think it's word salad.
It's a word salad, and it does not represent my argument or my reasoning.

If you think you're speaking for me, and I disagree, you are automatically wrong.

Haven't I told you that before?

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#770623 Aug 18, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry for the delay in responding--I was in the air, Miami to Socal.
I would say it is not possible for a married bachelor to exist, but the fellow might be something else other than a married bachelor.
How's that?
You got it.

Just remember to agree with me, and you'll be right.

But I should have told you - your answer gets you put on the faith-based-thinker team by IANS.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#770624 Aug 18, 2014
NoStress4me wrote:

I wish I could post the comments from IANS, call it user error if you will but my tablet and I don't tend to get along. He said something along the lines of if there is a god it would not be the Christian God (from memory, so not his exact words). To me he is not basing his opinion on faith, but from personal study of scripture and how he views the world, and the Christian influence on it through out history.
I don't agree.

His personal study of Scripture could only lead him to either believe in God or not believe God even exists. It could not lead him to knowledge of God's nonexistence. That's his opinion, his belief. A more honest person wouldn't spout that kind of belief and call it fact.
ARYAN WARRIOR

Bethesda, MD

#770625 Aug 18, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
That's lightbeamrider's handiwork. He promised he would report my posts and try to recruit others to join him. I called you a dead beat in it right after he threatened me. How did that work out for everybody?
Have you found your post that you claimed you were certain had been deleted? I have.
So how are you liking the Topix belief / unbelief threads so far? It must be a pleasure for somebody with a hair trigger for firing defamatory accusations that she can never support, a habit that causes much of the thread to express disapproval for her. Does it mean nothing at all to you that in an effort to spread the love of your god, that you have alienated so many? Does evidence ever feed back into your "strategizing"?
You remind me of a Siamang gone wild. You incessantly vomit baseless garbage supported by putrid bile and crushing insanity. You have yet to bring ANYTHING VALID OR TRUE TO THE TABLE..........NOT ONE THING. You are a demented Gibbon who is infinitely damned to remain pathetically trapped in this giant glue trap known as Topix, flinging his melted diarrhea through his skinny, trembling little fingers. You were literally laughed out of WSJLM when you were USA ATHEIST, but you're an even bigger joke now. You have yet to win ONE argument or to write ANYTHING which has one scintilla of veracity; and the best part of it is......YOU DON'T MAKE ONE BIT OF DIFFERENCE..........Christiani ty is growing faster than ever and is EXPLODING all over the world and will continue to do so long after the worms will have feasted on your rotting carcass. Please proceed; the constant release of endorphins is incredibly good for the immune system.

You're pathetic.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#770626 Aug 18, 2014
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text> A disbelief isn't a belief.
Noun: disbelief
1. Doubt about the truth of something
2. A rejection of belief
WordWeb Pro 7.02
Right. Atheism is the belief that there is no god.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#770627 Aug 18, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
This argument has been assailed repeatedly. Only people of faith are making it, and only everybody that is actively rejecting it is an evidence and reasoned based thinker. I don't even need to hear the argument to know which side to bet on.
Oooooh I'm gonna tell Tide, scarscar, Catch. & Rocco that you called them people of faith.

Oh wait, they already read your post.....
VIKING

Bethesda, MD

#770628 Aug 18, 2014
YOU CAN DELETE KEISER SOZE..........
BUT YOU CAN'T BAN KEISE SOZE
indeed

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#770629 Aug 18, 2014
Susie D wrote:
<quoted text>Tens of millions of people were killed under atheistic communist regimes, in which militant atheism served as the official doctrine of the state. Do you really think because someone chooses to have faith they should die? That is a form of genocide. You might be p-Pot. Here's YOUR sign.

Shyt, Everyday. So called atheist prove the crazy.
Billions were murdered for christianity's rise to power. Is that more moral to you?

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#770630 Aug 18, 2014
Hukt on Fonix wrote:
<quoted text>
I Never claimed there isn't a god and definitely never claimed I could prove it.
On the other hand, we have people claiming there is a god.
Prove there's a god.
OK.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#770631 Aug 18, 2014
The suffix '-archy' defines an layered system, usually governmental, in which rights and status are assigned differently to different groups. The suffix almost always indicates a hierarchy.
"Anarchy" is a non-hierarchical system, IE: Democracy and Equality. Neither of which has ever existed as a basis for any of government.

One of the oldest examples of hierarchy the Caste systems of Indo-Celtic peoples.

The most common government in the history of mankind is the monarchy.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#770632 Aug 18, 2014
Susie D wrote:
of*
brillo

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#770633 Aug 18, 2014
Susie D wrote:
<quoted text>Can you explain the hypocrisy in my statement? Since when was joking immoral? Well, someone didn't take their panties out of their a$$..

I’m sorry your comprehension skills suck and you can’t take a joke, but that has nothing at all to do with hypocrisy. Do you need a dictionary? And wouldn’t that be the pot calling the kettle black? Which actually makes you the hypocrite.
Just logging this attack, for when you switch from collecting hypocrisy points, to collecting persecution points.

Your lies aren't getting any more skilled.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#770634 Aug 18, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
You changed your premise.
Nope.
You started out with Tide defined by someone as a taco, as in the Christian god being defined by someone as it is in the Bible.
I maintained the conversation, but that was a false analogy.
Now you changed it to "is".
Couldn't stomach your own reasoning, huh?
I didn't change anything.

You just figured out that you need to agree with me.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Manhattan Beach, CA

#770635 Aug 18, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That is exactly what I said. It cannot exist as described, but it can exist.
Please explain it to Tide and IANS.
Don't ask them to explain tacos.
But it's something else, not what it's claimed to be.

I imagine the subject of the discussion is the god (I actually tune out to silly, technical arguments).

And I sense that IANS points out that the Bible god is a self-contradictory creature (no offense intended in the use of the word) and therefore cannot exist. Perhaps a god, or godlike being could possibly exist, but not that (married bachelor) god. On that, I must agree, although I'm hardly an expert on the subject and really have little interest because I personally am a nonbeliever in anything supernatural--gods, ghosts, witches, hexes, Santa Claus, even pink unicorns. Call me arrogant or elitist, but in my view believers are engaging in infantile charades. Why, I'm not sure. Hiding is the expert on that.

Further the deponent sayeth naught.

And there are no ambulances to chase in the jungle.

“I love Jesus”

Since: Dec 08

Heaven, but Earthbound for now

#770636 Aug 18, 2014
feces for jesus wrote:
<quoted text>
What type of educator doesn't understand that a typo is a misspelling?
Answer: A dumb one!
the kind that is about to "school" you boy. I just graded your "paper" and you got it all wrong. F for failure...

A typographical error or typo is a mistake made by accident while typing or transcribing something. Most people distinguish between accidental errors like this and errors of ignorance like poor spelling and grammar. These errors are extremely common Spelling and grammar errors are not considered typos because they are not typographical errors.

http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-a-typo.htm

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
*** All Time Favorite Songs *** (Dec '10) 20 min --IslandGurL-- 4,370
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr Holy Chosen Child 690,647
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 1 hr Ice Man 42,605
Poll What's the most exotic/hottest mixed race group? (Jan '13) 3 hr His Eminency dr S... 26
Am I Starting To Like My Step-Cousin? 4 hr what I do 2
American Soldiers - Duty, Honor, Country (Jun '11) 4 hr Prophet Meowmed 39,278
Did you know there are wolves in West Virginia (Mar '11) 6 hr Paul McCartney is... 47
More from around the web