2 questions to ask a theist.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-09-2012, 08:05 AM
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
(28-09-2012 07:55 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(28-09-2012 07:52 AM)Idiot for Christ Wrote:  Maybe by the 8th time you ask I'll answer.
Gotcha. So you don't have any evidence for your belief whatsoever. Thumbsup

No, I want you to ask 8 times.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-09-2012, 08:19 AM
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
(28-09-2012 08:05 AM)Idiot for Christ Wrote:  No, I want you to ask 8 times.
What a pathetic attempt at trolling. Turns out that my suspicions about you being just as deluded as most theists who come here were right. You have no evidence for the most fundamental belief in Christianity, yet you still believe in it on the basis of blind faith.

Feel free to refute the above. Drinking Beverage

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vosur's post
28-09-2012, 08:57 AM (This post was last modified: 28-09-2012 09:28 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
(28-09-2012 07:50 AM)Idiot for Christ Wrote:  1) As you know, there WERE hundreds of Gospels and other writings during Irenaeus' time. So, why would he pick THOSE FOUR? BECAUSE they were prominent as that time.

Obviously you missed the point. The point is, as Irenaeus himself stated, he picked 4 in the first place, (it doesn't matter WHICH 4), which he a priori had determined his total to BE, ( 4), based on the justification of 4 by "4 winds", and 4 columns, and obviously it was done NOT on the basis of content.

(28-09-2012 07:50 AM)Idiot for Christ Wrote:  2) I didn't about the process of cannonization but the date. Of course you don't want to put it up, because it came MUCH LATER than when Irenaeus made his statement - thus giving PLEANTY of time for those Gospels to accepted or denied or additional books accepted...

There is no one date for canonization, ((BTW "cannonization is being shot by cannon balls, (which I guess your brain was the victim of)). I see you have no education in this subject. "Canonization" is the PROCESS of being accepted as "authentic" by being accepted by ALREADY believing communities, (which then turn around and say, it teaches them truth), when they ALREADY accpted it a priori. This means they accepted them, because they BELIEVED they reflected what they ALREADY believed. That's the definition of "circular".
This is a cannon : [Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcREq_pVGcaO4L3y3w0Bitm...AmhSw6lftA]
This is a canon : [Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTv226yFZhzKkzZ6-1iQOY...haSgIPfBXw]

(28-09-2012 07:50 AM)Idiot for Christ Wrote:  3) REGARDLESS of why Irenaeus says of those Gospels - they do hold BECAUSE of their content - again, they were well established prior to his statement which is WHY he picked THOSE FOUR.

So were the others. YOU have no idea "how well" they were accepted, or how well the others were accepted. The fact that the 4 were AMONG the ones circulating proves nothing, and the fact that the Fathers admitted they endorsed, and used deception as a valid tool, means you can trust NOTHING they say.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...rly-church

(28-09-2012 07:50 AM)Idiot for Christ Wrote:  4) The four remain intact, yes, BECAUSE of the other writings - One only needs to read a handful of the other writings to see that they don't truly fit in the Bible the same way the 4 Gospels do - unless you would like to make an argument for some. Not even atheist scholars attack the Bible using the other writings, BECAUSE they hold.

Then why were REAL, believing good faith communities using the others ?
Yes they do. You have no idea what "scholars do". I quoted Elaine Pagels, (and she is not even an atheist).
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.co...ublic.html

You have used not one "external" source for anything. Christian Fathers were self-admitted liars. You have proven NOTHING about the *relative* importance of any text. If Irenaes had to go to the trouble to suppress, it means the others were in wide use.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
28-09-2012, 09:11 AM
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
(27-09-2012 05:15 PM)Idiot for Christ Wrote:  
(27-09-2012 09:15 AM)Impulse Wrote:  Sorry, the way it was originally phrased, I didn't realize you actually wanted an answer. Yes, I believe logic exists. So please continue.

yeah, I can put running sentences together that get buried...

So if logic then exists - why?

Was it created? If so, by what or whom? ( earlier an argument was made that it WAS created)

If it wasn't created, how does it exist?
Let's first recap so we don't lose perspective.
You were asked who created sin (by another poster than me). You replied that no one created it and that it just exists as the opposite of the nature of God. I replied that this contradicts the Christianity that you believe in because Christianity holds that God existed before everything else and that everything else came from him. The word "everything" leaves no room for exceptions. You then asked if I believe a nature can exist without being created and also whether I believe logic exists. My next reply omitted the answer about logic so you asked again to which I stated that I do believe logic exists. So now you ask if logic was created and, if so, by whom.

So, up to now, I have not argued that logic was created. I did previously point out that Christianity holds that logic was created because it holds that everything except God himself was created by God. This was not my personal viewpoint; I was merely pointing out the inconsistency in your own viewpoint since you come from a Christian perspective.

As for what I personally believe, I believe that logic exists. The jury is still out on whether it was created or just simply exists. I have no explanation for the very beginning of all that is nor do I even know with any certainty that there was a beginning. And God certainly doesn't satisfy me as "the answer" because then I would just have no explanation for he/she/its beginning. It's the same question. And, if an excuse for explaining the beginning of everything is the only reason I should believe in he/she/it, then that's no reason at all. That would be akin to my saying "I don't know if the universe has a physical boundary at it's farthest point, but I'll just say "yes it does" because I need an answer.

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-09-2012, 09:13 AM
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
Thanks for answering. Let me push a little bit further into your head and let’s see how entrenched the cognitive dissonance is.

1) Why "Idiot for Christ?" What is the purpose of calling yourself such?

“It’s an homage to the first Christians. When they were first preaching the Gospel, were called fools, and accused of being drunk, etc. Also, it has often been used (in some for or another) these days toward Christians and theists in general. Plus, it helps me to not take myself too seriously.”

Okay. I always wonder why people choose the names they do. Mine is from my last name and the facial hair I have sported for some time now, along with my own tribute to The Dude (not Lebowski man, he’s the dude).

2) What are the religious views of those closest to you? (I.E. what are the religious views of your parents and closest friends)

“My mother is Lutheran, my sister and her family are Lutheran. My wife grew up going to all sorts of churches, etc. Nothing stable though. I have friends who are Catholic, Orthodox, non-denom, GLBT Protestant, and atheist as well.”


3) How does the answer to the above question influence your personal religious views?

“It influences me in the fact that I get questioned on what I believe and why I believe it. Certainly with my Protestant friends, we don’t disagree on much, and nothing along the lines of Dogma. But with my other friends etc. questions are brought up – always in a civil manner – and discussed. Sometimes I have answers, sometimes I don’t and have to do study to see if answers do exist, and if the answers logically follow.”

I am going to address both answers here. You grew-up in a religious community that is Christian and you are likely American or English (since you say Lutheran I am going to go with American, and maybe East Coast? More northerly?) My questions are primarily probing to find out if you are aware of the fact that had you been born in Pakistan your religious views would be different. Had you been born to Muslim parents in the UK, your religious views would be different. Had you been born in Utah to Mormon missionaries, your religious views would be different. Agree or disagree? Why or Why not?

The second question seems to cement the fact that while you discuss religion with those closest to you, the disagreements are over dogma and the agreements remain fundamentally Christian. Ergo, it doesn’t sound like the discussions involve actually discussing the likelihood that any of it is right. I must admit that I make some broad generalizations about these discussions from limited information and you say you have atheist friends as well. How often do these discussions occur with them? How do they typically end?


4) What had a bigger impact on the spread of Christianity: its stories and Jesus or the acceptance by the Roman hierarchy as the official state religion?

“Jesus, clearly. While it’s argued that the Roman’s acceptance helped Christianity – Christianity was doing fine without it. Despite the early persecution – the message – Gospel – held firm and still spread. I’m not saying it wasn’t helped – but the message Jesus brought is clearly what resonated. Whether or not Constatine was truly a Christian – I’ll let God decide.”

Historians would disagree. The Christian worldview was not doing well prior to its adoption by the Romans. History shows us that areas that already have an occupied territory with their own beliefs and customs, don’t convert to other peoples beliefs based on the merit of their arguments. They either convert at the tip of the sword (South American Missionaries), they are wiped out by settlers or disease (Native Americans) or they simply shrug off the interested missionaries as a mere nuisance (China, Japan, The Koreas, etc). Had the Roman empire not adopted Christianity as the state religion, you would be a polytheist, as would most of the western world.

I know you want the answer to be Jesus, but similar figures had been preaching similar ideas for some time prior to his arrival. Other figures similar to Jesus supposedly performed similar miracles (including the resurrection you have been challenged on multiple times here). Nothing Jesus preached was unique, other than the fact that Constantine saw an opportunity to expand his power into what he believed in as the afterlife.

5) What evidence is there to support the existence of a god?

“This is a longer answer than I will supply here – but will be more than glad to get into this further. However, just a couple of pieces: 1) life. 2) love. 3) logic. 4) that ANYTHING exists at all. 5) “rules” of the world and universe at large. 6) the propensity of anything “seeming” to be created usually is. Etc.”

6) How does this evidence prove the Christian version of god and not a different version or multiple gods?

“As much as I’d like there to be “proof” there isn’t. However, there is what I would consider to be greater evidence FOR the Christian God than another or multiple gods. Again this could be a longer answer than I put here and we can dive into it if you wish. However, this isn’t to say there COULDN’T be other gods – just that there is only ONE TRUE God. Monotheism allows for lesser gods, but not over THE God.”

This is where I get really fuzzy with theist-logic. In response to question 5 you provide what you see as evidence, and then your opening line to question 6’s response is that there isn’t any proof. I am really confused by that. Either evidence exists and it is a reality-based and fact-based belief, or none exists and it is based on faith, which means a belief without evidence or even in spite of evidence to the contrary. Trying to argue that anything existing is proof of a god is the argument from ignorance. I don’t know, therefore god. The question of “Why does anything exist at all?” has an answer of “I don’t know” but that doesn’t mean a default answer is god. All of your examples in question 5’s response imply that you are able to make a comparison with either A) nonexistence (we have never observed nonexistence) B) that there exists a universe devoid of life, love, logic, different rules, and you can compare our universe to it. You have a sample set of exactly 1. 1 universe. You can’t compare it to another universe, and you can’t compare it to nothing, because you can’t demonstrate the existence of either (which begs the question of, if you prove nothing exists, is it still nothing?)

The rest of question 6’s response is based on your desire to believe. I don’t think I need to point out the logical fallacy there.

If no evidence exists and faith must be the means by which to believe, then;
7) Why do believers attempt to justify their beliefs using "evidence?"

“Well, again, I would say there is evidence – which we can discuss further – but like any belief people try to come up with evidence to support it, even if there is lacking or none at all. Why? Because we are usually asked to defend our belief, whatever it may be. Religious belief is no exception. Though, I will add – one’s lacking ability to back one’s belief up, does not necessarily mean the belief is false.

Very nice question. I would start by saying God would RATHER that we knew him more personally than through the Bible (however, knowing how we are….) Second, evidence by the masses or singularly? Example. I’m pretty damn sure my wife loves me. Now, I can provide you with what I think is evidence of such – however none of it actually PROVE she loves me. A person who didn’t love me could very well do the same things that I list for evidence. But, would you trust me in that I know my wife loves me? Sure, trusting me that God exists is quite a further stretch…but I think you can see my point. Also, as shown through the Bible – while God did deal with Israel as a nation, he also and more often dealt with people one on one. One on one foster a better relationship. Also, what confirms God for some, doesn’t for others. Could you name ONE THING that would truly confirm God’s existence for EVERYONE?

No. For whatever you (or I) came up with, we could find people who wouldn’t believe and reasons that it wouldn’t qualify as evidence for some.”


Your wife exists, I can question the veracity of that claim myself. We can demonstrate the linkage between different emotions and areas of our brains, so we have physical evidence by which to say that chemical processes lead to perceived bonds between individuals and a close commensal relationship for the mutual benefit of all parties involved (i.e. love).

The concept of having to provide evidence for believing is a recent phenomenon as a result of ever increasing evidence that shrinks the gaps that god has classically been interpreted. If someone believes based on faith, I can at least accept that they know they have no evidence or logical basis for their claims, but to assert that any evidence exists for it is a bold-faced lie or a complete misunderstanding for what evidence is.

You may have to provide your “evidence” in more detail. I should point out that most of my objections will likely be in the form of pointing any logical fallacies, so it may help to know what they are.


9) If faith is sufficient, then why do we need the bible?

“Perhaps the simplest reason: we are tactile. WE would want a Bible, regardless, I would argue. We WANT something, anything, that we can hold, see, touch, feel, etc…and we do this for even less things. Shake hands on an agreement…why? Isn’t the agreement enough? The hell does shacking hands really do?

So my argument would be, that WE have (and would) ask for such – and don’t we now? Don’t you, in some way, wish for tactile type evidence for a god?”


So people don’t actually want to believe anything based on faith? I agree. Which is why people search for support of their claims but often fail to realize the fallacies they commit when trying to assert the existence of something supernatural from natural evidence.

10) Are you?
“Very much so, which is why I often ask for evidence AGAINST God in discussions. Much of what we DON’T believe in isn’t simply because there is LACK of evidence (as argued for God) but ALSO because we have evidence AGAINST such a belief. Which is why I use Santa a lot. There IS evidence against Santa – which is why none of us believe him to be real. Not JUST lack of evidence. Lack of evidence is only one side of the coin for disbelief. Currently we have NO EVIDENCE for life on other planets – so should we just assume and believe there isn’t? We can, for sure, but what if there is? There could be, DESPITE having NO EVIDENCE whatsoever.

I am interested in the truth.

AND I am not afraid to be wrong. If I am found to be wrong, well then I am glad to finally know the truth. I don’t believe because I WANT to believe or because I was TOLD to believe, but because I have found what I believe to be true.

If it can be truly shown that what I believe is wrong, then I will gladly admit it and cast away my prior belief. One can only grow if one truly accepts when they are wrong.

I know that I didn’t answer your questions fully, so if you would like to go back and dive into one further, I would be more than happy to.

Thanks for the questions.”


If you ask for evidence against anything that does not exist, you are committing an egregious logical error as to what it means to not exist. If something doesn’t exist, then by definition there is no evidence to demonstrate that claim. You can’t prove the nonexistence of anything (even Santa), you can only demonstrate that it is unlikely to exist based on a paucity of evidence. Let’s use something other than Santa (since we can agree the ol’ Fat guy is certainly not real, I mean obviously. A guy who is immortal, and can read millions/billions of hopes/dreams/wishes in one sitting, while being able to ascertain whether or not everyone is good or bad through monitoring them all at the same time? Who would believe such absurdities). Let’s use Big Foot. Currently no zoologist recognizes the existence of Big Foot, and yet, you are not likely to find one who will tell you with 100% that one does not exist. The lack of evidence demonstrates that the most logical option is to reject the claim of its existence until proven otherwise, but a lack of evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate nonexistence.

Life on other planets is an assumption based not on evidence on other planets, but on the odds that conditions here on Earth that appear to be conducive to life, appear elsewhere in the universe. That does not mean it does exist, but that conditions such as those on Earth may exist on millions of planets and that may mean life could exist there. That is of course contingent upon the fact that life must be Carbon-based and that life can only exist in Earth-like conditions, we of course can’t definitively say that, which may mean that the odds of life existing elsewhere is even better. But that is pure speculation and is why we don’t conclude in science that life does exist anywhere else but Earth, we leave that to Science-FICTION.

We shall see regarding the last few sentences and you are welcome for the questions, I eagerly await your new responses.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
28-09-2012, 09:22 AM (This post was last modified: 28-09-2012 09:27 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
(28-09-2012 09:11 AM)Impulse Wrote:  So if logic then exists - why?

Was it created? If so, by what or whom? ( earlier an argument was made that it WAS created)

If it wasn't created, how does it exist?

Let's first recap so we don't lose perspective.
You were asked who created sin (by another poster than me). You replied that no one created it and that it just exists as the opposite of the nature of God. I replied that this contradicts the Christianity that you believe in because Christianity holds that God existed before everything else and that everything else came from him. The word "everything" leaves no room for exceptions. You then asked if I believe a nature can exist without being created and also whether I believe logic exists. My next reply omitted the answer about logic so you asked again to which I stated that I do believe logic exists. So now you ask if logic was created and, if so, by whom.

That is an excellent point, and is one of the MAIN weaknesses of apologist arguments. The Special Pleading, aside, (which it is), they fail to recognize that "good vs evil", "being and nothingness," EXISTENCE ITSELF, "just exists as the opposite of god(s)" REFUTES the "everything that is has a cause" argument, and it PROVES they do not really believe that everything that exists was created by god. ANY conceptual content, or property of god(s) means god requires it for god(s) existence, and could not, and is not the creator of ALL of the structure of Reality. If god exists, and is the creator, the very structure of Reality, in which, and by which god exists, would have had to be created by the god. (And BTW "existence" requires time), by any current meaning in the English language.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-09-2012, 09:29 AM (This post was last modified: 28-09-2012 09:33 AM by Vosur.)
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
(28-09-2012 12:44 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  The bible duh.


No point asking theists about one particular point in the bible because all they got as fact is the bible.

Just ask them the obvious question:
What makes the bible fact?

Answer? Well, again, the only thing they got to answer that is the bible.
And because it's a circular argument it's faulty and hence wrong. But they can't see this, they will never see this, you should just stop wasting your time and let the whole theist thing die out as Atheist slowly gains popularity over the next 200-300 years.
I don't even need to ask what makes the Bible a fact. All I need to do is point out to them why it's unreliable. Not only because it's a circular argument if you have no external sources/references, but also because the gospels are based on hearsay of hearsay. None of the authors saw Jesus in their own lifetime and they didn't meet anyone who did either, due to the decades between Jesus death and the time the gospels were written down.

That being said, I don't consider the resurrection question a waste of time. What I do consider a waste of time is arguing about the attributes of a god whose existence has yet to be established, i.e. omnipotence, omnibenevolence, omniscience, etc. It's hardly anything but mental masturbation, which is why I stopped doing it a while ago. Even if I do refute the combination of the attributes mentioned before, we still don't know whether or not that being even exists in the first place.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-09-2012, 09:31 AM
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
(28-09-2012 09:29 AM)Vosur Wrote:  I don't even need to ask what makes the Bible a fact. All I need to do is point out to them why it's unreliable. Not because it's circular, but because the gospels are based on hearsay of hearsay. None of the authors saw Jesus in their own lifetime and they didn't meet anyone who did either, due to the decades between Jesus death and the dates the gospels were written down.

Mind you, those ex goat herds and so forth sure had a good understanding of space time and geology and such. I mean, people still use the Bible as a guide in those sciences today ! Hobo
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-09-2012, 11:33 AM
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-09-2012, 11:39 AM
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
(28-09-2012 09:11 AM)Impulse Wrote:  
(27-09-2012 05:15 PM)Idiot for Christ Wrote:  yeah, I can put running sentences together that get buried...

So if logic then exists - why?

Was it created? If so, by what or whom? ( earlier an argument was made that it WAS created)

If it wasn't created, how does it exist?
Let's first recap so we don't lose perspective.
You were asked who created sin (by another poster than me). You replied that no one created it and that it just exists as the opposite of the nature of God. I replied that this contradicts the Christianity that you believe in because Christianity holds that God existed before everything else and that everything else came from him. The word "everything" leaves no room for exceptions. You then asked if I believe a nature can exist without being created and also whether I believe logic exists. My next reply omitted the answer about logic so you asked again to which I stated that I do believe logic exists. So now you ask if logic was created and, if so, by whom.

So, up to now, I have not argued that logic was created. I did previously point out that Christianity holds that logic was created because it holds that everything except God himself was created by God. This was not my personal viewpoint; I was merely pointing out the inconsistency in your own viewpoint since you come from a Christian perspective.

As for what I personally believe, I believe that logic exists. The jury is still out on whether it was created or just simply exists. I have no explanation for the very beginning of all that is nor do I even know with any certainty that there was a beginning. And God certainly doesn't satisfy me as "the answer" because then I would just have no explanation for he/she/its beginning. It's the same question. And, if an excuse for explaining the beginning of everything is the only reason I should believe in he/she/it, then that's no reason at all. That would be akin to my saying "I don't know if the universe has a physical boundary at it's farthest point, but I'll just say "yes it does" because I need an answer.

So, if logic exists - yet you do not know how it can. then why can't God exist, without you knowing how?

Now, the answer might not satisfy you that you don't know HOW/WHY God exists - however, by your admission something CAN exist and NOT be created.

THAT is what I'm getting at.

Sin is - not created. It's the opposite of God, like dark is the opposite of light - however light doesn't CREATE dark does it?

Love is God's nature - and thus NOT created.

I'm not expecting you to be "convinced" but to show you that even you beleive things exist without being CREATED. It's then, not a stretch to at least theorize how God's nature of LOVE and it's opposite SIN can exist without being created.

Creation is OUTSIDE of the creator. A drawing I create is outside of me. God IS LOVE - he didn't create it. Sin is the opposite, like dark is lights.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: