Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-08-2015, 03:12 PM
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(06-08-2015 03:40 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(06-08-2015 10:50 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Not at all! I was just trying to impress on Mark that neither of us should waste our time in a debate--oh, also that, well, would YOU take the affirmative on my resolution?

If not, why not? Do you have evidence that there is no god that we can subject to rules of evidence, peer review and lab tests?

Thanks! Because I'd want THAT if I was to deconvert, right? Don't tell me EVERYONE who is a skeptic at TTA deconverted because of their feelings?!

Q, as Bucky and others said, it is impossible to prove something doesn't exist. You can't prove pink unicorns don't exist, and neither can I. So you could replace your god with anything in this fallicious argument.

If your argument is valid, why not worship the pink unicorn?

A serious, honest question to you Q. Do you now see the fallacy in this argument?

Q, obviously the penny still hasn't dropped for you. You haven't even bothered to answer. Read the above again. Slowly.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2015, 03:19 PM
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(07-08-2015 12:45 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(06-08-2015 03:20 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "I was just trying to impress on Mark that neither of us should waste our time in a debate"

Really? Why didn't you just say that? Why did you challenge me to a debate? What is so difficult about being real and honest and just saying what you think?

Mark, I've challenged you to three debates so far. And then I posted a further two resolutions to others. Be consistent--and honest. Please stop lying.

Q, you write

"I was just trying to impress on Mark that neither of us should waste our time in a debate"

and then

"Mark, I've challenged you to three debates so far."

You then imply that I am inconsistent, dishonest and a liar (but you don't say why.)

It is very obvious who the inconsistent liar here is - you.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Mark Fulton's post
07-08-2015, 04:23 PM
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(07-08-2015 12:41 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(06-08-2015 12:58 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  LMAO
Don't you wish.
Nice try, you disingenuous freakazoid.
No one can prove a negative.

I propose you two debate "There is scientific testable, citable evidence that there are no pink sparkly ruby encrusted unicorns". That at least would make more sense than debating the nonexistence of an undefined meme that no one can define coherently.

Unfortunately you are engaging in sophistry, BB, because you already know--and should acknowledge--that neither of us would choose the affirmative side in that debate.

I will repeat--since you must have missed my earlier inference--that regardless of whether we can prove a negative or not--that since you don't have any scientific evidence (and you won't admit it, but you don't) that there is no god, you might want to be consistent (and, more important to me, a nice gentleman) and not scream at every theist who walks into TTA's doors, "Where's your scientific proof of god, dimwit?!" Because it sure sounds to me like wish fulfillment, unless you add your subtext, "I have no science behind what I believe and would love to see someone's about either side of this issue. I'm desperate!"

Yes, the Bible I love describes you accurately where it says, "You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are..."

And, if you like, I can debate your fluffy proposition:

No one can prove a negative.

1) I can prove a negative right now. There is no coffee in my refrigerator. So, if you like, I can go and post a video to the boxing ring, and win the debate (unless you wish to stay in the ring long enough to "prove" there is coffee in my refrigerator today). That should prove amusing. Perhaps you will find some Starbucks in there or even God in there... who knows? You don't even know for sure if I'm telling the truth and if there is coffee in my fridge or if I'm bluffing, yet you have the brass to post angry, nasty responses online to dozens of theists, telling them they are lacking all the information. How dare you, sir.

2) You stated your own proposition in an illogical and self-defeating manner by using the unfortunate term "no one". "No one..." is a negative term meaning "none of this group exists". To even debate your resolution, we would need to first establish that positives and negatives exist. We have to believe there are right and wrong sides of the debate, that is to say, that this resolution I will affirm is a truth (or no-truth) or negative against the truth before we even debate. Heck, man, even if you are told by everyone at TTA including me that you WON the debate, you would have proven the negative of my resolution.

So, let's not debate but be friends, as no matter whether you or I pick the resolution under fire, you seem to be losing.

"I will repeat--since you must have missed my earlier inference--"

Yes, of course you will repeat yourself, because you have failed to acknowledge, or understand, the rebuttals to your argument, so you just say it again as if we didn't get it the first time.

"since you don't have any scientific evidence (and you won't admit it, but you don't) that there is no god,"

I cannot disprove with scientific evidence many things that you might imagine. Aliens on Pluto, teapots on Mars, a flower garden on Uranus, little red men on horses on the comet galaxy, pixies in submarines under the ocean, etc etc. All are impossible to disprove. Yet you have the gall to claim your God exists because he/it can't be disproven with "scientific evidence." William Lane Craig sometimes tries to use the same argument. This tactic is pathetic, and can only impress those with the weakest intellects.

"Where's your scientific proof of god, dimwit?!"

Stop pretending you're the victim of abuse. You Christians have a habit of doing this. You're just trying to distract from the guts of the argument ...that you have no proof for the existence of your god.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
07-08-2015, 04:49 PM
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(07-08-2015 12:41 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(06-08-2015 12:58 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  LMAO
Don't you wish.
Nice try, you disingenuous freakazoid.
No one can prove a negative.

I propose you two debate "There is scientific testable, citable evidence that there are no pink sparkly ruby encrusted unicorns". That at least would make more sense than debating the nonexistence of an undefined meme that no one can define coherently.

Unfortunately you are engaging in sophistry, BB, because you already know--and should acknowledge--that neither of us would choose the affirmative side in that debate.

I will repeat--since you must have missed my earlier inference--that regardless of whether we can prove a negative or not--that since you don't have any scientific evidence (and you won't admit it, but you don't) that there is no god, you might want to be consistent (and, more important to me, a nice gentleman) and not scream at every theist who walks into TTA's doors, "Where's your scientific proof of god, dimwit?!" Because it sure sounds to me like wish fulfillment, unless you add your subtext, "I have no science behind what I believe and would love to see someone's about either side of this issue. I'm desperate!"

Yes, the Bible I love describes you accurately where it says, "You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are..."

And, if you like, I can debate your fluffy proposition:

No one can prove a negative.

1) I can prove a negative right now. There is no coffee in my refrigerator. So, if you like, I can go and post a video to the boxing ring, and win the debate (unless you wish to stay in the ring long enough to "prove" there is coffee in my refrigerator today). That should prove amusing. Perhaps you will find some Starbucks in there or even God in there... who knows? You don't even know for sure if I'm telling the truth and if there is coffee in my fridge or if I'm bluffing, yet you have the brass to post angry, nasty responses online to dozens of theists, telling them they are lacking all the information. How dare you, sir.

2) You stated your own proposition in an illogical and self-defeating manner by using the unfortunate term "no one". "No one..." is a negative term meaning "none of this group exists". To even debate your resolution, we would need to first establish that positives and negatives exist. We have to believe there are right and wrong sides of the debate, that is to say, that this resolution I will affirm is a truth (or no-truth) or negative against the truth before we even debate. Heck, man, even if you are told by everyone at TTA including me that you WON the debate, you would have proven the negative of my resolution.

So, let's not debate but be friends, as no matter whether you or I pick the resolution under fire, you seem to be losing.

"2) You stated your own proposition in an illogical and self-defeating manner by using the unfortunate term "no one". "No one..." is a negative term meaning "none of this group exists". To even debate your resolution, we would need to first establish that positives and negatives exist. We have to believe there are right and wrong sides of the debate, that is to say, that this resolution I will affirm is a truth (or no-truth) or negative against the truth before we even debate. Heck, man, even if you are told by everyone at TTA including me that you WON the debate, you would have proven the negative of my resolution."

I read this a few times and it made no sense. Made myself a cup of coffee, took a look at the ocean, and then fed my fish. Sometimes one's subconscience needs to work on an idea. Nope. No clues. I've got no idea what the Q is trying to say, and I doubt he does either.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
07-08-2015, 06:30 PM
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(07-08-2015 12:44 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  God: "A spirit or being that has great power, strength, knowledge, etc., and that can affect nature and the lives of people."

OK. That's a start. As it is it defines a vast population of living beings - and does not sound at all "god" like. But its failure is its generality. A definition to have any useful meaning has to be specific.

So, make it specific.

Replace "etc" with the rest of the list. Fully.

Next, specify the metrics that pertain to the characteristics, so that the thing being defined can be differentiated from some other thing that it isn't. Thus "great power" is revised to read "can exert 56 terawatts per millisecond", "strength" is revised to "can accelerate 87 earth masses at 767 miles per second squared", "knowledge" is clarified to read "has an intellectual processing mechanism that contains 42 times the bit equivalent information housed in the US Library of Congress".

Etcetera. (I can say etcetera here; you can't).

These elaborations shift the definition toward something testable and falsifiable.

"Affects nature and people's lives" defines just about every possible phenomenon that can occur and thus says nothing at all. But clothe it with specificity and it becomes meaningful:

"Affects nature by manipulation of DNA via such and such mechanism, rerouting of river courses by such and such mechanism, distinguished from natural effects by these particulars (specify the particulars) ..." and so on.

"Affects people's lives by interfering with actions attempted via natural neurological processes and effecting these alternative actions by such and such mechanism ..."

A definition like that has teeth and can be evaluated. It distinguishes the thing being defined from any other possible thing (such as the wrong kind of god).

Now you might make an excuse that such metrics are impossible to obtain.

To which I say baloney. We don't have knowledge enough to say what kinds of measurements are possible or not possible in any absolute manner.

The god believers should be working diligently to find and measure the specifics of their god to at the very least be able to cogently differentiate their god from someone else's wrong god. Why leave that differentiation murky? If as believers claim belief in the wrong god is perilous, they have a moral obligation to clear up all possibilities for confusion. Strange that the god itself doesn't do that, but there's a hard metric for your definition:

Has never made its existence apparent in a manner that distinguishes it from nature. Now THAT sounds like a god.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Airportkid's post
07-08-2015, 06:35 PM
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(07-08-2015 06:30 PM)Airportkid Wrote:  
(07-08-2015 12:44 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  God: "A spirit or being that has great power, strength, knowledge, etc., and that can affect nature and the lives of people."

OK. That's a start. As it is it defines a vast population of living beings - and does not sound at all "god" like. But its failure is its generality. A definition to have any useful meaning has to be specific.

So, make it specific.

Replace "etc" with the rest of the list. Fully.

Next, specify the metrics that pertain to the characteristics, so that the thing being defined can be differentiated from some other thing that it isn't. Thus "great power" is revised to read "can exert 56 terawatts per millisecond", "strength" is revised to "can accelerate 87 earth masses at 767 miles per second squared", "knowledge" is clarified to read "has an intellectual processing mechanism that contains 42 times the bit equivalent information housed in the US Library of Congress".

Etcetera. (I can say etcetera here; you can't).

These elaborations shift the definition toward something testable and falsifiable.

"Affects nature and people's lives" defines just about every possible phenomenon that can occur and thus says nothing at all. But clothe it with specificity and it becomes meaningful:

"Affects nature by manipulation of DNA via such and such mechanism, rerouting of river courses by such and such mechanism, distinguished from natural effects by these particulars (specify the particulars) ..." and so on.

"Affects people's lives by interfering with actions attempted via natural neurological processes and effecting these alternative actions by such and such mechanism ..."

A definition like that has teeth and can be evaluated. It distinguishes the thing being defined from any other possible thing (such as the wrong kind of god).

Now you might make an excuse that such metrics are impossible to obtain.

To which I say baloney. We don't have knowledge enough to say what kinds of measurements are possible or not possible in any absolute manner.

The god believers should be working diligently to find and measure the specifics of their god to at the very least be able to cogently differentiate their god from someone else's wrong god. Why leave that differentiation murky? If as believers claim belief in the wrong god is perilous, they have a moral obligation to clear up all possibilities for confusion. Strange that the god itself doesn't do that, but there's a hard metric for your definition:

Has never made its existence apparent in a manner that distinguishes it from nature. Now THAT sounds like a god.

Very good. I bet he won't answer any of your questions. He'll just repeat himself.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2015, 07:00 PM
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(07-08-2015 06:35 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Very good. I bet he won't answer any of your questions. He'll just repeat himself.

Thanks, Mark. Likewise. You erudition and patience is exemplary - and I don't often comment because you're so thorough there's little that needs further saying.

I would love to see our questions taken seriously enough to elicit response with something OTHER than more cans from the bible can warehouse - but that may not actually be possible: original thinking can't take place without exiting the bible can warehouse, and somehow staying within its decaying musty interior must feel "safer" than opening a window or a door and going outside.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Airportkid's post
07-08-2015, 07:05 PM
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(07-08-2015 12:44 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  God: "A spirit or being that has great power, strength, knowledge, etc., and that can affect nature and the lives of people."

Yet choses not to use any of that power, ever, to alleviate suffering.
Your definition is nonsense, Q .... and you know it.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
07-08-2015, 07:05 PM
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(07-08-2015 06:30 PM)Airportkid Wrote:  
(07-08-2015 12:44 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  God: "A spirit or being that has great power, strength, knowledge, etc., and that can affect nature and the lives of people."

OK. That's a start. As it is it defines a vast population of living beings - and does not sound at all "god" like. But its failure is its generality. A definition to have any useful meaning has to be specific.

So, make it specific.

Replace "etc" with the rest of the list. Fully.

Next, specify the metrics that pertain to the characteristics, so that the thing being defined can be differentiated from some other thing that it isn't. Thus "great power" is revised to read "can exert 56 terawatts per millisecond", "strength" is revised to "can accelerate 87 earth masses at 767 miles per second squared", "knowledge" is clarified to read "has an intellectual processing mechanism that contains 42 times the bit equivalent information housed in the US Library of Congress".

Etcetera. (I can say etcetera here; you can't).

These elaborations shift the definition toward something testable and falsifiable.

"Affects nature and people's lives" defines just about every possible phenomenon that can occur and thus says nothing at all. But clothe it with specificity and it becomes meaningful:

"Affects nature by manipulation of DNA via such and such mechanism, rerouting of river courses by such and such mechanism, distinguished from natural effects by these particulars (specify the particulars) ..." and so on.

"Affects people's lives by interfering with actions attempted via natural neurological processes and effecting these alternative actions by such and such mechanism ..."

A definition like that has teeth and can be evaluated. It distinguishes the thing being defined from any other possible thing (such as the wrong kind of god).

Now you might make an excuse that such metrics are impossible to obtain.

To which I say baloney. We don't have knowledge enough to say what kinds of measurements are possible or not possible in any absolute manner.

The god believers should be working diligently to find and measure the specifics of their god to at the very least be able to cogently differentiate their god from someone else's wrong god. Why leave that differentiation murky? If as believers claim belief in the wrong god is perilous, they have a moral obligation to clear up all possibilities for confusion. Strange that the god itself doesn't do that, but there's a hard metric for your definition:

Has never made its existence apparent in a manner that distinguishes it from nature. Now THAT sounds like a god.

Of course he can't be specific in defining his god , and nor can any Christian.

If he is honest, he would admit that his god is nothing but his imaginings about the atrocious tyrant he's cherry picked stories about from the bible.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2015, 07:35 PM
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(07-08-2015 07:00 PM)Airportkid Wrote:  
(07-08-2015 06:35 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Very good. I bet he won't answer any of your questions. He'll just repeat himself.

Thanks, Mark. Likewise. You erudition and patience is exemplary - and I don't often comment because you're so thorough there's little that needs further saying.

I would love to see our questions taken seriously enough to elicit response with something OTHER than more cans from the bible can warehouse - but that may not actually be possible: original thinking can't take place without exiting the bible can warehouse, and somehow staying within its decaying musty interior must feel "safer" than opening a window or a door and going outside.

Thumbsup

The babble tells' em they're not allowed to think for themselves...

“Where are any of our thinkers today? Do you see now how God has shown up the foolishness of human wisdom?” (1 Cor. 1:20, JB.)
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: