"The analogy still stands"
Queen Elizabeth II = God? The former actually exists, and is proven to exist (the 80,000 in the Olympic Stadium & the 1 billion watching on TV), the latter doesn't, because there isn't a single piece of evidence that he does. If that's an 'analogy', then along with the Bible's claim to credibility based on the concept of a talking snake, it stands, alright: as a house of cards would in a hurricane.
"your logic is flawed"
Ahem. After this:
'Why is it that Christians are the ones always being asked for evidence, while the atheists can just sit on their hands and not provide any evidence for their position?'
"Because we Atheists aren't the ones who claim that a 'God' exists, unlike you fundies. As I've explained in another thread, if you're the one who makes a claim (and an extraordinary one, i.e. that an all-powerful deity that you say exists), then the onus is on you to back up your claim, via physical evidence.
It's called Burden of proof.
And you know the only way to prove that a 'God' exists to the satisfaction of we Atheists, is for you to actually present to us this 'God' of yours, in hard, solid, physical form that can be seen, heard & touched (and no, not 'Jesus', 'God' himself). Also, to prove he is what he says he is, via demonstrations of his power - again, to our satisfaction. Only then will we acknowledge the existence of such a being; although he certainly doesn't deserve being worshipped, nor respect of any kind. By allowing evil to exist, and people to die - especially in the Old Testament - he's proved to be a complete douchebag with absolutely NO right to respect, never mind worship. I reckon that's why - if a 'God' exists - he refuses to show himself. Because he's got a lot of explaining to do.
So like I say, as it's you (& your ilk) who claims that a 'God' exists, therefore the onus - and burden - is on you to prove the existence of your so-called 'God', as explained above.
Because we Atheists, who don't acknowledge the existence of a 'God' - for the aforementioned reasons - don't go around forcing people to believe that such a deity exists, nor threaten them with psychological blackmail (your 'insipid threats of Hellfire', to borrow from Dr. Shrinker). After all, we Atheists don't do something something as stupid, delusional, and insane as 'believe' in a non-existent deity. Therefore we don't have to lift a finger.
And that's the difference. Remember those three golden words:
Burden of proof
Now prove your claim that a 'God' exists. To our satisfaction, as stated above."
Followed by your reply:
"Can you 'prove' your 'burden of proof' deal using physical evidence? Didn't think so. It's a philosophical position to avoid arguing your side, not a scientific fact."
...whose logic is flawed?
Can you 'prove' your 'burden of proof' deal using physical evidence? Didn't think so. It's a philosophical position to avoid arguing your side, not a scientific fact.
Oh, all right. There is no object, event or circumstance observed by science that requires a violation of any principle of physics, chemistry, biology, geology, etc. To support my argument I cite any and every contemporary science journal.
In other words, wizardly magic (goddidit) is no way to explain anything. Those who claim the existence of wizardly magic (goddidit) need to demonstrate how (goddidit) works. We're not asking for much. It doesn't need to be anything fancy. Just turn a lump of lead into gold, or restore the lost limb of an amputee. When you do that, describe your work in detail so that experimenters around the world can replicate the results.
Remember, our scientists have created elements that your magical wizard didn't. So don't give me that bullshit that science can't do some really amazing things.
Besides, everybody knows there is a mystical teapot in solar orbit between Earth and Mars. Bertrand Russell put it there. Prove me wrong."
"the Bible is not evidence. The Bible is a bunch of unsupported, self-contradictory, and in many cases, demonstraly incorrect, and nonsensical assertions."
An object made of paper/cardboard/ink/glue can be an eyewitness, apparently [/hyper-sarcasm]. The same object, with the claims it makes, wouldn't hold up as evidence in a court of law. And anyway, as eyewitness' testimonies are notoriously unreliable, and only hard, solid forensic evidence is admissable in court...!
(and she DARES to accuse me of being logically flawed?!):
"WTF does Higgs Bosom prove?"
"wow, I think I'vebeen on this board too long"
@#1068535 (emphasis added)
'wow, I think I'vebeen on this board too long'
"There's a fairly easy fix for that, you know."
...oh, and as you asked 'If you are up for it, I'm game, but it has to be a fair debate'. Okay then. As Jordab the Folf said - 'You'll pussy out of it when he brings up a good point, like you always do' and as I pointed out what stopped you from debating me previously, here's an opportunity for you to redeem yourself:
"Everyone and everything brings glory to God"
If your so-called 'God' wants us to 'bring glory to him', he can appear before us and ask for said 'glory' now. You have no part in the process. Nor does every other right-wing fundy like you. So how can you justify your bluff & bluster, and threats of 'Hell'? Surely your so-called 'God' can do that job by himself?
But then, if he's omipotent, why does he need 'glory'? Seems very egotistical of a so-called 'deity' with infinite power. What about before he even created the angels, never mind we mere mortals? How could he have possibly lived in all the infinite eons previously, without anyone giving him 'glory'? Would he die without it? (check one):
[ ] Yes. Thus 'God' isn't omnipotent, if he can't possibly exist without anyone giving him 'glory'. Thus he's not God. He's an inferior being not worthy of acknowledgement, nor 'belief' or 'faith' in such. And even if he exists, he's such an ego-monster for wanting 'glory', that frankly he has NO right to exist. But then, if he's not omnipotent, then he's not God. Thus he's a contradiction to himself. Ergo, he doesn't exist. QED.
[ ] No. So why does he need something as completely irrelevant (certainly to him) as 'glory'? And if he doesn't require 'glory' for his existence, then he doesn't require praise, or worshipping. Or even belief. After all, to quote Thomas Jefferson (remember him? One of the Founding Fathers who, via his contribution to the drawing up of the Constitution, proved that America isn't a 'Christian country', as you claimed & we on FSTDT comprehensively disproved. Otherwise, he wouldn't have said):
'Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear'
And if 'God' doesn't require, 'glory', then he doesn't require praise, and neither belief, nor acknowledgement of his existence. Therefore he doesn't require the man-made concept of religion. Ergo, religion - especially Fundamentalist Christianity - can't justify it's existence. QED.
Go ahead. Answer the above question. A simple Yes or No will suffice (no other answer/evasion tactic allowed; only 'Yes' or 'No'). If you're game, as you claim. And it's fair, too. After all, your 'God' gives people a fair chance as well: 'Worship me, or be tortured for eternity'. Yep. That's the proof that he's a 'Loving' God [/hyper-sarcasm]. Question:
"If your kids did something bad, would you throw them in a lit fireplace?"
There's another very easy question for you to answer (again, Yes or No will suffice; no other excuse of an answer/evasion tactic allowed). You're 'game', as you claim. Also extremely fair. But then, remember (emphasis added):
'Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.'
You want to 'debate' me, and as you claim only now 'I'm game', then here's a prime example of you doing as Jordab the Folf says, 'You'll pussy out of it when he brings up a good point, like you always do', but as above, have the opportunity to argumentally redeem yourself:
"A Visit From the Lord: Jesus Christ Visits Local Church, Offers Encouragement"
"[Deleted] Community Church is used to special visitors"
"But nothing could have prepared the congregation for the divine visitor they received Sunday, March 22, when following the congregation’s weekly worship service church members and visitors reported seeing Jesus Christ appear"
My husband has also seen God, not as Jesus but in the form of a dove following him to work. The same dove will fly from our roof as he leaves in the morning and follow his car the entire six blocks to his workplace.
"This is His4Life's husband, Ron. I just want to testify to this group that I have indeed seen the miraculous signs that my wife has described here. I know that these would be difficult to believe even if you are a believer in Christ, let alone someone who doesn't believe in miracles. However, I can tell you what I've seen with my own eyes. Our Lord did indeed visit the church that Sunday and walk down the aisle."
Assuming your manifestation story isn't an outright lie, it can easily be explained. You did not see Jesus, you saw an actor hired to play the role of Jesus by your church's governing board."
Your utter refusal to comprehend the subtleties of the notion of "Burden of proof" is really starting to annoy me."
@His4Life (emph-ass-is added):
"I could give you the names of the papers and reporters who were aware of the story but chose not to cover it"
"The story of the millennium and nobody wanted to run with it? What the fuck does that tell you? Not that the press is anti-Christian (in America?! Do me a fucking favour!) but that the strong smell of bullshit was detected.
And who can blame them? The sound of laughter could be heard in Mexico."
(Oh, and '[Deleted] Community Church'? 'Deleted'? Very telling.)
@Dr. Shrinker, Justanotheratheist
I've seen a flying car on TV. But - unlike Troll/Poe/Nuts4Life's claims that she has yet to date validate with proof to our satisfaction - I can prove it:
A Vauxhall Astra VXR flying around the studio in an episode of BBC's "Top Gear":
A similar flying car at the NEC Arena; also "Top Gear"-related:
Okay, that's my claim validated, your turn, dearie."
Just as I demanded then - and very fairly - I'm waiting...!
PROTIP: The phrase 'That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence'. It exists for a reason. If you can't prove your claims to our satisfaction, then what makes you & your ilk think that your 'Bible' has the right to be regarded as credible? Go ahead. convince us of what you - and it - claims is fact. Because you know what'll happen when you can't prove the Bible's veracity, and thus anything you can possibly claim, based on your 'beliefs': That book - the basis of what it claims to be - and you who use such as the basis of your so-called 'beliefs' has absolutely no legal right to impose it's - and your - 'morals' on anyone else. And what you think you have the right to be so opposed to - certainly same-sex marriage, and LGBT rights as a whole - doesn't have the right to exist, and your 'opinion' that is actually the basis of such opposition to what LGBT people have the legal right to do, has as much right to exist as the 'opinions' of those who once thought that giving equal, civil rights to those of a different skin colour would do the same damage to your country, just as right-wing fundamentalist Christians' 'opposition' to those out & proudly serving in their country's armed forces, homosexuality's legality as a whole, and same-sex couples having the same legal entitlements & responsibilities as heterosexual couples.
'An Atheist doesn't have to be someone who thinks he has a proof that there can't be a god. He only has to be someone who believes that the evidence on the God question is at a similar level to the evidence on the werewolf question.'
[ ] People with the power to change into lupines (humanoid or canid). Either involuntarily (every full moon), or at will ("Twilight". The main character in the spy/war/horror novel by Robert R. McCammon, "The Wolf's Hour": a Russian-born British agent - who is a werewolf; part of an ancient & secret worldwide clan who protect humans from evil - sent to prevent the Nazis from using a new & lethal biotoxic weapon against the Allied forces during the D-Day invasion).
[ ] A man made from dirt. A woman cloned from said dirt-man's rib. A talking snake. Rabbits chew their cud. Bats are birds. Insects have four legs. Pi = exactly 3. Goats bred near spotted poles, thus their offspring take on the same fur colouring/pattern characteristics of said poles. And many, many more.
Which one do I choose...? (And I've seen some really crap fantasy media in my time: "Battlefield Earth" for one! XP Also the 'OT-III Incident' Document, the basis of $cientology) Ooooo, that one's a toughy! [/hyper-sarcasm]. And I'm the one whose logic is 'flawed'?! Oh, and on the subject of Logic (emphasis added):
'We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes.'
And unlike L. Ron Hubbard, Gene wrote up a storm of a story - "Star Trek" - that has become a philosophy in it's own right. And it's central character - Capt. James T. Kirk - once even bested God himself (and as it turned out, an extremely malevolent deity he was!) in "Star Trek V: The Final Frontier": 'What does God need with a starship?' Thus Kirk is the source of all Awesomeness in the universe.
...but hey, one fiction's just as good as another. Amirite?! But at least one of said fiction doesn't cause some to hate certain people, just because they don't speak, act or think like them. Quite the opposite, in fact; in the world of the 24th Century as envisioned by Roddenberry, there is no more war, hunger, ignorance or want. There is no more bigotry (that scene with Kirk kissing Uhura); oh, and just two words: Slash Fiction.
You say 'you keep suggesting that you want me to answer your questions or debate you. If you are up for it, I'm game, but it has to be a fair debate'. Well, you've now painted yourself argumentally into a corner. The above extremely simple questions above - from past threads - are ultra-fair. You now have no choice but to answer such (Yes' or 'No' are all that's required; also proof to the satisfaction of we in FSTDT, re. those 'manifestations' claims in the above linked thread). Go ahead. Answer the above extremely easy questions; also - re. the 'manifestation' claims in the past - finish what you started; the good point I made then, in that discussion, that you pussied out of (as you've always done in discussions here in FSTDT). If you're 'game', as you say. Your're out of excuses now.
...or, as you said previously (and so tellingly honest, mayhaps subconsciously), 'wow, I think I'vebeen on this board too long", and as commenter @#1068535 then replied in that thread (emphasis added):
"There's a fairly easy fix for that, you know."
You know what that person - and yours truly - means. A clue: Matthew 10:14
Either answer those simple questions, and provide proof (or more appropriately - and doctrinally lethally - not; 'Belief' doesn't cut it in a court of law, and therefore a debate) of said 'manifestations', or in the process that you, as have your 'beliefs' & the basis of such, have not only been found wanting but have been logically destroyed, admit that you and your 'beliefs' & your so-called 'religion' are wrong in every conceivable way, thus you and your nonexistent 'God' have ultimately lost - especially against superior intellects - therefore obey Matthew 10:14, and never return to FSTDT again. Ever. As with the extremely fair debate(s) above, there's an equally fair solution for you.
...oh, and as for "So you are relying on other peoples' experiences of Queen Elizabeth as "proof" that she exists. Jesus appeared to at least 500 witnesses after his death"
The phrase 'Pics, or it didn't happen':
It exists for a reason. 80,000 people inside the Olympic Stadium. 1 billion watching live on TV (including yours truly). Let's see the same video evidence by those '500 witnesses of Jesus'. And no, 'video cameras didn't exist then!' is no excuse; your 'God' not supplying those 500 with the technology to prove what they'd claimed happened isn't my problem. Nor are their 'claims' admissable in a court of law (but then, neither is the Bible, or anything it claims. Period). Like I say: Pics, or it didn't happen. The house of cards that was your 'analogy' has not just been blown down in that hurricane, it's ripped the cards themselves into unrecognisable shreds. The previous photo of Queen Elizabeth in the VIP secion of the Olympic stadium. The above video clip of her declaring the 2012 London Olympics open. I've shown you mine, you show me yours. [/smartarse]
_THIS IS JESUS_||__
|.;.Saint Paul||__ __||
.'.||.'. OR (__________(___________)THIS IS YOUR BUTT
.'.||.'. the book of Mark
Which will it be? The Bible only gives us two choices.
@Jordab the Folf
"Aaannnd you resort to rape. Again."
'I will try to answer you every point in a logical, rational manner.'
Sorry, the butt post was not from me. One of my kids posted it last night.
Now where have we hard that before...? Oh yes, that's right (emphasis added):
"I can't believe the blasphemy of the title of htis post. Unbelieveable and disgusting. Enjoy having a demon's finger up your butt for eternity, bitch"
"That wasn't from me. Someone is hijacking my name. But it isn't too far from the truth, and you are a bitch."
"As a note,
Come from the same computer."
"(____________(________________) <--- Anon-E-Moose's fate in the afterlife."
So she claims that Queen Elizabeth didn't appear before 80,000 people in the Olympic Stadium, and watched by 1 billion people on live TV (including yours truly), but expects us to accept that said post wasn't by her but by one of her kids. Yeah. Right. [/hyper-sarcasm] She must've thought we came down in the last rain shower, and never heard of the story of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf". 'If you are up for it, I'm game, but it has to be a fair debate'. Nope, not seeing any debate by you - to our satisfaction. Still reduced to strawman arguments, and evasions; to say nothing of lies.
In conclusion: a supposed 'Christian' who dares to think she has the right to consider herself 'Saved', yet - as all right-wing Fundamentalist Christians like her - have no choice but to cherrypick from their beloved 'Scripture' (which - as it is the 'Word of God' - has to be obeyed literally, except not). Oh yes, obey one part of Leviticus (the OT) to justify their own bigotries, yet don't obey the rest of those rules that must be obeyed; on the other hand, think that said rule(s) can be carried over to the NT - when Professors/Scholars/Academics of Theology who know more about her own beliefs than she does, would say that the NT renders the rules in the OT null and void (and of course there's not word one of condemnation of homosexuality in the NT). 'Grace by Faith only', 'OSAS' and all that jazz. But of course - via cherrypicking; only obeying the 'Word of God' that's convenient for them & their bigotries/'opinions', and ignoring those doctrinally inconvenient/lethal for them.
She thinks she has the right to condemn anyone not exactly like her to eternal torture (I refer her to the above post/question by BurntBush), yet continue to speak/act/think/lie like a douchebag herself? We're going to be 'Buttsecksed by Demons'...? Oh, I'm afraid that Matthew 7:1 & Revelation 21:8. says otherwise. Via the 9th Commandment and James 2:14-26 have you condemned yourself to the 'punishment' that we whom you condemn - thinking that you speak for your 'God' (thus thinking yourself God) - will be spared, and take your place in heaven. I refer you to the quote by Marcus Aurelius.
If as I stated above you're now out of excuses, your only choice now is to obey Matthew 10:14, and never darken the HTML code of FSTDT ever again. You've proven that you're not 'up for the debate', unless you dare answer my questions above, and you're not prepared to add anything intelligent to the discussion - therefore your real screename - and aren't a Christian. By everything you say/do/think/believe/lie (repeatedly) do you continue to admit that fact.
I'm not the one with the flawed logic. Or is flawed, period. I'm not the pathological liar here in FSTDT.