Search results

There is a dedicated thread on this now - this one would just end up repeating it.

There is a dedicated thread on this now - this one would just be repeating the other.

Before I can comment any further on that prophecy, I would need to see the exact prophecy. Please reproduce it here so that it may be scrutinised.

I did not ignore it -- I said: That is, the point that the Bible is well preserved has no relevance. How does the fact that it is well preserved matter? As I said above, that has no relevance. 1. There are claims made in the Bible that go beyond history; they are metaphysical and cosmological...

Yes, it had some good parts and some bad parts Thanks for the link

Generator put it succinctly, "The existence of a man or a book doesn't suggest that a god exists, it merely suggests that the religion and its prophet did exist at such a date." Again, the age of a document does not necessarily mean that its content is true. Refer to the post here , which deals...

Faith is belief without evidence. Ergo, your argument is "Religion requires more than logic, it requires belief without any evidence." That alone should illustrate the problem, but if you still do not get it: I could say the same thing about aliens. You need a reason to believe in God, just...

I would never think of it, and appreciate your politeness. I have to disagree. Logic is not subjective. In my arguments, assuming I am applying it correctly, I am using deductive reasoning and pointing out fallacies. These are not subjective things but flaws that exist regardless of who makes...

Your question is answered here, and all further discussion on God should be in that thread

In my personal capacity I now post a number of important atheistic/agnostic counter-arguments from the old thread, to bring the discussion up a notch and to save having to repeat them. (Rebuttals are taken from www.talk-orgins.org.) Arguments against theism • Why you cannot use a religious...

This thread is for discussions about whether God exists. I created a similar thread a long with the same title but I eventually deleted it because it became a monster. I am reluctant to recreate this thread, however such discussions about God are encroaching on a number of different topics...

For the most part I agree. I would note however that for those of us who have actually studied reason and logic, it is somewhat ironic to direct that towards us. Yes but what was said was that they are not comparable. The example is nonsensical because of the differences.

If it is impossible to prove the existence of God, no-one can know if God exists or not. Ergo, you cannot claim with a shred of certainty that there is a God. Ah, again the wishful thinking approach. "We need a God because it would be bad without one." That in no way demonstrates the existence...

Xayma already addressed your points, but as I previously mentioned, many minds quashing flawed reasoning may help to illustrate the arguments in different and hopefully enlightening ways. Why is it morally incorrect? 1. Assuming religion is true. 2. You again assume that there is an objective...

Ah, again I am overwhelmed by your indomitable counter-argument.

With such a well reasoned reply, how could I believe otherwise :rolleyes: Additionally, please do not misquote me; I actually stated:

1. Prove that heterosexuality is acceptable. 2. As I already stated, we don't make everything that is not explicitly recognised under law, illegal. Just because there is no law saying it is okay to play golf does not mean that golf is illegal. Everything that is not prohibited by law is...

By all means, engage in it -- just not in this thread. I will gladly dismantle your arguments about god, but not here. Pretty much all arguments for god are a priori since there is no material evidence. But they are still bad arguments. The analogy is flawed. You can measure hunger, through...

I will do so, but they are pretty obvious points. Justification: pleasure is good. Therefore, if we maximise it for all people, where is the danger? Justification: 1. You have provided no reason for the proposition that attraction to the same sex is wrong. There is no reason to believe such a...

I note that you have ignored my counter-arguments, and that this point has nothing to do with gay people, but I will respond anyway. I would never have sex with an animal, because I find it repugnant to me personally. But if the animal consents and it was obvious that both participants were...