Conquer Club

S.O.S. says there is no God, but after 15 pages all we have are opinions, still no proof. "of this we are all clear" where do we find the evidence that there is no supreme being? can I examine it for myself or am I to take your word for it?
Don't come back with the old "prove that there is" adage, you started the thread, the burden of proof lies on you.

scorpion86 wrote:S.O.S. says there is no God, but after 15 pages all we have are opinions, still no proof. "of this we are all clear" where do we find the evidence that there is no supreme being? can I examine it for myself or am I to take your word for it?
Don't come back with the old "prove that there is" adage, you started the thread, the burden of proof lies on you.

You'll notice we've been trying since the first page to get him to say something of actual substance...

john9blue wrote:You'll notice we've been trying since the first page to get him to say something of actual substance...

i have said plenty of substance, for instance i linked you to a definitive disproof of the ontological argument which you have completely ignored. here is another, by kant

http://www.ghc.edu/humanities/dlarson/kanto.htm

daddy1gringo wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

daddy1gringo wrote:You may well say “I don’t buy this. The ‘God changed his mind’ theory makes more sense to me.” It depends largely on your point of view. This is how I read it.


Interesting sidelight. What God caused Balaam to experience on the road with his ass was exactly what God was experiencing with Balaam. A creature of lower intelligence, who is supposed to be following your directions keeps pushing for doing something else, like he knows better. Very frustrating. Made Balaam want to kill the dumb ass, and feel justified in doing so.

God says the guy shouldn't go there under any circumstances.
God says he can go there after all.
God sends an angel to prevent him from getting there.
The angel stands in his way three times and then says he can go there.

I don't know, but it sure seems like someone can't quite make up their mind.

Case in point.

15 Then Balak sent other princes, more numerous and more distinguished than the first.
16 They came to Balaam and said: "This is what Balak son of Zippor says: Do not let anything keep you from coming to me,
17 because I will reward you handsomely and do whatever you say. Come and put a curse on these people for me."
18 But Balaam answered them, "Even if Balak gave me his palace filled with silver and gold, I could not do anything great or small to go beyond the command of the LORD my God.
19 Now stay here tonight as the others did, and I will find out what else the LORD will tell me."
20 That night God came to Balaam and said, "Since these men have come to summon you, go with them, but do only what I tell you."

Sorry, but it certainly looks like god changed his mind. The prophet tells them that his (gods) decision stands without asking his boss, and then during night his boss goes "oh well, since it's those guys you can go with them". If god hadn't said anything he would've stayed there and the bible would've had a story less.

Medefe, did you even read what I wrote? You're just re-stating what mittens said and I answered it. Look, if you think there's something wrong with what I said, cough it up, but don't just pretend I never said it. Honestly, Medefe, you prove from some of your posts that you gave a lot of intelligence, but sometimes you just freakin' refuse to use it.

Summary: God's assertion that he's not going to change his mind is in response to their expecting him to change who he will bless and curse because they're standing on a different hill. He will not change that and he never wanted Balaam to go with these men. He does not change his mind on either of these things. The only thing that changes is he lets Balaam have his way, do what God told him not to do, waste his time, get threatened by the king and look stupid. The angel/donkey thing was for balaam's benefit: a) a reminder of who is boss, and b) an object lesson in what it feels like. If God wanted to kill him, he's a fried pork chop.

EDIT: This is a summary. for fuller statement of this idea, see original post just below middle of page 15.

actually what you have linked to, both links, is someone elses opinion. in their minds they cannot justify the existance of a supreme being. thousands of opinions can be presented for either side. which side you accept depends on your way thinking.
can you believe in something you cannot see, hear or touch, or do you deny its existance because of these things?
while i can't provide scientific proof that God exist, you can't provide any that he does not, only theories and opinions.

daddy1gringo wrote:Medefe, did you even read what I wrote? You're just re-stating what mittens said and I answered it. Look, if you think there's something wrong with what I said, cough it up, but don't just pretend I never said it. Honestly, Medefe, you prove from some of your posts that you gave a lot of intelligence, but sometimes you just freakin' refuse to use it.

Summary: God's assertion that he's not going to change his mind is in response to their expecting him to change who he will bless and curse because they're standing on a different hill. He will not change that and he never wanted Balaam to go with these men. He does not change his mind on either of these things. The only thing that changes is he lets Balaam have his way, do what God told him not to do, waste his time, get threatened by the king and look stupid. The angel/donkey thing was for balaam's benefit: a) a reminder of who is boss, and b) an object lesson in what it feels like. If God wanted to kill him, he's a fried pork chop.

EDIT: This is a summary. for fuller statement of this idea, see original post just below middle of page 15.

Yes I read your post, I do not think it applies. Balaam asked god once, god said he shouldn't go there, when the Moabites ask again he tells them the answer's still the same, then god pops in and tells him he can go there after all.
I didn't notice any part in the story where Balaam pesters god to let him go with the Moabites, did you?

That's better. It never actually quotes Balaam asking again, but look at v. 19. "Now stay here tonight as the others did, and I will find out what else the LORD will tell me." It's pretty clear that he asked again when god had already told him "no" in no uncertain terms.

I also like what he did in v.13: "The Lord has refused to let me go with you." Do you have kids? Ever get this one? You tell them no to something and bother to explain, it's dangerous, or only low-lifes do that kind of thing, or there are other consequences, possible or certain, to the action. What do they tell their friends? "Mom&Dad won't let me. Ugh, {rolls eyes} it's SO unfair."

john9blue wrote:

scorpion86 wrote:S.O.S. says there is no God, but after 15 pages all we have are opinions, still no proof. "of this we are all clear" where do we find the evidence that there is no supreme being? can I examine it for myself or am I to take your word for it?
Don't come back with the old "prove that there is" adage, you started the thread, the burden of proof lies on you.

You'll notice we've been trying since the first page to get him to say something of actual substance...

::high fives all around::

SultanOfSurreal wrote:

john9blue wrote:You'll notice we've been trying since the first page to get him to say something of actual substance...

i have said plenty of substance, for instance i linked you to a definitive disproof of the ontological argument which you have completely ignored. here is another, by kant

http://www.ghc.edu/humanities/dlarson/kanto.htm

I agree. You have substantially dis-proved the "ontological argument" or at least disproved the idea that that argument proves for certain that there must be a God. What you have not proven is that there is justification for the smug assurance of your opening post or your ridicule of belief in God.

scorpion86 wrote:S.O.S. says there is no God, but after 15 pages all we have are opinions, still no proof. "of this we are all clear" where do we find the evidence that there is no supreme being? can I examine it for myself or am I to take your word for it?
Don't come back with the old "prove that there is" adage, you started the thread, the burden of proof lies on you.

john9blue wrote:You'll notice we've been trying since the first page to get him to say something of actual substance...

Says the smily-spammer whose sole contribution to this thread so far has been to; attempt to argue that we should take the ontological argument seriously, to futilely resort to semantics when his views have been lambasted, and to toss out pointless attempts at condescension in the place of rational arguments.

John, hearing you whinge and moan about 'lack of substance' is about as laughable as hearing a clown complain about people wearing too much make-up.





Anyway, enough of your moaning and bawling about the fact that you can't come up with any evidence for your God existing and so want us to try to prove an absolute negative. Allow me to make a new wager, that puts the evidential onus squarely on the atheists:

We, the atheists of CC, hereby assert that there is no proof whatsoever for God's existence; we hereby claim that we can logically prove that any such 'proofs' are false. Further, we assert that there is no proof that it is more probable that God exists than that he does not (i.e. it is most probable that there is no such thing as God), again we will be happy to evidence this fact by dismantling any contradictory 'proofs' you care to put before us. Further still, we assert that any God who cannot be conclusively proved to not exist, can be proved to be utterly irrelevant to our daily lives; as ever, we shall evidence this by dismantling any contradictory proofs that you put to us.


To stop this thread from being overrun with too much mumbo-jumbo at once, I've split these three contentions into three seperate threads:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=90191
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=90191
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=90194

See you there suckers, let's see who can back up their claims now...

scorpion86 wrote:actually what you have linked to, both links, is someone elses opinion. in their minds they cannot justify the existance of a supreme being. thousands of opinions can be presented for either side. which side you accept depends on your way thinking.
can you believe in something you cannot see, hear or touch, or do you deny its existance because of these things?
while i can't provide scientific proof that God exist, you can't provide any that he does not, only theories and opinions.

wow this is truly fascinating, but you're forgetting that this isn't about disproving god's existence. it's about disproving one (specious, retarded) argument for god's existence.

the ontological argument is infantile and hasn't been taken seriously be philosophers (or even theologians, the retarded cousins of philosophers) for literally centuries. to see it advanced in 2009 as a convincing proof of god's existence is actually, genuinely, laughable

Actually, this thread IS about disproving God's existence. Your opening statement was "btw, there is no God...Just wanted to make sure we're all clear on this" You thereby stated the idea that there is no God as a certainty. Still waiting for you to back that up.

daddy1gringo wrote:Actually, this thread IS about disproving God's existence. Your opening statement was "btw, there is no God...Just wanted to make sure we're all clear on this" You thereby stated the idea that there is no God as a certainty. Still waiting for you to back that up.

"this" meaning the current line of discussion, which was the ontological argument

as to the overarching proof of god's nonexistence -- well once again, it's impossible to prove a negative, but i point to the complete lack of any evidence and use inference to conclude that the probability of god is so insanely unlikely as to make it perfectly acceptable to assert his nonexistence, the same as we assert the nonexistence of any other fantastical, made-up supernatural entity

at the very least, the abrahamic bully of the old testament is clearly nonexistent, being that the bible makes reams of unsupported, physically impossible, logically incoherent claims

SultanOfSurreal wrote:the abrahamic bully of the old testament is clearly nonexistent, being that the bible makes reams of unsupported, physically impossible, logically incoherent claims

OK, that's progress. I've already dealt with 2 such supposed things; what else you got?

Perhaps God's sudden personality switch halfway through the story would be a good next one to talk about? One minute 'perfection' is angry and wrathful, the next minute it's 'loving and forgiving'.


Also, I'd like to hear a point by point defence of the rules laid down in Leviticus... which so far as I can tell are almost all completely contradictory with the teachings (and recorded behaviour) of Christ.

daddy1gringo wrote:

SultanOfSurreal wrote:the abrahamic bully of the old testament is clearly nonexistent, being that the bible makes reams of unsupported, physically impossible, logically incoherent claims

OK, that's progress. I've already dealt with 2 such supposed things; what else you got?

let's start with the great deluge, dudes living for 900+ years, and the completely fictitious account of egyptians holding jews as slaves. then we can move on to stories of jesus raising the dead, coming back from the dead himself, defying physics, and -- in gospels disincluded from the bible for political reasons 2000 years ago -- accidentally using his jesus magic as a kid to turn his friends into donkeys, and magically lengthening a piece of wood for his father's carpentry work.

after that we can cover the absolutely ridiculous, pseudo-pagan, impossible stories in the bible, including a man who gets superpowers from his hair, a man who gets eaten by -- and lives inside of -- an angry whale, a man who gets fucked around by god and satan because of a supernatural bet, the butchering of a concubine to teach unruly tribes a vague lesson, and the entirety of the absolutely ludicrous moses story

if there's time we can move on to the lack of archaeological evidence or historical record for sodom and gomorrah, the existence of every single aspect of the christ story in different myths which came before (including virgin birth, bodily ascension into heaven, turning water into wine, and walking on water, among many others), and finally the inherently contradictory nature of a god who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving (and who frequently makes mistakes, changes his mind, or gets duped by humans)

daddy1gringo wrote:That's better. It never actually quotes Balaam asking again, but look at v. 19. "Now stay here tonight as the others did, and I will find out what else the LORD will tell me." It's pretty clear that he asked again when god had already told him "no" in no uncertain terms.

I also like what he did in v.13: "The Lord has refused to let me go with you." Do you have kids? Ever get this one? You tell them no to something and bother to explain, it's dangerous, or only low-lifes do that kind of thing, or there are other consequences, possible or certain, to the action. What do they tell their friends? "Mom&Dad won't let me. Ugh, {rolls eyes} it's SO unfair."

"what else the Lord will tell me"

God has told Balaam one thing, Balaam says that still stands. He tells the princes they can stay the night and if god has anything else he wants Balaam to tell them he'll relay it to them in the morning. It's not at all clear that he "asked again [if he could go with them]", at most it is clear that he "asked again" in the sense that he asked god if there was anything god wanted this second group of princes to be told specifically.

Dancing Mustard wrote:Perhaps God's sudden personality switch halfway through the story would be a good next one to talk about? One minute 'perfection' is angry and wrathful, the next minute it's 'loving and forgiving'.


Also, I'd like to hear a point by point defence of the rules laid down in Leviticus... which so far as I can tell are almost all completely contradictory with the teachings (and recorded behaviour) of Christ.

Apparently because all the big time churchy types got together and decided that Leviticus doesn't count any more there's no contradiction. All divinely inspired, natch. Seems to me that there so many excuses have been made for so many contradictions and inaccuracies that you practically can't figure it all out on your own any more.

Dancing Mustard wrote:Perhaps God's sudden personality switch halfway through the story would be a good next one to talk about? One minute 'perfection' is angry and wrathful, the next minute it's 'loving and forgiving'.

People are different and people/societies needed to change. God showed/shows different faces depending upon what people are ready to receive and hear.

Dancing Mustard wrote:Also, I'd like to hear a point by point defence of the rules laid down in Leviticus... which so far as I can tell are almost all completely contradictory with the teachings (and recorded behaviour) of Christ.

Most do make sense, but what specifically?

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Dancing Mustard wrote:Also, I'd like to hear a point by point defence of the rules laid down in Leviticus... which so far as I can tell are almost all completely contradictory with the teachings (and recorded behaviour) of Christ.

Most do make sense, but what specifically?

wait, did you just say the laws of leviticus make sense

daddy1gringo wrote:

SultanOfSurreal wrote:OK, that's progress. I've already dealt with 2 such supposed things; what else you got?

let's start with the great deluge, dudes living for 900+ years

Back in that time a year was a period of about 30 days. I wondered the same thing a while back, you know, how people could live that much longer than they do in the present day. After reading certain parts of the Bible I was able to calculate the time inwhich a year was counted. It was basiclly a month. I wish I could bring up the verses for you but that simply is too much work. Trust me, it is. I've tryed going through the Bible looking for a paticular verse and found it to be very time consuming when you don't know what chapter to look in.

EDIT: It just came to me, it's in the book of Daniel. Daniel calculates a time period inwhich a prophecy is described and by that I was able to determine the period of a year by which they lived. There, I feel better now.

God the excuses you people make. Everything that doesn't make sense is apparently written in some code, or was mistranslated, or we somehow didn't understand it. A year is actually a month? Wow. Just wow.

There is no god?

I have 3 little girls, who are coming to the age where I need to decide what to teach them in terms of religion. I was raised catholic, but have since dismissed that as the absolute truth. I wish I was part of the majority, who blindly follows a religion, and worships Jesus, or a god, but i just can't. I just can't. i struggle with it all the time. What do I do? Do I go against my gut feeling, and teach my girls Christianity, simply for the morality of it? Or do I dismiss it all, and tell them most of mankind is nuts? I mean, really - I think the American Indians had it right when they respected the earth, and all it's creatures. Jesus??? don't think so. God? in a sense that maybe there is a higher power that knows something behind the existence of the universe, and time... but i just don't have the faith for that - sorry. I guess I think that matter is it. We live, and die, and get buried, and that's it. It's not the most pleasant thought for the 'afterlife' - but i think it's real. sorry.

RjBeals wrote:There is no god?

I have 3 little girls, who are coming to the age where I need to decide what to teach them in terms of religion. I was raised catholic, but have since dismissed that as the absolute truth. I wish I was part of the majority, who blindly follows a religion, and worships Jesus, or a god, but i just can't. I just can't. i struggle with it all the time. What do I do? Do I go against my gut feeling, and teach my girls Christianity, simply for the morality of it? Or do I dismiss it all, and tell them most of mankind is nuts? I mean, really - I think the American Indians had it right when they respected the earth, and all it's creatures. Jesus??? don't think so. God? in a sense that maybe there is a higher power that knows something behind the existence of the universe, and time... but i just don't have the faith for that - sorry. I guess I think that matter is it. We live, and die, and get buried, and that's it. It's not the most pleasant thought for the 'afterlife' - but i think it's real. sorry.

You can teach your girls the majority of the morality of Christianity without getting into Christianity itself.