A Question For Supernaturalists

155 posts / 0 new
Last post
Delaware's picture
@ Old man shouts

@ Old man shouts

The "they" is Cognostic.

David Killens's picture
@ Jo

@ Jo

"They claim that Theist are delusional. (Mentally ill)"

Jo, you have crossed the line of acceptable and respectful conduct. I will claim that theists have been deluded; good, honest, intelligent, and sincere people have fallen prey to the most effective con job ever, namely religion.

I am offended because my parents, whom I respected 100% were devout theists. My father was a Mason, my mother Eastern Star. They were wonderful and compassionate parents, and for you to attempt this perverse act of reversing the burden of proof places me in the position where, at the end of this next paragraph, I will never again respond to any of your comments.

How dare you imply, in any way, that I may have claimed my parents were delusional or mentally ill.

Delaware's picture
@ David Killens

@ David Killens

It was Cognostic who made that statement. I was quoting him.
Please re-read my post and see I was answering Cognostic.
I was refuting beliefs he has, like Theists are delusional.

Why weren't you insulted and offended when Cognostic and others made that claim. (Theist delusional).
Others agreed and supported him, and you said nothing.
I argued AGAINST theist being delusional.

Why do you parse my every word for some evidence of malfeasance?
Remember when I was avoiding and unwilling to answer you. I did, but it made no difference.
Then I was playing gotcha. When it was you who has tested me.
I was making it a win/loose, when it was someone else making that claim.
Most recently I was a troll.

David Killens's picture
I copied this post by Jo to

I copied this post by Jo to ensure it was not edited by the poster. Post #64

"@ David Killens

It was Cognostic who made that statement. I was quoting him.
Please re-read my post and see I was answering Cognostic.
I was refuting beliefs he has, like Theists are delusional.

Why weren't you insulted and offended when Cognostic and others made that claim. (Theist delusional).
Others agreed and supported him, and you said nothing.
I argued AGAINST theist being delusional.

Why do you parse my every word for some evidence of malfeasance?
Remember when I was avoiding and unwilling to answer you. I did, but it made no difference.
Then I was playing gotcha. When it was you who has tested me.
I was making it a win/loose, when it was someone else making that claim.
Most recently I was a troll."

It is the very last sentence I call the attention of the mods to. It is an admission the poster was deliberately being a troll.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Jo - Most recently I was a

Jo - Most recently I was a troll.

What happened to the golden rule? Troll removed.

Tin-Man's picture
Re: Jo has left the building.

Re: Jo has left the building...

...*pinching own arm repeatedly*... *reading Nyar's post again*... *rubbing eyes hard with knuckles of index fingers*... *blinking rapidly*... *reading post AGAIN*... Could this.... really be... true?... *slapping self in face*... Somebody please tell me I'm not imagining this.... *checking calendar*... It's not April 1st, is it?... *uncertain voice*.... Jo is REALLY gone?.................................................................. *reality slowly setting in*........................................ *suddenly sprinting up and down hallway and yelling*... HEY!!! EGGNOG FOR EVERYBODY!!! MY TREAT!!! DAVID AND NYAR GET A WHOLE BARREL ALL TO THEMSELVES!!! COG, BRING THE BANANA PUDDING! OLD MAN, BRING THE CHOCO-BOMBS! SHELDON, CAN YOU BRING THE POPCORN? FIEVEL, PASS THAT DOOBIE ALREADY! YOU'RE IN CHARGE OF THE TUNES, DUDE! MIKHAEL, DRAW UP A MEMORIAL PIC IN HONOR OF DAVID AND NYAR! NEWSKEPTIC, YOU AND CRANKY SIT IN OPPOSITE CORNERS OF THE ROOM AND SHOOT PEOPLE RANDOMLY WITH THESE HEAVY DUTY RUBBERBANDS! C'MON, PEOPLE! CHOP-CHOP! MUCH CELEBRATING TO DO!!!...

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
Party! Chuck another banana

Party! Chuck another banana on the Barbie! Cog. Get those nappies off its freedom time! ....wait...Cog put those nappies back on! Ding dongthe Jo has gone!

David Killens's picture
@ Jo

@ Jo

"What ESTABLISHED definitions and concepts am I continually trying to redefine?
Atheism is a lack of faith in gods."

Your honor, the prosecution rests it's case.

Calilasseia's picture
I'm not committing any error

I'm not committing any error here, I'm pointing out an observable fact. What part of this elementary concept do you not understand?

Quite simply, any entity capable of fabricating an entire universe, would also be capable of proofreading any text attributed to it, and ensuring that manifest and risible errors were eliminated therefrom. Especially given that said entity is also asserted to possess "perfect foreknowledge" of the future, and would, as a corollary of that assertion, know in advance that any such errors would be discovered and subject to critique. You have no answer to this lethal objection.

Plus, it's precisely because the assertions of this mythology ARE at variance with demonstrable scientific fact, that recognition of this disconnect constitutes a powerful reason for regarding it as incompetent to answer even elementary questions, let alone difficult ones. Or did this elementary concept also fly past you, when rushing to post your predictable apologetic fabrications?

Delaware's picture
@ Calilasseia

@ Calilasseia

Your apologetics are not objective.
You misunderstand and mischaracterize the Bible.
Then use your misconceptions as evidence of "errors".

Galileo knew the answer to your "variance", "errors" and "lethal objection".

While I recognize and respect your obvious brilliance and education.
I must point out that you are not thinking it through.
You are taking a wooden and one dimensional view.
A fundamentalists like, literal and simplistic reading of the text.

David Killens's picture
@ Jo

@ Jo

"A fundamentalists like, literal and simplistic reading of the text."

Because the moment one deviates from a literal reading of the bible, it allows interpretation, and one can derive any answer they desire. Anything else is pure bullshit.

This bible is intended to be a rule book and a guide. Any and all rule books must be clear and concise. That is why I apply literal reading to this bible, and if you don't agree, tell the authors of your bible to fix their book.

Delaware's picture
@ David Killens

@ David Killens

You are more extreme than most fundamentalists.

How do you know the intent of the Bible with such absolute certainty?
How do you know that everything is meant to be literal?

David Killens's picture
@ Jo

@ Jo

"How do you know that everything is meant to be literal?"

Then why do so many different christian sects apply literal readings from the bible into their lives?

Delaware's picture
@ David Killens

@ David Killens

I cant answer for all christian sects. But here are some possibilities.
Because some things in the Bible are literal, and so they assume they all are.
They are looking for certainty.
They don't think in an open minded way.
Thy don't understand that the Bible is multilayered and sophisticated.
They don't realize that the Bible is intended to be relevant to all people at all times.

Please answer my previous question to you with an answer, instead of with a question. Here it is again.
"How do you know that everything is meant to be literal?"

LogicFTW's picture
@Jo

@Jo

You are taking a wooden and one dimensional view.

Says the guy that believes in their god idea without demonstrable evidence.

Hey Jo, I won a 500,000 dollar lotto ticket. But it takes a long time for me to get the money, and I need some money right now, I will sell you the 500,000 ticket if you give me 1000 bucks cash now. It will be in the mail first thing soon as I get the 1000 dollars from you.

I already know you wont do this. Why? Because you need demonstrable evidence, you are not just going to take my word for it. You have the ability, now apply the same to your god idea. The same tools you apply to the 1000's upon 1000's of other god ideas that you do not think is real.

Delaware's picture
@ LogicFTW

@ LogicFTW

"Says the guy that believes in their god idea without demonstrable evidence."
Does anyone have any demonstrable evidence?
Did you decide based on demonstrable evidence?
I must have demonstrable evidence, but you do not?

That is not the tools I apply to the gods I believe do not exist.
Please note that I said - believe do not exist.
Not lack of faith or non-belief.
A big difference.

LogicFTW's picture
@Jo

@Jo

Does anyone have any demonstrable evidence?

Of their particular god idea? Not that I ever heard of.

Did you decide based on demonstrable evidence?

About your god and lack of demonstrable evidence that it is just an idea? Yes I absolutely did. Same way I dismiss Santa claus, or thor or any one of a million different god ideas.

I must have demonstrable evidence, but you do not?

I see you still do not understand that the person making the claim has to have demonstrable evidence. Not the person denying the claim. Do you have to prove to me why you do not believe in the "LogicFTW is your god" idea? Realize at this point, that you can not, nor should not have to disprove that I am your god, as an idea/claim.

That is not the tools I apply to the gods I believe do not exist.

What tools do you use?

Please note that I said - believe do not exist.
Not lack of faith or non-belief.
A big difference.

So, you "believe logicftw god does not exist" but you are not sure. Well since you think it is possible I am your god, let me cut you a deal. Send me 10,000 dollars, and I promise you I will give you eternal bliss for all eternity after you die.

Delaware's picture
@ LogicFTW

@ LogicFTW

You only addressed part of the question. Let me be more direct.

Wouldn't it be best to have evidence for your denial of a claim?

Do you have any, or know of any evidence about the claim that God doses not exist?
Do you have any, or know of any evidence about the claim that God's existence or non-existence cannot be known?

Point of clarification - I have lots of evidence and arguments as to why God exist.
I have listed them at length before, but would be glad to again.
When I say that no one has any evidence, I mean scientific, empirical evidence.
If you have some on the subject, please share.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Jo

@ Jo

I have lots of evidence and arguments as to why God exist.

Jo you have already failed at this task as you have at all the others.

You failed to evidence your god into existence
You failed to logic your god into existence

You are now just rehashing your failed and unsusable arguments by redefining words, attempting to reverse the burden of proof and effectively just lying in your "pursuit of truth"

Are you trying to fatigue us into accepting your fairytales?

Lets recap:
There is no contemporary evidence for the existence of the Jesus figure as described in the gospels
There is no contemporary evidence for the 12 Apostles/Disciples
There is no contemporary evidence for all the other Apostles/disciples described in the gospels.

So, NO evidence for the foundation of your faith at all. NO CONTEMPORARY EVIDENCE AT ALL.

Yet you continue to make risible at best and calculatingly mendacious at worst statements such as the one that heads this entry.

Some "seeker of truth" Jo. Hang your head in shame.

Delaware's picture
@ Old Man Shouts

@ Old Man Shouts

The facts you stated "no contemporary evidence" have to be analyzed and interpreted.
Facts by themselves do not give you the answer or the truth.
They must be thought through, compared and combined with other relevant facts.
Then a positive conclusion can be reached.

So what is the conclusion of the matter?
What IS the truth?
Can you make positive statements instead of just negative ones?
In your 30 years of diligent research what have you concluded IS the truth?
What beliefs, conclusions, and truths have you decided to accept?

Not more negative statements like:
There is no....
I do not believe...
Jo is....

What IS there evidence for?
What DO you believe?
What IS the truth that Jo should embrace?

Tin-Man's picture
@Jo Re: "Do you have any, or

@Jo Re: "Do you have any, or know of any evidence about the claim that God doses not exist?"

Oh-god-fucking-damn already... *double face palm*... How many more fucking times are you going to ask that same fucking question or make that same type of remark that you have been making over and over and over and over and over for the past several months, only to have it explained to you over and over and over and over and over by multiple different members here? Sweet-baby-Jesus-with-a-poo-flavored-popsicle-bouncing-on-Santa's-gout-swollen-knee... *shaking head sadly*... At this point, you are not even TRYING to hide your trolling activity on here. Are you all shook up, upset, and addled that your latest sock got sent to the cyberspace incinerator, and now you are back here seeking to avenge her destruction? Tsk-tsk-tsk.... *shaking index finger in admonishment*... Shame on you, Jo. Remember, "Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord!" You of all people should know your precious god will make sure those of us responsible will certainly pay for our sins in his own due time. And if you take a little of your time to go pray to your god and ask him to punish us sooner, he might just agree to revise his "Perfect Plan" just for you and grant your request. Give it a shot, and keep us posted on how that goes for you. Love ya. Mean it.... *smooch*...

LogicFTW's picture
@Jo

@Jo

"Do you have any, or know of any evidence about the claim that God doses not exist?"

Do you have any, or know of any evidence about the claim that logicftw God doses not exist?

"Do you have any, or know of any evidence about the claim that God's existence or non-existence cannot be known?"

Do you have any, or know of any evidence about the claim that logicftw God's existence or non-existence cannot be known?

I can do this all day.

Delaware's picture
@ Logic FTW

@ Logic FTW

I can state what I DO believe, not just what I do not believe.

I believe logicftw is not a god, but a made up claim on AR.
Please see his previous posts to evidence when this fake god was made up.

If there is no evidence that God exists or does not exist, than how do we know what to believe?

Calilasseia's picture
It appears that once again,

It appears that once again, you are in need of the baby steps here. Strap yourself in for the requisite roller coaster ride.

Quite simply, your mythology asserts that the universe and its contents were the product of activity by a fantastically gifted magic entity. An entity which, in order to perform the instantiation of the observable universe and its contents, must out of necessity have possessed a knowledge of the physical sciences and their application that far transcends that of the world's best extant physicists (though if some of my hypotheses about Steinhardt & Turok's work are realised, this statement will immediately come into serious question - but I digress).

As a corollary of possessing both the colossal breadth and depth of knowledge required to perform such an act, andruthless in eliminating obvious and fatuous errors from any statements attributed thereto. This is a basic fact you cannot escape from. All your lame assertions about my "mischaracterising" your mythology are nothing but specious diversions from this basic fact. Furthermore, presentation of this fact isn't "apologetics", because apologetics visibly and manifestly involves fabrication on a grand scale, and I have fabricated nothing here.

If human scientists with far more limited knowledge lament the introduction of errors into public dissemination of their ideas, then surely a far more knowledgeable entity would lament this even more? Especially given the assertion that the entity in question is not only asserted to exist, not only asserted to possess fantastic gifts, but is also asserted to be intent upon presenting a message to humans that is purportedly of critical importance for our species. Would you allow errors to appear in any message of critical importance you wished to deliver to others? If not, then you are at least part way to understanding the import of my critique.

Quite simply, if a body of text contains manifest and demosntrable errors about observable entities and interactions, then its provenance as a purported source of "knowledge" or "wisdom" is seriously in doubt as a result of the presence of those errors. You wouldn't question this basic fact if applied to any body of text other than your favourite mythology, so your attempts to hand-wave away this entirely valid objection when applied to your favourite mythology, stinks of special pleading and several other fallacies. Which lead in turn to the conclusion that your output is either the product of ignorance or duplicity.

Your bluster is merely yet more demonstration that you have no substantive answers to the above.

Delaware's picture
@ Calilasseia

@ Calilasseia

The "manifest and demonstrable errors" are because you mischaracterization the Bible as being a scientific text.

You mentioned the message to humans that is critically important.
What is that message?
To enlighten us with some scientific knowledge?
To convince you of its reliability because of its scientific accuracy?

Calilasseia's picture
Congratulations on missing

Congratulations on missing the point by several light years, as is typical of mythology fanboys.

Quite simply, every author of every mythology intends for the assertions contained in said mythology to be treated as fact. The authors in question would not bother writing the mythologies they do, if they didn't intend for their assertions to be treated as fact. That's practically the definition of a mythology in proper scholarly circles - a collection of assertions about the world and its contents, that are intended to be treated as fact.

Now that this elementary principle has been laid bare before you, you should be in a position to understand, that your irrelevant remarks are precisely that - irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether or not the authors of a mythology intended their work to be a scientific treatise, and indeed, I'm aware that most authors of mythologies didn't even have a concept of 'science' when they wrote their mythologies, what matters at bottom, is that they intended all of their assertions to be treated as fact, no matter how much those assertions constituted nothing more than ex recto fabrications.

But when a mythology contains assertions about observable entities and interactions that are demonstrably wrong, then there is no reason for anyone aware of this to treat those assertions as fact. When are you going to learn this elementary lesson?

I don't fucking care what sort of work the authors intended their mythologies to be, whether they intended their mythologies to be historical accounts or ethical narratives or whatever, what I care about, once again, is whether or not the assertions contained therein are correct or not. When are you going to learn this elementary lesson? And, for that matter, the corollary that follows naturally from this, that the moment demonstrable errors are found in such a body of text, its provenance as a purported source of "knowledge" is seriously in doubt from that point on?

And, yet again, as another corollary of the above, I am under NO obligation to treat those mythologies as anything other than mythologies. That, in case you missed this elementary concept, is exactly how I regard those mythologies - AS mythologies. I regard them as what they manifestly are - collections of blind assertions intended to be treated as fact, regardless of how much real world data points and laughs at the notion that those blind assertions are anything other than ex recto fabrications.

As for the nature of any purported "message" contained therein, and assertions about the origin of that message, once again, these are a complete irrelevance with respect to all of the above. Get it into your head once and for all, that I don't fucking care what sort of message is purportedly being delivered, what I care about is whether or not the message is being delivered competently, and in the case of mythologies, that competence is manifestly absent, the moment demonstrable errors appear therein.

Now, are you going to drop this "mischaracterisation" nonsense you keep peddling once and for all in the light of the above?

Tin-Man's picture
@Cali Re: To Jo - "Now, are

@Cali Re: To Jo - "Now, are you going to drop this "mischaracterisation" nonsense you keep peddling once and for all in the light of the above?"

Sadly, he will not. Jo will continue bringing up his same old dishonest nonsense over and over and over again no matter how many times he has it explained to him. He has been doing that consistently for the past several months, regardless of how many times his pathetic attempts at trying to reverse the burden of proof have been shoved back up his ass from whence they came. My guess is that he gorges himself on a diet of fast food and snack cakes and then drinks an entire bottle of Ex-lax a few hours before each time he logs in here. Just speculating, of course. Nevertheless, regardless how he manages to produce that much shit every time, suffice it to say we have yet to see anything new coming from him since about a week after he checked in for the first time. And ever since then, it has been the same ol' shit over and over, but it just seems to be increasing in quantity. Either he has ZERO intentions of trying to actually learn anything, or the guy has the most severe case of short-term memory loss that I have ever seen.

Delaware's picture
@ Calilasseia

@ Calilasseia

"every author of every mythology intends for the assertions contained in said mythology to be treated as fact."
The fact being explained in Genesis is that God created the universe with a purpose and with an ultimate goal in mind.
How is this "demonstrably wrong"?

"It doesn't matter whether or not the authors of a mythology intended their work to be a scientific treatise."
But then you say "demonstrable errors (scientific?) appear".
This doesn't seem consistent to me.

Sheldon's picture
Calilasseia "a genuinely

Calilasseia "a genuinely existing fantastically gifted entity, one capable of fabricating an entire universe and its contents, would surely possess the power to ensure that any "message" it sought to disseminate to us, would not contain manifest and discoverable errors?"

Jo "you are making the same errors as that some fundamentalists make.
They try to make the Bible fit with science, and than use that as a basis for it's reliability "

What a shameful lie, clearly Calilasseia's post not only made no reference to science, it had nothing to do with science, you simply have a chip on your shoulder where science and logic are concerned, but are ignoring the facts of Calilasseia's post. Which is the christian doctrine that a deity with limitless power and knowledge exists, and yet the contradictory claim that it cannot clearly and unequivocally communicate a message that wasn't destroyed within a few hundred years by human reasoning. The method human's used to refute biblical errancy has no relevance Jo, biblical errancy, in the context that religious apologists claim those texts as the inerrant word of an infallible deity is what is relevant.

Your reference to a straw man fallacy is the rankest dishonesty imaginable, not only because it is falsely applied here, but because for months you have again and again used known common logical fallacies, and refused even once to acknowledge this, or to engage honestly or rationally with posters who point it out.

Any theist quoting Galileo is worthy of a massive belly laugh though...another irony overload...

Sheldon's picture
@Jo

@Jo

You have ignored the fact a perfect deity with limitless power and knowledge cannot rationally be expected to communicate errant nonsense.

So you have addressed nothing Jo, merely waved it away with desperate unevidenced assumptions yet again. I did love the idea you know what the author of Genesis intended though Jo, who was the human author by the way?

Dear oh dear Jo.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.