A question for Agnostics...

You claimed I said something. To justify that, you provided a link . . . in which I didn't say the thing you accused me of saying. Yes, you are being dishonest.

 

false you quoted no such thing. I proved the whole neoatheist premise is built on a straw house.

 

false, a syllogistic analogy (representation) is part of the logic process, now you falsify logic itself. we will add that to your division fallacy. your syllogism fails because it claims a statement of negative believe is not an assertion.

 

You keep using terms you don't understand when you can't even comprehend the most basic inferences in all of logic when held by the hand. The only one against logic here is you. You claim to have provided a syllogism . . . when you have never actually written one out. Try actually articulating your syllogism. Show how you got from point A to point B. Show the ACTUAL syllogism you are working from. You can't.

 

haha, nice tangent, first things first, show how you did not falsify logic as I explained, show how a statement of negative believe is not an assertion, show how a division fallacy is a valid premise.

 

Not sure if you saw his "Proof" that there is no difference (in the other thread). He pointed to an article that notes that people often mean (2) when they say (1). It is of course a logical error when taken literally/carefully. The same article notes that often when somebody holds up a key and says "This is parked out back", they don't mean the actual key but the car it starts. People often say things presuming others will infer what they actually mean even when their literal words are clearly wrong.


Koko thinks the above somehow disproves your quote above, noting that there actually is a difference between (1) and (2). And he does that while pretending to be "agnostic" and say he does not assert God exists, and also does not assert God does not exist. Fun fella eh?

 

instead of gaslighting us with your unsubstantiated opinion which has already been proven wrong, why dont you simply POST the CITATION and share a little reality with us?

I know, you dont want us to know you are wrong again!

 

You are in the middle of gaslighting yardmeat, pretending he said something he didn't, and then want to pretend others are gaslighting you? Cute.

You already posted a link to your failure. I don't need to double down on you. You are in your hole. I didn't put you there. You did. And you think it is a mountain instead of a hole. We get it.

 

false he was trying to support your nonsense with a direct application and I cited kilma who took all the nonsense you and your pals posted all out in one clean sweep, you failed to counter. ym pretends I did not quote him, hell I even took a picture of it, but you have to click the link to see it. He knows what he did, and he knows he is wrong. Just like you know you are wrong and frantically searching for any angle to ease the pain after hundreds of pages of calling me names, well some things never change.

 

You are delusional. Your linked to article (that you didn't even read all of) didn't address what folks here have written. You are desperately grasping at straws.

How cute you are, projecting your own hostility and incivility onto "the bird".

 

LMAO, STILL NO CITATION just another boat load of drama with nomore validity than an armchair commando. Its already proven by a referenced citation that you lack the necessary literacy to discuss the matter.

Hes making it up folks, dont expect a 'valid' citation, I dont!

 

Ah, well, then you would really hate the pagan cultists.

 

Indeed. It also is true that Christianity is a religion based on a human sacrifice, but is an improvement over many earlier religions that did a lot more of it.

As I wrote above, a step forward we have since outgrown. It pulled us ahead but then anchored us to the new position as we pushed further still.

 

Getting back on topic,

I don't think I could classify myself in the nomenclature above without a clear definition of "deity". Is a really advanced alien species capable of creating humanity "deity"? I find that to be possible and potentially knowable. I also find deism far more plausible than Abrahamic religions.

 

The ones who killed people for blasphemy like the Christians did? Yes. The ones who didn't? No. There was a lot more freedom of thought and speech in pagan Greece than there was in most of Christianity's history. The majority of pagan societies had much more freedom of religion.

 

Well, that's because you personally dislike what is already written and just want to write your own, is all, which of course is the primary objection to Christianity and Judaism; it's inconvenient.

 

Where does it say Christians had no rights to defend themselves? Nowhere. That is what you're objecting to, that they survived far worse than what they did themselves. lol@ 'Greek tolerance'.

 

Please read posts before responding. Killing someone for saying mean things about your God is not "self defense." That's absolutely ****ing insane.

 

You really fall for this bull ****? Maybe give Age of Reason a read sometime, just as a primer. People capable of critical thought understand there's a lot more to object to then just fake accusations of "you just hate it because it's inconvenient." As far as straw men go, this is stuffed more than most.

 

You made the claim they were 'evil and violent', so back it up. The Crusades? The much mythologized 'Inquisition'? Where and when? And, how does that compare with the Muslim conquests, the human sacrifices, etc. of everyone else?

 

No, it is because what is written in those religions breaks with both discovered science and with itself, being self-conflicting.

And I don't just mean passages that disagree with each other. I also consider that an all powerful being could effortlessly have us all know whatever it wants us to.

That the "holy Scriptures" are communicated by human writings, and that there are hundreds of different understandings of what God wants us to know, seems telling to me. Either this version of God doesn't exist, or it intends all the disagreement and bloody conflict that results from the poor communication. The poor communication would have to be intentional if God is all powerful. And that doesn't fit with the claim that God wants all to know him, that he judges us all (based on criteria few will properly understand) or that he is perfectly benevolent.

Deism doesn't have such issues.

 

Yes, that is when the most witch burnings took place, when all the pseudo-intellectuals were running amok and making up stupid propaganda about Da Evul Xians' harshing their buzzes. So how many died when your heroes of the French REvolution were busying themselves with 'rational' mass executions?

 

Let's start with the Calvinists burning Unitarians alive for minor difference in doctrine, or the Puritans hanging Quakers, or the killing of Hypatia, or Luther advocating the execution of blasphemers (backed up by the book of Romans), or Christians outlawing other religions the moment they got political power (despite enjoying more freedom themselves under every Roman emperor but Nero), do I need to keep going?

 

lol Christianity encouraged science, and also education. This is another myth so-called 'rationalists' made up and repeat. And, the main reason Constantine protected the Christians was because of their successful social programs for themselves, and he wanted that for the whole empire.

 

. . . dude, the witch burnings were almost a century before Age of Reason were written. And it's clear you haven't read it, nor will you accept any criticism of Christianity, or be able to present a rational defense of any criticism made. All you have is fake accusations about "my heroes" and whataboutism. Was Calvin your hero when he had burned Servetus burned alive with a crown of sulfur for saying that the Father created the Son and there was a time when the Son did not yet exist? Oh, I forgot, you call that kind of psychopathic murder "self defense."