The silence of God

[MarsCydonia]

ok, my reply to the correct form of the argument is>

I don't grant that God would have that goal, the atheist has the burden proof and he has to show that if God exist he would have that goal

as predicted, nothing meaningful changed, both with my "straw man" or with the "correct form of the argument" the atheist has a burden proof that has not been meat.

Here is it gentlemen: proof

Not of what Leroy demands because this has already been discussed at lenght in previous comments.

Proof that Leroy lacks the mental capacity to read and remember comments.

Will Leroy ask that we indulge his mental defiency of his by repeating what was already written?

 

[Sparhafoc]

Luke 11:9-10

So I say to you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and he who seeks, finds; and to him who knocks, it will be opened.

Luke 12:36

Be like men who are waiting for their master when he returns from the wedding feast, so that they may immediately open the door to him when he comes and knocks.

Revelation 3:20

Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

ok, my reply to the correct form of the argument is>

I don't grant that God would have that goal, the atheist has the burden proof and he has to show that if God exist he would have that goal

As I keep saying, he can learn.



Dandan/Leroy, I already established this point. Glad to see you finely agree with me and also admit that all you have done through out this thread is argue against a strawman.

as predicted, nothing meaningful changed, both with my "straw man" or with the "correct form of the argument" the atheist has a burden proof that has not been meat.

:lol:

Besides me "predicting" this months before you, nothing has changed. You are right that one needs to establish this to be a deity's goal. You already admitted that your god does not have this goal, yet Jesus does (as everyone else has pointed out).

 

[leroy]

ok, my reply to the correct form of the argument is>

I don't grant that God would have that goal, the atheist has the burden proof and he has to show that if God exist he would have that goal

As I keep saying, he can learn.



Dandan/Leroy, I already established this point. Glad to see you finely agree with me and also admit that all you have done through out this thread is argue against a strawman.

as predicted, nothing meaningful changed, both with my "straw man" or with the "correct form of the argument" the atheist has a burden proof that has not been meat.

:lol:

Besides me "predicting" this months before you, nothing has changed. You are right that one needs to establish this to be a deity's goal. You already admitted that your god does not have this goal, yet Jesus does (as everyone else has pointed out).

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I find it perplexing  that atheist are not willing to carry the burden proof even when they make the positive argument.


for weeks your excuse was that I was making a straw man, now that I addressed the alleged correct form of the argument you are still avoiding your burden.


the counterargument for both forms of the argument (the supposed straw man and the supposed correct form) is the same


you can not know that if God does something different, humans would react in accordance with God s goals, because you don't know what God s goals are, and because you cant know how humans would react.

 

[MarsCydonia]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I find it perplexing  that atheist are not willing to carry the burden proof even when they make the positive argument.

for weeks your excuse was that I was making a straw man, now that I addressed the alleged correct form of the argument you are still avoiding your burden.

the counterargument for both forms of the argument (the supposed straw man and the supposed correct form) is the same

you can not know that if God does something different, humans would react in accordance with God s goals, because you don't know what God s goals are, and because you cant know how humans would react.

Here is it gentlemen: proof

Not of what Leroy demands because this has already been discussed at lenght in previous comments.

Proof that Leroy lacks the mental capacity to read and remember comments.

Will Leroy ask that we indulge his mental defiency of his by repeating what was already written?

Scratch that. I will correct the above to "Proof that Leroy lacks the mental capacity to read and understand comments so they disappear from his brainless mind right after reading".

 

[Sparhafoc]

I find it perplexing  that atheist are not willing to carry the burden proof even when they make the positive argument.

In one of the many threads in which you are playing this juvenile game with strangers on the internet presumably to salve some kind of existential angst, I offered a scenario where you could take either position of affirmative or negative, and in both scenarios you refused the burden of proof, demanding that the opposite position had it.

For example:

I don't grant that God would have that goal

- specifically says that you do not accept the claim.... (the claim is actually a strawman of what was really said and also your rejection of it genetically undermines your supposed belief in the Bible as a valid source - but forgetting these minor terminal contradictions).

Ergo, you are saying that the affirmative position should shoulder the burden of proof.

In the other thread, you have made a positive claim, that the universe had a cause / that the argument that the universe has/doesn't have a cause is a valid argument because it's necessarily true...

And when I've rejected it on the grounds of you having failed to establish that - I've offered you the chance of either evidence or argument - you have repeatedly attempted to shift the burden of proof onto me.

You are even trying there to get me to define my rejection as an affirmation, and blustering about how ridiculous it is that I don't simply accept your affirmative claim as granted.

So once again, who the fuck do you think you're fooling?

Either you are a mendacious obsessive, or you are completely blind to yourself. There are no further charitable options.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I find it perplexing  that atheist are not willing to carry the burden proof even when they make the positive argument.


for weeks your excuse was that I was making a straw man, now that I addressed the alleged correct form of the argument you are still avoiding your burden.


the counterargument for both forms of the argument (the supposed straw man and the supposed correct form) is the same


you can not know that if God does something different, humans would react in accordance with God s goals, because you don't know what God s goals are, and because you cant know how humans would react.

:facepalm:

This was never my argument. Honestly, I think Divine Hiddenness is a terrible argument for the reason I already pointed out and you agree with. I was simply here to point out that you created a strawman from the start, since you could not deal with the real argument, and from your strawman, you showed that the god you worship only exists in your head and is not Jesus.

 

[thenexttodie]

Dang it! You figured out a way to magically test the intelligence of dead people!! This proves I am wrong!

Say what now?

Where did I suggest anything of the sort? :roll:

Please respond to what I actually wrote rather than what you might prefer that I had wrote.

Sure.
Here is where I think you claim to know the intelligence of dead people. You do it in sort of a sneaky way, but under the presumption that the ancients were not anymore intelligent that we are today.


Sparhafoc So explain to me why it's a problem that there are few intelligent people historically, and there are few atheists historically.

The average intelligence of people could have once much higher than it is now.

Incidentally, think before you answer because, as I hope you are beginning to expect, I have an awful lot of relevant data to hand here. For example, you don't know about historical atheism, and so you pretend it doesn't exist. Whereas, I have dozens, maybe hundreds of texts from throughout human early history to classical times showing a long, widely spread rejection of belief in gods. Another example would be that 2 Hindu schools are expressly atheistic, and those schools predate Christianity, or even written Judaism.

The Bible proclaims a history predating Judaism.

2) Most people do not believe in God, capital G. Most people throughout history were animists. That is, they believe that spirits inhabit mundane objects like rocks, trees, and rivers. Therefore paganism is true? It is a vastly more 'motivational' component of human history than your Yahweh chap.

I don't consider people who worship rocks and trees to be atheists.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Sure.
Here is where I think you claim to know the intelligence of dead people. You do it in sort of a sneaky way, but under the presumption that the ancients were not anymore intelligent that we are today.

Sorry. Did that make sense in your head before typing it?

It surely makes no sense to me at all. What 'presumption' is it? How am I making it? Why are you still looking for hidden agendas here?

I think you're doing a LEROY. I think you want to take a crap on this thread because it's inconvenient for you. See? Both can play at the impute nefarious agendas game.

Sparhafoc So explain to me why it's a problem that there are few intelligent people historically, and there are few atheists historically.

What the fuck are you yammering about?

Who says there are few atheists historically? I surely didn't. You may have asserted it, but that's because you think assertions are worth a ha'penny jizz. I don't.

Instead, as I explained to you in another thread - if secularists had burned, mutilated and tortured believers, then wrote the history books, do you wonder how many historical Christians there would have been represented in written record?

The sad fact is that the Christian Catholic Church did EXACTLY this. Ancient works were recovered from the Middle East, originally taken with the spread of Hellenic Greeks, and retained and maintained by first the Orthodox Christians, then the Muslims afterwards. Meanwhile, the Catholic Church burned and banned books on pain of death through heresy.

So that's why YOU think that there are 'few' atheists historically, and that's why threads like this exist to educate you.

The average intelligence of people could have once much higher than it is now.

1) And perhaps the Moon was made of cheese. Go look up the Flynn effect and become one of those more intelligent people. Also, try and understand that your fatuous exegesis of mythology is already contradicted by empirical evidence.

2) If people were so intelligent and they were all theists, why are theists so fucking thick today?

The Bible proclaims a history predating Judaism.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

A MYTHOLOGY, chap, not a HISTORY. Just as all Creation Myths, including ones positing gods popping out of crododiles' rectums posit a mythological past.

Words have meanings, best use them as everyone else uses them if you want to pretend you have a point worth listening to.

I don't consider people who worship rocks and trees to be atheists.

[/quote]

Irrelevant.

And now kindly go start your own thread rather than trying to fill mine with offal and rectal effluence.

 

[thenexttodie]

It surely makes no sense to me at all. What 'presumption' is it? How am I making it? Why are you still looking for hidden agendas here?

I think you're doing a LEROY. I think you want to take a crap on this thread because it's inconvenient for you. See? Both can play at the impute nefarious agendas game.


What the fuck are you yammering about?

Nevermind, could be I just misunderstood you somewhere. The point I was trying to make isn't worth fighting about.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Fair enough, TNTD, but do yourself a favour and look up the Flynn Effect.

If you're going to let anything challenge your preconceptions, then surely reams of empirical data would be the thing to start with?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

What this shows is that educated parents and educated societies, that expect a level of education, and cater to that level of education will produce children whose first ever IQ test is higher than previous generations.

Interesting from two perspective, the first there above of a kind of cultural semantic memory, the second is about the nature of IQ tests, what they're actually testing, and what they're not actually testing.

Any statement that posits a higher intelligence in the past can only hope to point to either a) written records showing their intellectual brilliance or b) material evidence in the form of inexplicably complex or technological innovation.

Neither of these are what we see. The picture we really see of the past is that, to a first order of approximation, everyone was as thick as a brick. Not because they were less human, but because they rarely traveled further than a few miles outside the village they were born in, they never went to school but learned 'on the job' information from their parents while farming or doing an industry to exchange for food, they had no concept of the world at all, no concept of the mechanisms for natural phenomena around them, and they tended to live hard lives working near continuously.

There were a few privileged folks who, mostly through being born into a particular segment of society, would have the luxury of time to engage in pursuits that didn't produce food for the table. That societal status would also mean their parents would not need them to be a free farm-hand, or otherwise contribute to the family. These very few individuals were clearly well read, inquisitive, and articulate. And even here we see how fragmented their knowledge is, how many erroneous assumptions they labour under. As such, your notion is very much mistaken. There has never been such an educated and 'intelligent' number of people in the world as there is today, and tomorrow there'll be even more.

 

[thenexttodie]

Luke 11:9-10

So I say to you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and he who seeks, finds; and to him who knocks, it will be opened.

Luke 12:36

Be like men who are waiting for their master when he returns from the wedding feast, so that they may immediately open the door to him when he comes and knocks.

Revelation 3:20

Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.

What was your point with all this?

 

[Sparhafoc]

What was your point with all this?

The point I wrote half a dozen times? That point? :roll:

Look! I even wrote to you in one of the half dozen incidences of me explaining this point.

http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=180020#p180020



Again, It's a scriptural contradiction to LEROY's assertion regarding the supposed lack of interest in God in getting more people to believe in 'him'.

LEROY has repeatedly declared that the 'atheist' has the burden of proof when it comes to establishing whether God has this goal.

No atheist/ism required - it's written in the Bible and forms a well established Christian tradition of God always ready and willing to accept anyone once they perform the requisite thoughts/behaviors depending on your preferred tradition.

Are you now going to engage in apologetics where you assert your interpretation is the one true interpretation? If so, save it for another thread and I will respond to that argument in detail, but I'll dismiss it here as a distraction.

 

[thenexttodie]

What was your point with all this?

The point I wrote half a dozen times? That point? :roll:

Look! I even wrote to you in one of the half dozen incidences of me explaining this point.

http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=180020#p180020



Again, It's a scriptural contradiction to LEROY's assertion regarding the supposed lack of interest in God in getting more people to believe in 'him'.

LEROY has repeatedly declared that the 'atheist' has the burden of proof when it comes to establishing whether God has this goal.

No atheist/ism required - it's written in the Bible and forms a well established Christian tradition of God always ready and willing to accept anyone once they perform the requisite thoughts/behaviors depending on your preferred tradition.

Are you now going to engage in apologetics where you assert your interpretation is the one true interpretation? If so, save it for another thread and I will respond to that argument in detail, but I'll dismiss it here as a distraction.

Sorry for being so dense, Sparhofac. I can never keep up with these huge threads.

Leroy is not sure if what the Bible says is true or not. And might not even care. I think you are wasting your time. Leroy is wasting his time too. I have actually really enjoyed a couple of his posts, but I do not understand why he does not instead post these things on a Christian or some more theologically geared forum. Why not theologyonline.com? He would be fine there.

Leroy if you are listening, I am sure everyone knows you are a smart guy but I think you should consider taking a break from this forum for a while. I don't think this is good for you. Why not spend some time debating these things with other Christians somewhere else? Maybe check out theologyonline.com?

It's all assholes here. I'm an asshole too. Please forget about us.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Personally, I think he should get a blog - that way he gets to dictate the tone, content, and format of posts, plus he can ban anyone who doesn't perform tricks on commands as is his wont. I have no doubt that censorship would be useful for LEROY too - that way, when he wants to lie about what someone said to their face, he can at least go back and delete their offending post so he doesn't look like such a mendacious reprobate.

 

[leroy]

Sorry for being so dense, Sparhofac. I can never keep up with these huge threads.

Leroy is not sure if what the Bible says is true or not. And might not even care. I think you are wasting your time. Leroy is wasting his time too. I have actually really enjoyed a couple of his posts, but I do not understand why he does not instead post these things on a Christian or some more theologically geared forum. Why not theologyonline.com? He would be fine there.

Leroy if you are listening, I am sure everyone knows you are a smart guy but I think you should consider taking a break from this forum for a while. I don't think this is good for you. Why not spend some time debating these things with other Christians somewhere else? Maybe check out theologyonline.com?

It's all assholes here. I'm an asshole too. Please forget about us.

I personally learn in this forums,

sometimes my current believes get stronger after sharing them with atheist and noting that they really don't have an argument against. And sometimes I feel obligated to drop a believe because it was successfully destroyed by atheist.

an example of this was flood legends, I used to believe that flood legends provide powerful evidence for the global flood, but then I realized that its really not a big deal, the supposed parallels are not as amazing as creationists sites claim


about the bible it is not that I don't care, it is simply that the doctrine of inherency is based on assumptions that are controversial. or at least that is my current view.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

an example of this was flood legends, I used to believe that flood legends provide powerful evidence for the global flood, but then I realized that its really not a big deal, the supposed parallels are not as amazing as creationists sites claim

As I keep saying, he can learn.