Matthew Le God

What about his 18 goals in 40 Championship games?

Yet more petty insults that are irrelevant to the discussion and are against the forum rules. Not that they seem to be applied...

1) It is not demonstrable evidence that connects to the deity theyve picked. That is the issue. 2) If a plan endorses or commits genocide, slavery, sexism, infanticide and rape then that is incompatible with it being a good entity. 3) The answer for 2 above also answers this. 4) No, you do not understand burden of proof. Because I have not claimed there is no God, I just reject any God claim I've seen so far sue to lack of sufficient evidence. If someone rejects a God claim, that does not mean they are taking the opposite position. Yet you keep using a strawman fallacy saying I've said there is no God. No, I reject the claims I've seen. That is not the same thing and the burden is with the claimant.

No Give an example of the type of thing you mean.

What a great rebuttal!

1) If they believe things without evidence, then they are by definition being irrational 2) Who you fall in love with is not a choice. Humans are also not unique with having same sex relationships. Other animals do as well. So God isn't doing a great job if he designed his creation in a way he finds abhorrent! What about the others I mentioned... genocide, slavery, sexism, infanticide, rape? Are those justifiable? 3) If they think genocide, infanticide, slavery, rape, homophobia and sexism are acceptable then that say a lot about them! Do you think those things are all acceptable? 4) Again... you show a lack of understanding what the burden of proof is. It is on the person making a claim, not those that don't accept it. I have not claimed there is no God. So you saying I have... is a strawman fallacy.

Because they are clearly contradictory! The God of Bible has no wiggle room where he can coexist with Egyptian Gods, Viking Gods etc etc.

1) Asking for evidence is not 'narrow minded'... it is rational. 2) What 'faith in yourself' are you claiming? I believe in things that there is evidence for. If there isn't evidence... I don't believe in it and withold belief until the p5iint there is evidence. No faith is required.

You have now used an agumentum ad populum fallacy Deeply flawed especially when millions of others believe in different conflicting deities. They can't all be correct, so numbers of believers are no indicator of truth.

That does not clarify anything. It is wishy washy vague nonsense. What does it mean in reality? What life? What does 'beyond science' mean exactly?

1) Show a post of mine where I said they can only follow it if they justify it. 2) Nonsense. I do not have faith in anything. I have no need for faith. 3) That doesn't answer the missed questions.

That is ridiculously vague. What do you mean exactly?

1) Strawman fallacy At no point have said they can only follow it if they justify it 2) Faith is the excuse people give if they don't have evidence. If you had evidence... you'd use it and have no need for faith. Faith is therefore irrational. Is there anything someone could not believe in using faith? Is it possible to believe opposing things using faith? If so... it can't be a reliable source to truth. 3) Try answering the questioms

That is not mocking. That is factual and demonstrable. - A global flood is... a genocide. - Giving rules on which humans you can own as property is... slavery. - Saying your tribe can keep the virgins of the tribes they defeat and do to them as they wish... is endorsing rape - Blood sacrificing yourself to yourself to act a a loophole to a set of rules you created is... loving blood sacrifice

1) If they aren't based on demonstrable evidence why would a rational person accept them? 2) You think it is OK for a person not to find genocide, infanticide, slavery, rape, homophobia and sexism as not objectionable? 3) The God as described in the Bible is incompatible with a good God. Genocide, infanticide, slavery, rape, homophobia and sexism is demonstrably bad for human society. 4) "Prove that God does not exist" That is not how the burden of proof works. The burden is on those making a claim, not those that don't accept it. There is however a vast amount of evidence the God as described in the Bible does not exist. The evidence does not match up with the accounts in the book, for a start there was no global flood. "Exist" is both temporal and spatial and anything outside space and time doesn't meet the definition.

I doubt it, brainwashing too strong with most of them.

Wycombe

Give an example of berating and mocking? Plus in any case, if a belief can't withstand mockery, it has very weak foundations and you should look to question why you continue to believe it if it falls apart at a joke.

I talk religion to people in appropriate places. We are currently in a thread about religion on a forum... that is appropriate. Your examples of on the street to people minding their own business or at a church wedding are not appropriate places. People are not looking for those discussions there. If I see a JW with a stand looking for a chat or if one comes to my door... then that is appropriate. That is me showing respect. By judging where and when it is appropriate!

1) Give an example of me doing each. I'm questioning things. Asking questions aids progress. 2) Asking questions aids debates. They are a fundamental part of a debate. If objectionable things can't be defended... maybe you shouldn't believe in them! 3) Understanding of what exactly? How is a global flood anything but a genocide? How is saying which humans you can own as property anything but slavery? Etc etc

This is a religion thread on an internet forum. Internet forums are places for discussions. The examples you gave are not, so I don't. Can you not understand the difference? I do talk to JWs in the street or if one knocks on my door, as they want to talk religion.

That did not answer the question. What is out of bounds when it comes to respect, and for what reason?

Respect in what way and why?

What knowledge is required to discuss a global flood being a genocide? Or instructions on which humans you can own as property being slavery? Or keeping virgins of tribes you beat to do with them as you wish as endorsing rape?

Try answering the question.