Jump to content

Blasphemy and Duck Rape


Yorkshire Saint

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

Hitchen’s Razor - What can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

 

12 hours ago, whelk said:

About as philosophical as Peter Ustinov 

 

12 hours ago, The Kraken said:

And Berni Inn.

Not really as it is a valid point.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so an old book is not sufficient evidence of miracles. You can't use a book to support the book, that is a circular argument!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

 

 

Not really as it is a valid point.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so an old book is not sufficient evidence of miracles. You can't use a book to support the book, that is a circular argument!

Only you are obsessed with evidence and keep bumping a thread. Most recognise that there are differing views and have been since the dawn of time and not going to be much enlightenment from a few Saints fans, . Ohhh I may need evidence of when time started. Do we all believe in time? Can you be outside of time? Is a watch proof?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, whelk said:

Only you are obsessed with evidence and keep bumping a thread. Most recognise that there are differing views and have been since the dawn of time and not going to be much enlightenment from a few Saints fans, . Ohhh I may need evidence of when time started. Do we all believe in time? Can you be outside of time? Is a watch proof?

Puzzling why you don't see why evidence is important. I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. We don't do that by blindly believing things to be true, that ends up in a delusional state that does not conform to the reality we live in and impacts on others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Puzzling why you don't see why evidence is important. I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. We don't do that by blindly believing things to be true, that ends up in a delusional state that does not conform to the reality we live in and impacts on others.

Why did you avoid the time question. Do you agree it exists?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, whelk said:

Only you are obsessed with evidence and keep bumping a thread. Most recognise that there are differing views and have been since the dawn of time and not going to be much enlightenment from a few Saints fans, . Ohhh I may need evidence of when time started. Do we all believe in time? Can you be outside of time? Is a watch proof?

 

1 minute ago, whelk said:

Why did you avoid the time question. Do you agree it exists?

You did not ask if time exists in the first post.

You asked in the first post...

Do we all believe in time?

Can you be outside of time?

Is a watch proof?

Those questions are flawed questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

 

You did not ask if time exists in the first post.

You asked in the first post...

Do we all believe in time?

Can you be outside of time?

Is a watch proof?

Those questions are flawed questions.

They were questions. Why when I asked you a further question about time did you assume that it had to have been posed previously?

Edited by whelk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, whelk said:

Do we all believe in time?

Can you be outside of time?

Is a watch proof?

Do we all believe in time? - I don't know what everyone on the planet thinks

Can you be outside of time? - Existence by definition is temporal

Is a watch proof? - That is a strange & flawed question

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, whelk said:

Temporary to what? Presume the afterlife.

I did not say 'temporary', I said 'temporal'. If you don't understand the meaning of the word temporal then I don't think this discussion will go anywhere. Although given the last 41 pages of this thread that is obvious! 😉😃

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Matthew Le God said:

What can you tell me about the afterlife...? Is it possible to be sad in heaven?

Given that Whelk is posting on the forum and you are responding to him, I assume that you accept he is aive, and therefore not yet in a position to answer your questions. Perhaps you could wait until you are better qualified to judge the evidence of an afterlife for yourself.

Edited by badgerx16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, badgerx16 said:

Given that Whelk is posting on the forum and you are responding to him, I assume that you accept he is alive, and therefore not yet in a position to answer your questions. Perhaps you could wait until you are better qualified to judge the evidence of an afterlife for yourself.

The religious books of the major religions claim they know about afterlives. Any evidence presented for afterlives can be reviewed now. None has been able to withstand scrutiny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Matthew Le God said:

The religious books of the major religions claim they know about afterlives. Any evidence presented for afterlives can be reviewed now. None has been able to withstand scrutiny.

You again make an unsubstantiated presumption; that Whelk has read such books and accepts what they say as fact. Where is your evidence that he has done so ? Also, what evidence can you produce that the afterlife does not exist ? ( Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence ).

Edited by badgerx16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 02/08/2020 at 12:41, Matthew Le God said:

The religious books of the major religions claim they know about afterlives. Any evidence presented for afterlives can be reviewed now. None has been able to withstand scrutiny.

 

Religions are faiths. Thats why they are called faiths and not empirical evidence based concepts. You either believe it or you don't. Why the fuck you need to bang on for 41 pages telling other people they are wrong. There is and cannot be, by definition, concrete evidence of an afterlife is disturbing. We'll find out soon enough when we die, not before. What you think are smart gotchas are mostly slightly ignorant and crass. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 02/08/2020 at 12:41, Matthew Le God said:

The religious books of the major religions claim they know about afterlives. Any evidence presented for afterlives can be reviewed now. None has been able to withstand scrutiny.

 

Religions are faiths. That's why they are called faiths and not 'Empirical Evidence Based Concepts. You either believe it or you don't. Why the fuck you need to bang on for 41 pages telling other people they are wrong. There is and cannot be, by definition, concrete evidence of an afterlife is disturbing. We'll find out soon enough when we die, not before. What you think are smart gotchas are mostly slightly ignorant and crass. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 02/08/2020 at 12:41, Matthew Le God said:

The religious books of the major religions claim they know about afterlives. Any evidence presented for afterlives can be reviewed now. None has been able to withstand scrutiny.

 

Religions are faiths. That's why they are called faiths and not 'Empirical Evidence Based Concepts'. You either believe it or you don't. There is and cannot be, by definition, concrete evidence of an afterlife. We'll find out soon enough when we die and not before who was right. Why the fuck you need to bang on for 41 pages telling other people they are wrong is odd - especially when what you think are smart gotchas are mostly slightly ignorant and crass. 

Edited by buctootim
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 02/08/2020 at 13:59, badgerx16 said:

You again make an unsubstantiated presumption; that Whelk has read such books and accepts what they say as fact. Where is your evidence that he has done so ? Also, what evidence can you produce that the afterlife does not exist ? ( Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence ).

That is not how evidence works. I have not claimed afterlifes don't exist, I have said there is no credible evidence that it does exist. Those are not the same thing. The burden of proof is with the person making the claim... I didn't make a claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, buctootim said:

 

Religions are faiths. That's why they are called faiths and not 'Empirical Evidence Based Concepts'. You either believe it or you don't. There is and cannot be, by definition, concrete evidence of an afterlife. We'll find out soon enough when we die and not before who was right. Why the fuck you need to bang on for 41 pages telling other people they are wrong is odd - especially when what you think are smart gotchas are mostly slightly ignorant and crass. 

1) Lots of religious people claim there is evidence of an afterlife. So it is not by definition.

2) If there is no afterlife then we won't as you claim "find out soon enough when we die and not before who was right". You can't find out anything if you don't exist.

3) What are you claiming about my 'gotchas' are ignorant and crass? How for example is pointing out a '100% kind and loving God' is in conflict with the Bible describing genocidal maniac actions 'ignorant and crass'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would you be able to tell the difference between a lie and something truthful when claimed about something we cannot ourselves examine. We would therefore have to trust that we are informed correctly. Yet there has not been any direct information for 2500 years for Jews, 2000 years for christians or 1500 for muslims. So how could you tell if something is true or not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Matthew Le God said:

1) Lots of religious people claim there is evidence of an afterlife. So it is not by definition.

2) If there is no afterlife then we won't as you claim "find out soon enough when we die and not before who was right". You can't find out anything if you don't exist.

3) What are you claiming about my 'gotchas' are ignorant and crass? How for example is pointing out a '100% kind and loving God' is in conflict with the Bible describing genocidal maniac actions 'ignorant and crass'?

A genocidal maniac, yet every year you celebrate the birth of his son.

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds

Edited by Turkish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Turkish said:

A genocidal manic, yet every year you celebrate the birth of his son.

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds

Yet again, for someone who declares this as their avatar...

Turkish

You make a lot of judgements!

1) I don't celebrate his birth. We've been through this numerous times and you aren't able to grasp it. Puzzling why you can't apart from your usual trolling.

2) Do you refute that the character of God as described in the Bible killed millions of people? Not very kind and loving. Certainly not 100% kind and loving. But I suppose genocide must be him 'working in mysterious ways'! 

Edited by Matthew Le God
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Yet again, for someone who declares a...

Turkish

You make a lot of judgements!

1) I don't celebrate his birth. We've been through this numerous times and you aren't able to grasp it. Puzzling why you can't apart from your usual trolling.

2) Do you refute that the character of God as described in the Bible killed millions of people? Not very kind and loving. Certainly not 100% kind and loving. But I suppose genocide must be him 'working in mysterious ways'! 

Im not making any judgement, you admitted yourself that on christmas day you spent it with your family, exchanging gifts and eating food despite having another 364 days of the year to chose from to do exactly the same thing. Now you're trying to pretend you didn't celebrate christmas, despite doing what is the very definition of celebrating it.  It's you that isn't able to grasp it, that isn't my fault, it's yours.

What's has your point 2 got to do with my point and you being a liar and a hypocrite? It's just you trying to wiggle out of it by asking a question again to deflect everyone from point and laughing at you which we've all done for 41 pages now now just on this thread.

 

 

Edited by Turkish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

MLG celebrating Christian Festival of Christmas on Christmas day = absolutely nothing to do with Christianity whatsoever.

Little old lady going to church = rabid supporter of genocidal maniac.

Clear.

Edited by CB Fry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Matthew Le God said:

That is not how evidence works. I have not claimed afterlifes don't exist, I have said there is no credible evidence that it does exist. Those are not the same thing. The burden of proof is with the person making the claim... I didn't make a claim.

You said that none of the major religious books could withstand scrutiny in relation to an afterlife. Where is your evidence to support this claim ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Im not making any judgement, you admitted yourself that on christmas day you spent it with your family, exchanging gifts and eating food despite having another 364 days of the year to chose from to do exactly the same thing. Now you're trying to pretend you didn't celebrate christmas, despite doing what is the very definition of celebrating it.  It's you that isn't able to grasp it, that isn't my fault, it's yours.

What's has your point 2 got to do with my point and you being a liar and a hypocrite? It's just you trying to wiggle out of it by asking a question again to deflect everyone from point and laughing at you which we've all done for 41 pages now now just on this thread.

 

 

 

15 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

MLG celebrating Christian Festival of Christmas on Christmas day = absolutely nothing to do with Christianity whatsoever.

Little old lady going to church = rabid supporter of genocidal maniac.

Clear.

I've provided rebuttals to this nonsense a number of times. You both decide to ignore them and return to the same flawed nonsense. I'll try again but you will no doubt ignore these and later in this thread return to the same nonsense... 

1) Celebrations with family/friends and giving presents at that time of year does not originate in Christianity. Christmas is a mixture of many other older traditions that Christianity stole from older cultures.

2) For me to be celebrating Christmas it would require a religious element... which my day does not. So it is not a celebration of Christmas.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

You said that none of the major religious books could withstand scrutiny in relation to an afterlife. Where is your evidence to support this claim ?

The undeniable fact that there are billions of interpretations as to what any afterlife is like. If a religious book was able to withstand scrutiny regarding an afterlife there would be no schisms in religion as to what happens after death. Everyone would be faced with the evidence that one of the books has got it right so why believe another book? That clearly is not the case and so there are numerous versions of what happens after death competing with each other.

Edited by Matthew Le God
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

 

I've provided rebuttals to this nonsense a number of times. You both decide to ignore them and return to the same flawed nonsense. I'll try again but you will no doubt ignore these and later in this thread return to the same nonsense... 

1) Celebrations with family/friends and giving presents at that time of year does not originate in Christianity. Christmas is a mixture of many other older traditions that Christianity stole from older cultures.

2) For me to be celebrating Christmas it would require a religious element... which my day does not. So it is not a celebration of Christmas.

 

It's funny that you get to decide that you can celebrate a non-Christian Christmas day but anyone going to church doesn't get to decide that they aren't a supporter of genocide.

Edited by CB Fry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

The undeniable fact that there are billions of interpretations as to what the afterlife is like. If a religious book was able to withstand scrutiny regarding an afterlife there would be no schisms in religion as to what happens. Everyone would be faced with the evidence that one of the books has got it right so why believe another?

That is not evidence that the afterlife does not exist, merely that each of those alleged billions has their own interpretation.

If I could find 2 people who had never seen money and sat them facing each other, then held a pound coin up between them and asked them if they could see a face, one of them would say no, but that wouldn't mean the face didn't exist. Both interpretations of the coin would be correct. 

 The variety of interpretations of religious texts are not indicative of the status or veracity of what is written, but rather a sign of human self interest.

Edited by badgerx16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

That is not evidence that the afterlife does not exist, merely that each of those alleged billions has their own interpretation.

 

To be fair, MLG has never claimed the afterlife does not exist, merely that claims that it does have not stood up to scrutiny....

I'm sure he'd be over the moon if anyone can present some credible evidence that an afterlife does exist...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

To be fair, MLG has never claimed the afterlife does not exist, merely that claims that it does have not stood up to scrutiny....

I'm sure he'd be over the moon if anyone can present some credible evidence that an afterlife does exist...

He'll be able to judge for himself at some point in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

That is not evidence that the afterlife does not exist, merely that each of those alleged billions has their own interpretation.

If I could find 2 people who had never seen money and sat them facing each other, then held a pound coin up between them and asked them if they could see a face, one of them would say no, but that wouldn't mean the face didn't exist. Both interpretations of the coin would be correct. 

 The variety of interpretations of religious texts are not indicative of the status or veracity of what is written, but rather a sign of human self interest.

You are moving the goalposts now. I was responding to religious books not standing up-to scrutiny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

I've already addressed this. If there is no afterlife it is impossible to make any judgement... because you won't exist to be able to do any judging!

But if there is you would be able to make the judgement. People were stating that the World is round before Columbus sailed across the Atlantic, but there hadn't been any proof until he went there, trusting in his beliefs rather than tangible evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CB Fry said:

It's funny that you get to decide that you can celebrate a non-Christian Christmas day but anyone going to church doesn't get to decide that they aren't a supporter of genocide.

Not sure why you find it funny... I just outlined to you why celebration with friends and family and giving presents at that time of year is not Christian... because those traditions pre-date Christianity and the Christians simply absorbed them.

As for your point about 'anyone going to church getting to decide that they aren't a supporter of genocide'. The Bible undeniably shows the character of God to be a mass murderer and genocidal. If you go to church and decide that they don't endorse genocide... then they are opposing the character as described in the Bible. He also endorses rape, slavery and numerous other horrible things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

But if there is you would be able to make the judgement. People were stating that the World is round before Columbus sailed across the Atlantic, but there hadn't been any proof until he went there, trusting in his beliefs rather than tangible evidence.

It isn't really a judgement if for one of the options you don't exist! Plus how would you know you weren't hallucinating?

Edited by Matthew Le God
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 02/08/2020 at 12:41, Matthew Le God said:

The religious books of the major religions claim they know about afterlives. Any evidence presented for afterlives can be reviewed now. None has been able to withstand scrutiny.

8 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

You are moving the goalposts now. I was responding to religious books not standing up-to scrutiny.

Reading the first post, your assertion appears to be that on the subject of an afterlife religious books do not stand up to scrutiny. You are evading the question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

It isn't really a judgement if for one of the options you don't exist! Plus how would you know you weren't hallucinating?

So, in summary, you cannot provide any evidence for your assertion that there is no afterlife.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, badgerx16 said:

So, in summary, you cannot provide any evidence for your assertion that there is no afterlife.

You are getting confused again, I have not said there is no afterlife. I said no evidence for the claim that there is an afterlife stands up to scrutiny. Those are not the same thing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Reading the first post, your assertion appears to be that on the subject of an afterlife religious books do not stand up to scrutiny. You are evading the question.

I didn't evade the question, I answered it...

If a religious book was able to withstand scrutiny regarding an afterlife there would be no schisms in religion as to what happens. If everyone was faced with the strong evidence that one of the old books has got it right, why would anyone believe a different religious book? The fact that it hasn't happened proves no book has stood up-to scrutiny.

Edited by Matthew Le God
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

I didn't evade the question, I answered it...

If a religious book was able to withstand scrutiny regarding an afterlife there would be no schisms in religion as to what happens. If everyone was faced with the strong evidence that one of the old books has got it right, why would anyone believe a different religious book?

There will always be schisms in religions because human nature will always tend to distort it for selfish reasons - eg King Henry 8th effectively creating the CofE in order to get a divorce. The fact is that many people around the world do believe in an afterlife, many are so keen to get there fast that they blow themselves up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Not sure why you find it funny... I just outlined to you why celebration with friends and family and giving presents at that time of year is not Christian... because those traditions pre-date Christianity and the Christians simply absorbed them.

As for your point about 'anyone going to church getting to decide that they aren't a supporter of genocide'. The Bible undeniably shows the character of God to be a mass murderer and genocidal. If you go to church and decide that they don't endorse genocide... then they are opposing the character as described in the Bible. He also endorses rape, slavery and numerous other horrible things.

But you can cherry pick the bits of CHRISTmas you celebrate, but no one single person who goes to church can cherry pick the idea that they are not supporting genocide, rape, slavery and numerous horrible things.

You're a fucking nutcase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

You are getting confused again, I have not said there is no afterlife. I said no evidence for the claim that there is an afterlife stands up to scrutiny. Those are not the same thing!

How can you decide that they do not stand up to scrutiny ? That is merely your opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, badgerx16 said:

There will always be schisms in religions because human nature will always tend to distort it for selfish reasons - eg King Henry 8th effectively creating the CofE in order to get a divorce. The fact is that many people around the world do believe in an afterlife, many are so keen to get there fast that they blow themselves up.

Why would there be schisms about the afterlife if it was proven that one religion was correct about the afterlife? Schisms exist because religion and thousands of Gods are man made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

But you can cherry pick the bits of CHRISTmas you celebrate, but no one single person who goes to church can cherry pick the idea that they are not supporting genocide, rape, slavery and numerous horrible things.

Wow... how to start unboxing that!

1) I don't cherry pick parts of Christmas. I just explained to you how pretty much every single aspect of a Christian Christmas is stolen from other cultures.

2) It is incompatible to believe God is 100% kind and loving and yet he endorses genocide, rape and slavery in the Bible. If you cherry pick and decide to ignore those aspects of the character of God then you are creating your own religion and your own God. Because the God of the Bible does endorse those things!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

How can you decide that they do not stand up to scrutiny ? That is merely your opinion.

No it is not 'merely opinion'. I already answered this with...

If a religious book was able to withstand scrutiny regarding an afterlife there would be no schisms in religion as to what happens. If everyone was faced with the strong evidence that one of the old books has got it right, why would anyone believe a different religious book? The fact that it hasn't happened proves no book has stood up-to scrutiny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Why would there be schisms about the afterlife if it was proven that one religion was correct about the afterlife? Schisms exist because religion and thousands of Gods are man made.

Which schisms have been due to disagreements about the nature of a potential afterlife ? You are aware the Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are all fundamentally the same religion, and that their differences are nothing to do with what happens after you die ?

Edited by badgerx16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lighthouse changed the title to Blasphemy and Duck Rape

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})