Blasphemy and Duck Rape

[Matthew Le God]

@trousers

 

[egg]

23 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

1) It is if you ignore answering questions

2) How do you know God is intangible?

3) What is a more reliable path to truth than science? Faith is not a reliable path as you can believe anything based on faith, both true things and false things.

4) Do you think people should be presumed guilty of crimes and up to them to prove their non guilty status? Is that really a sensible mindset? 

5) It is puzzling how many more times I have to tell you... I have not claimed the non existence of God. Not believing a claim has met it's burden of proof is not the same as claiming something doesn't exist. I have tried to explain this numerous times and you still haven't grasped it!

1. I don't get chased down blind allies that lead to a debate beyond the present subject. I've answered every relevant question, and with an actual answer, not another question as per. 

2. Make your mind up. One minute you want evidence of gods existence, the next you say that you don't claim that God doesn't exist, now you question whether God is tangible or intangible. 

3. I'll bite and answer with a question as that's apparently acceptable form. Would anything less than evidence of a tangible God be evidence to you of God's existence? I'm intrigued to no where you set the bar. 

4. Apples and Pears. 

5.i read your words and understand them. You don't believe in God, but don't believe that God doesn't exist, thus you are by self admission a persuadable agnostic but don't belive in the concept of agnosticism. I've got all that. 

 

[egg]

Trousers, some cracking toasters there. You got a link to the pale green one please? 

[trousers]

4 minutes ago, egg said:

Trousers, some cracking toasters there. You got a link to the pale green one please? 

https://www.williams-electrical.co.uk/index.php/small-appliances/toasters/morphy-richards-220028.html

[egg]

12 minutes ago, trousers said:

https://www.williams-electrical.co.uk/index.php/small-appliances/toasters/morphy-richards-220028.html

👍😂🥪 

God bless you. 

[Matthew Le God]

I suspect @trousers is a toaster salesman. He previously sold them door to door to bored housewives and has now moved into the 21st century flogging them on Saints Web.

Edited 6 August, 2020 by Matthew Le God

[CB Fry]

Has anyone else been getting loads of pop-ups on this website recently?

Edited 6 August, 2020 by CB Fry

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, Matthew Le God said:

@trousers We are all here to help you!

Will you pray for him ?

[Matthew Le God]

9 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Will you pray for him ?

I'll pray to Joe Pesci to help @trousers

Unlike God, Joe Pesci manifests in reality and looks like he'd get sh!t done (unless it involves robbing a house guarded by an 8 year old) 

 

Edited 6 August, 2020 by Matthew Le God

[Golactico]

I'd like to ask a question, first posed by someone much brighter than me. For the purposes of this question we are to assume that there is an all seeing, all powerful God who looks favourably on those who worship him. I'm happy to be corrected if these assumptions are not consistent with people who believe in God. 

Statistics show that approx 9million babies die in the world each year. Most of these innocent, little babies die horrible deaths due to disease, malnutrition etc. The parents of many of these poor children are believers who desperately pray for God to use his power to intervene and help their children. These prayers go unanswered.

Question is, does God not intervene in any of these 9million cases because

a) he can't (suggesting non-existance, or at the very least, not being all he's cracked up to be)

or

b) he can, but chooses not to (suggesting he's a bit of an evil sod and is too busy dealing with prayers from people wanting his help to pass their driving test)

 

[Matthew Le God]

2 hours ago, skintsaint said:

Got one of these out back.

Dogs can look up

Edited 8 August, 2020 by Matthew Le God

[Mystic Force]

On 07/08/2020 at 04:33, Golactico said:

I'd like to ask a question, first posed by someone much brighter than me. For the purposes of this question we are to assume that there is an all seeing, all powerful God who looks favourably on those who worship him. I'm happy to be corrected if these assumptions are not consistent with people who believe in God. 

Statistics show that approx 9million babies die in the world each year. Most of these innocent, little babies die horrible deaths due to disease, malnutrition etc. The parents of many of these poor children are believers who desperately pray for God to use his power to intervene and help their children. These prayers go unanswered.

Question is, does God not intervene in any of these 9million cases because

a) he can't (suggesting non-existance, or at the very least, not being all he's cracked up to be)

or

b) he can, but chooses not to (suggesting he's a bit of an evil sod and is too busy dealing with prayers from people wanting his help to pass their driving test)

 

The answer to this is that the world has just the right amount of evil in it, this god fellow has decided this apparently. Enough to allow free will, not to much so he can appeal to the believers.

[Golactico]

I'm not sure that this really addresses the question MF. Those 9m babies aren't exercising any 'free will', they just desperately need some devine intervention to alleviate their extreme suffering, caused by their misfortune of being born in a particular place. Any just and loving God would deal with this grotesque injustice.

I'm curious why God advocates on this thread who have previously been very active, seem to have suddenly gone quiet. The answer to the question posed has to be one of the two options given and either one surely cannot fail to make any believer with any kind of enquiring mind question their faith?

[badgerx16]

Perhaps the answer is that whilst He could intervene, his attitude is "I gave you the garden of Eden and you fucked up; I cleansed the World in a great flood to give you a fresh chance, and you fucked up; I gave you my only son to save you from your sins, and you continue to fuck up. Now you can bloody well sort out your own mess". Not exacty a loving and caring God, more the frustrated parent of a recalcitrant chld, who will 'be there' when the child realises the error of his/her ways.

[Turkish]

8 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Perhaps the answer is that whilst He could intervene, his attitude is "I gave you the garden of Eden and you fucked up; I cleansed the World in a great flood to give you a fresh chance, and you fucked up; I gave you my only son to save you from your sins, and you continue to fuck up. Now you can bloody well sort out your own mess". Not exacty a loving and caring God, more the frustrated parent of a recalcitrant chld, who will 'be there' when the child realises the error of his/her ways.

Yep, Or perhaps its considering so many dont believe in him any more you're own to sort your sh*t out for a bit. I'll be back when you realise you cant. 

Edited 11 August, 2020 by Turkish

[Mystic Force]

2 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Yep, Or perhaps its considering so many dont believe in him any more you're own to sort your sh*t out for a bit. I'll be back when you realise you cant. 

At no point had a majority of the world's population believed and/or worshipped this particular god so why the difference now.

 

If Jesus came back in a similar fashion as written about circa 2000 years ago. How would we tell he was Jesus, what would he have to do show people. If things have gone so awry he cannot put in another appearance.

[Turkish]

10 minutes ago, Mystic Force said:

At no point had a majority of the world's population believed and/or worshipped this particular god so why the difference now.

 

If Jesus came back in a similar fashion as written about circa 2000 years ago. How would we tell he was Jesus, what would he have to do show people. If things have gone so awry he cannot put in another appearance.

any proof of your claims?

[Golactico]

So, God is having a hissy fit over the ungrateful human race and is taking out his annoyance on 9m innocent babies a year (and millions of others who suffer undeservedly).

The answer is b).

[Turkish]

4 minutes ago, Golactico said:

So, God is having a hissy fit over the ungrateful human race and is taking out his annoyance on 9m innocent babies a year (and millions of others who suffer undeservedly).

The answer is b).

wouldnt you be a bit annoyed? created the world and give humans everything they need to live a great life, even watching his own son die as a sacrifice and all you ungrateful lot do is do is moan & complain and even say he doesn't exist. I guess there probably would come a point where you'd say f*ck 'em, wouldn't there.

[Golactico]

Really? Take out my anger on 9m little tiny babies? No, I wouldn't. Being all powerful and able to do anything, and just simple not being an evil bastard, I'd take a far more targeted approach for displaying my disappointment. If I were a vengeful God (shouldn't he/she be above that very human frailty?), I'd target those awful humans who caused all the suffering in the world. Obvious really.

Credit where it's due to the brilliant Sam Harris for the question (included in clip below). I recommend his books and other YouTube clips to anyone with an open mind and isn't afraid of having their beliefs challenged in an intelligent, logical way.

 

[Turkish]

5 minutes ago, Golactico said:

Really? Take out my anger on 9m little tiny babies? No, I wouldn't. Being all powerful and able to do anything, and just simple not being an evil bastard, I'd take a far more targeted approach for displaying my disappointment. If I were a vengeful God (shouldn't he/she be above that very human frailty?), I'd target those awful humans who caused all the suffering in the world. Obvious really.

Credit where it's due to the brilliant Sam Harris for the question (included in clip below). I recommend his books and other YouTube clips to anyone with an open mind and isn't afraid of having their beliefs challenged in an intelligent, logical way.

 

So none of what you're sauing is your view then, your view is the view of Sam Harris, your opinion is a mimickry of his centred around is incorrect speech, so much of which is flawed i didn't know where to start. 

[Golactico]

If the accusation is that all my knowledge and beliefs originated somewhere else, then yes. Absolutely. Guilty as charged.

Multiplication wasn't my idea either, but it kind of makes sense.

[Matthew Le God]

19 minutes ago, Turkish said:

So none of what you're sauing is your view then, your view is the view of Sam Harris, your opinion is a mimickry of his centred around is incorrect speech, so much of which is flawed i didn't know where to start. 

1) It is bizarre you think @Golactico using Sam Harris is an issue. The vast majority of everything you (and everyone else on the planet) knows is built on the thinking of others. 

2) What are you claiming is flawed and why do you think it is flawed?

Edited 11 August, 2020 by Matthew Le God

[Turkish]

56 minutes ago, Golactico said:

If the accusation is that all my knowledge and beliefs originated somewhere else, then yes. Absolutely. Guilty as charged.

Multiplication wasn't my idea either, but it kind of makes sense.

Maybe I credited you with a bit more intelligence than to literally quote word for word both a question and two possible scenarios from someone else’s dubious speech without putting any thought into it whatsoever. Still each to their own if you want to believe god created India and is then going to kill everyone from there because they aren’t Christian you crack on pal. 

[Weston Super Saint]

37 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Maybe I credited you with a bit more intelligence than to literally quote word for word both a question and two possible scenarios from someone else’s dubious speech without putting any thought into it whatsoever. Still each to their own if you want to believe god created India and is then going to kill everyone from there because they aren’t Christian you crack on pal. 

Lol.  Isn't that exactly what everyone who has ever believed and quoted the bible has done, ever.  Did you also credit them with a 'bit more intelligence'?

[Turkish]

7 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Lol.  Isn't that exactly what everyone who has ever believed and quoted the bible has done, ever.  Did you also credit them with a 'bit more intelligence'?

No it isn’t, hope that helps

[Golactico]

1 hour ago, Turkish said:

Maybe I credited you with a bit more intelligence than to literally quote word for word both a question and two possible scenarios from someone else’s dubious speech without putting any thought into it whatsoever. Still each to their own if you want to believe god created India and is then going to kill everyone from there because they aren’t Christian you crack on pal. 

If a question ain't broke, why fix it? 

Look up the word 'literally'. I did faithfully convey the sense of Harris' question but I certainly didn't 'literally quote word for word'. 

Those with an eye for detail will have noted the opening sentence in my first post on this thread, making it abundantly clear that the question was not my own work. For reference: 'I'd like to ask a question, first posed by someone much brighter than me'

[Matthew Le God]

Poor @Turkish uses the word 'literally' incorrectly.

You could call him wrong! 😉

Edited 11 August, 2020 by Matthew Le God

[Turkish]

1 hour ago, Golactico said:

If a question ain't broke, why fix it? 

Look up the word 'literally'. I did faithfully convey the sense of Harris' question but I certainly didn't 'literally quote word for word'. 

Those with an eye for detail will have noted the opening sentence in my first post on this thread, making it abundantly clear that the question was not my own work. For reference: 'I'd like to ask a question, first posed by someone much brighter than me'

Having your own view of something is a real attribute of a human being pal, you should try it. 

do you believe god created India and is going to kill everyone from there?

Edited 11 August, 2020 by Turkish

[Turkish]

2 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Poor @Turkish uses the word 'literally' incorrectly.

You could call him wrong! 😉

Get your own jokes. Oh wait for that you’d have to have a personality......

[Matthew Le God]

2 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Having your own view of something is a real attribute of a human being pal, you should try it. 

The vast majority of everything you (and everyone else on the planet) knows is built on the thinking of others. 

[Turkish]

1 minute ago, Matthew Le God said:

The vast majority of everything you (and everyone else on the planet) knows is built on the thinking of others. 

Yep and from that you are able to form your own view and formulate your own opinion. Not quote someone else’s verbatim, so what’s your point?

[Raging Bull]

5 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

Perhaps the answer is that whilst He could intervene, his attitude is "I gave you the garden of Eden and you fucked up; I cleansed the World in a great flood to give you a fresh chance, and you fucked up; I gave you my only son to save you from your sins, and you continue to fuck up. Now you can bloody well sort out your own mess". Not exacty a loving and caring God, more the frustrated parent of a recalcitrant chld, who will 'be there' when the child realises the error of his/her ways.

That’s a pretty accurate description (although I fully believe he’s extremely loving). 
 

God is constantly waiting for people to repent and has far more patience than the rest of us. I think most would have given up on this world by now. 

2 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Get your own jokes. Oh wait for that you’d have to have a personality......

There’s always Wikipedia for young Matthew, don’t forget 

[Golactico]

56 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Having your own view of something is a real attribute of a human being pal, you should try it. 

do you believe god created India and is going to kill everyone from there?

First para: Words fail me.

Second para: No. How could I possibly believe this? If you read between the lines of my posts, you'll hopefully deduce that I'm an atheist. I don't believe that God created anything because I don't believe that God exists.

[Turkish]

24 minutes ago, Golactico said:

First para: Words fail me.

Second para: No. How could I possibly believe this? If you read between the lines of my posts, you'll hopefully deduce that I'm an atheist. I don't believe that God created anything because I don't believe that God exists.

First para : guess as no one else had replied yet you can’t give a view

 

second para: not sure what your point is then, sharing a speech by someone saying that when pretty much everyone knows that’s not the case. 

 

you haven’t thought this through have you.

[Golactico]

This is the first time I've ever got involved in one of these ' You're soooo wrong and I'm soooo right' forum dust ups - quite good fun isn't it? Perhaps next time though, I'll choose a more challenging argument than reason and science based evidence Vs medieval myths and legends.

Anyway, the point of the exercise was to test the Christian view on the Sam Harris question (since I lack the interlect to come up with my own!). Perhaps surprisingly, I got an unequivocal answer on that. Full marks to all for honesty.

[Turkish]

12 minutes ago, Golactico said:

This is the first time I've ever got involved in one of these ' You're soooo wrong and I'm soooo right' forum dust ups - quite good fun isn't it? Perhaps next time though, I'll choose a more challenging argument than reason and science based evidence Vs medieval myths and legends.

Anyway, the point of the exercise was to test the Christian view on the Sam Harris question (since I lack the interlect to come up with my own!). Perhaps surprisingly, I got an unequivocal answer on that. Full marks to all for honesty.

I think you’ll find I’ve never once said I’m right and you’re wrong, what I have questioned though is why you seem to be so entrenched in following the view of one man who claims something that is fundamentally not true. Apparently he is “brilliant” and something anyone with an open mind should watch. Well I watched his speech you posted, I’m as open minded as they come and it was completely inaccurate and full of anti religious propaganda. Still, each to their own, if that’s what you believe in, then crack on.sounds like you’re not open minded though as you haven’t researched any of the claims he makes.

Edited 11 August, 2020 by Turkish

[Lighthouse]

I love watching videos if Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins, Gervais or Fry on YouTube. Hitch has to be my favourite though, seeing religious leaders floundering around his wit and intellect is just wonderful.

[Turkish]

4 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

I love watching videos if Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins, Gervais or Fry on YouTube. Hitch has to be my favourite though, seeing religious leaders floundering around his wit and intellect is just wonderful.

What do you expect? Most of the ones you list are trained actors, journalist or comedians who are coached to be good at public speaking and appealing to the masses.  Most religious leaders are are naive men of cloth who have lived a cocooned life caring for their flock. 

[Lighthouse]

3 minutes ago, Turkish said:

What do you expect? Most of the ones you list are trained actors, journalist or comedians who are coached to be good at public speaking and appealing to the masses.  Most religious leaders are are naive men of cloth who have lived a cocooned life caring for their flock. 

There are plenty of pastors, imams and other religious leaders who are fantastic orators. However when I’ve seen them debating with the people I’ve mentioned, I’ve yet to see any of them come up with a convincing argument.

[benjii]

14 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

Perhaps the answer is that whilst He could intervene, his attitude is "I gave you the garden of Eden and you fucked up; I cleansed the World in a great flood to give you a fresh chance, and you fucked up; I gave you my only son to save you from your sins, and you continue to fuck up. Now you can bloody well sort out your own mess". Not exacty a loving and caring God, more the frustrated parent of a recalcitrant chld, who will 'be there' when the child realises the error of his/her ways.

Edit: what’s the point. You can’t debate sensibly with the deluded.

 

Edited 12 August, 2020 by benjii

[Weston Super Saint]

12 hours ago, Turkish said:

No it isn’t, hope that helps

Really?  So every time someone quotes from the Bible they aren't in any way using 'someone else's work' without putting any thought into it themselves?

Are they 'original' thoughts?

[Turkish]

8 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

There are plenty of pastors, imams and other religious leaders who are fantastic orators. However when I’ve seen them debating with the people I’ve mentioned, I’ve yet to see any of them come up with a convincing argument.

Watching an interview with Gervais for example you don’t expect serious debate, you want humour and entertainment, which is exactly what you get. Not hard to work it out is it.

[Turkish]

8 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Really?  So every time someone quotes from the Bible they aren't in any way using 'someone else's work' without putting any thought into it themselves?

Are they 'original' thoughts?

Yes really. The bible is more about principles, illustrations which you can then apply into your life. Of course some lunatics take it all literally but then some people will take a couple of lines from an inaccurate speech and pass it off as fact to suit their agenda.

[Weston Super Saint]

4 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Yes really. The bible is more about principles, illustrations which you can then apply into your life. Of course some lunatics take it all literally but then some people will take a couple of lines from an inaccurate speech and pass it off as fact to suit their agenda.

You've answered a completely different question, one which I did not ask.

My question is : So every time someone quotes from the Bible they aren't in any way using 'someone else's work' without putting any thought into it themselves? 

[Turkish]

7 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

You've answered a completely different question, one which I did not ask.

My question is : So every time someone quotes from the Bible they aren't in any way using 'someone else's work' without putting any thought into it themselves? 

Your original question was every single time anyone quotes anything from the bible they are using someone else’s work and not being original. That simply isn’t true, you could build out a 20 minute talk or sermon from the Good Samaritan story, for example and apply that parable To people lives. That’s very different to quoting a few lines from a 11 minute speech by some bloke who you think is amazing, Because of confirmation bias, without checking his claims out properly. Which is what is going on here. Not hard to understand is it. 

[badgerx16]

2 hours ago, benjii said:

Edit: what’s the point. You can’t debate sensibly with the deluded.

 

I sincerely hope that you aren't referring to me.

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, Turkish said:

Your original question was every single time anyone quotes anything from the bible they are using someone else’s work and not being original. That simply isn’t true, you could build out a 20 minute talk or sermon from the Good Samaritan story, for example and apply that parable To people lives. That’s very different to quoting a few lines from a 11 minute speech by some bloke who you think is amazing, Because of confirmation bias, without checking his claims out properly. Which is what is going on here. Not hard to understand is it. 

Lol.

If you're quoting from the bible, you are using someone else's work - the clue is in the word 'quote'.  Your example is very different from someone 'quoting' from the bible and I'm not sure why you've included it.

Is there no 'confirmation bias' involved in the bible - take your example of the 'Good Samaritan story' have those claims been 'checked out properly'?  Presumably, if they have, they will have produced some evidence which can be examined.  What about other stories in the bible, have those claims also been 'checked out properly' or does your need to check out claims only apply to people / information you don't agree with?

[Turkish]

3 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Lol.

If you're quoting from the bible, you are using someone else's work - the clue is in the word 'quote'.  Your example is very different from someone 'quoting' from the bible and I'm not sure why you've included it.

Is there no 'confirmation bias' involved in the bible - take your example of the 'Good Samaritan story' have those claims been 'checked out properly'?  Presumably, if they have, they will have produced some evidence which can be examined.  What about other stories in the bible, have those claims also been 'checked out properly' or does your need to check out claims only apply to people / information you don't agree with?

I've included it because you opening question on this was claiming that anyone who quotes the bible was not original and using someone elses work. this is factually incorrect. You can quote the bible and have an original application, plenty of examples of this in history, quite different to our friend on this thread has simply shouted and point "Look what this guy said" without checking out any of his claims, it seems. Which was the point you seem to be failing to grasp. 

As for your second point, just  🤣 the good Samaritan story doesn't need to be checked out, because it was a story, a story Jesus used to illustrate the importance of kindness, kind of shows where you are with it all doesn't it, not quite at the races pal.

[Weston Super Saint]

52 minutes ago, Turkish said:

I've included it because you opening question on this was claiming that anyone who quotes the bible was not original and using someone elses work. this is factually incorrect. You can quote the bible and have an original application, plenty of examples of this in history, quite different to our friend on this thread has simply shouted and point "Look what this guy said" without checking out any of his claims, it seems. Which was the point you seem to be failing to grasp. 

As for your second point, just  🤣 the good Samaritan story doesn't need to be checked out, because it was a story, a story Jesus used to illustrate the importance of kindness, kind of shows where you are with it all doesn't it, not quite at the races pal.

Again, as the original OP pointed out, he hasn't 'literally' copied, he has paraphrased.  Why should he need to check any of the claims, surely they can also be classed as a 'story' - or again, is it only stories you agree with that don't need to be fact checked?

As for your second point, your reference to the 'story Jesus used' is the very definition of 'confirmation bias' isn't it?  How about just sticking to answering the questions rather than throwing insults around - it makes it look like you've lost the argument when you do that