God cannot love or be Love.

[doombug]

How do you feel you've challenged my worldview? (For clarity, that's a question you should answer. It's not rhetorical)
That's an incredibly arrogant claim you haven't bothered to back up with proof.

Really? Do I have to spell it out for you? The reason you don't like my posts is because I challenge what you believe. This is the reason you see my posts as antagonistic. I was responding to this post you made:

Surely there are a majority of agnostics and atheists participating in these threads, but there are at least two theists here who have commented in these threads several times and I did not see you antagonize them. If I were to see you antagonize the claims of a theist, I would adjust my answer immediately. It would fit your claims that you antagonize everyone.[/COLOR]

You've been nothing but an illogical pest. You're one of millions of them. Nothing new or valuable ever comes from the bug.

Oh Really? Then let's take a looksee at an example of your posts. Here is a good example:

You claim you want honest debate, you don't debate honestly.
You claim you are prejudiced, you show your prejudice.

You lie.

Here you called me prejudiced and also claimed that I lie yet you provide nothing to back up your accusations. In another thread I said you were being dishonest to which you complained you weren't. I then provided proof to which you claimed you were mistaken but you weren't being dishonest. I then acknowledged that, took you at your word and apologized for saying you were being dishonest.....hmmm...who here is being straight forward? who is backing up what they say and giving others the benefit of the doubt? That would be me.

 

[Panacea]

Really? Do I have to spell it out for you? The reason you don't like my posts is because I challenge what you believe. This is the reason you see my posts as antagonistic. I was responding to this post you made:

Again, you lie. You don't challenge what I believe, you tell lies and that's what I don't like.

Oh Really? Then let's take a looksee at an example of your posts. Here is a good example:


Here you called me prejudiced and also claimed that I lie yet you provide nothing to back up your accusations. In another thread I said you were being dishonest to which you complained you weren't. I then provided proof to which you claimed you were mistaken but you weren't being dishonest. I then acknowledged that, took you at your word and apologized for saying you were being dishonest.....hmmm...who here is being straight forward? who is backing up what they say and giving others the benefit of the doubt? That would be me.

I never said I was dishonest, because I wasn't. I didn't see the inside of the quote bubble contained more information, a simple mistake isn't dishonesty, bug. You're smarter than that, right?

Again, you twist logic to evade debate and quote bible passages. You have to work a lot harder than that to be a challenge to anyone.

 

[doombug]

Again, you lie. You don't challenge what I believe, you tell lies and that's what I don't like.







I never said I was dishonest, because I wasn't. I didn't see the inside of the quote bubble contained more information, a simple mistake isn't dishonesty, bug. You're smarter than that, right?

Again, you twist logic to evade debate and quote bible passages. You have to work a lot harder than that to be a challenge to anyone.

Then why all the belly aching? If I "lie" as you say I do it should be easily proven. If I am only a "pest" then what I post should be easily rebutted but all you and others do is run away without responding to my post or answering any questions. If what you say is true then stop complaining and you and others here actually debate and prove what you claim.

 

[Panacea]

Then why all the belly aching? If I "lie" as you say I do it should be easily proven. If I am only a "pest" then what I post should be easily rebutted but all you and others do is run away without responding to my post or answering any questions. If what you say is true then stop complaining and you and others here actually debate and prove what you claim.

Bug lie #1: Bug claims it challenges my worldview- doesn't.
Bug lie #2: Bug claims it gives honest debate, doesn't. (As evidenced by bug lie #1)
Bug lie #3: Bug asks for proof, doesn't not offer proof. (As evidenced by posts claiming it challenges worldviews but does not say how)
Bug lie #4: Bug claims it criticizes all worldviews, doesn't. (As evidenced by posting history)

 

[doombug]

Bug lie #1: Bug claims it challenges my worldview- doesn't.

Well let's take another looksee:

You like Dawkin's work and use it as a reference:

Sure it's been posted before, but I quite like Dawkins' Scale

I think Dawkin's is pretty much a con artist:

I wonder if Dawkins would scold you for making a statement like that without scientific evidence to back it up. He probably would if it would help sell his books. Dawkins is pretty much a charlatan.

That is one example which proves your statement is false.

But if you need another here is a thread where I was challenging your view on evolution,of course you ran away:
http://www.offtopicz.net/showthread.php?80842-Is-evil-just-a-tool-against-God%92s-boredom/page4

So your above #1 is a false statement. I do challenge your worldview.

Bug lie #2: Bug claims it gives honest debate, doesn't. (As evidenced by bug lie #1)

Since #2 is evidenced by #1 then #2 is also false.

Bug lie #3: Bug asks for proof, doesn't not offer proof. (As evidenced by posts claiming it challenges worldviews but does not say how)

See #1. I offered proof. #3 is also a false statement.

Bug lie #4: Bug claims it criticizes all worldviews, doesn't. (As evidenced by posting history)

No real proof provided only a claim backed up by a claim. Neither proves the other.

So, false statements and unproven claims by Panny.

Now disappear as usual. :24: :24: :24:

 

[Panacea]

I like a scale developed in part by a person you don't like, and you claim this challenges my worldview? This is another lie.

 

[doombug]

I like a scale developed in part by a person you don't like, and you claim this challenges my worldview? This is another lie.

hahaha! I thought you might say this example isn't enough for you. That is why I included a link to thread as another example. So now you are clearly telling a lie by omitting info....nice try.

 

[doombug]

ALL humans are considered morally equal until there is proof to the contrary.

What a goofy statement to make. In modern moral psychology, morality is considered to change through personal development so how can ALL humans be considered morally equal?....duh!

If you want to claim one group has more morals, it is you that the burden of proof falls on, not me.

That's the thing I haven't made such a claim. I don't think it is possible to prove yet some here claim to be able to. That is why I am asking for proof.

My faith of non-belief??? What the fuck is that?
I have all kinds of beliefs, hell, I have MORE beliefs than most theists since their one belief in god precludes them from believing in MANY things science has shown us.

How many beliefs do you have that don't require proof?
It's funny how Atheists claim not to believe in something without proof but fail to apply this to other things. The so called "skeptics" are really hypocrites.

You really do not understand atheism, do you.

I am not an atheist because you cannot show me proof of a god, I am an atheist because I haven't seen anything that would lead me to believe there is a god.

It's not Atheism that I don't understand it is the way you contradict yourself that I don't understand....for example:

I believe that there is life outside of our universe, but I have no such proof.....

You don't believe in God because you haven't seen anything that would lead you to believe there is a God.Yet you say you believe there is life outside the universe without proof of such so you haven't seen anything that would lead you to believe such. Classic contradiction here. You believe in one thing without proof but you don't believe in something else without proof....That is just stupid. Maybe you shouldn't believe in life outside the universe. That would be much less hypocritical.

 

[doombug]

That's because your question starts with a false premise.

You are starting your line of questioning with the assumption that they didn't start out equal in morality to begin with.

Where the hell did I state that? Nice false statement you are making.

We are all born neither theists nor atheists, we are all assumed to be born with the same morality. It is only later in life that we chose where our spirituality will lie, if at all.

Oh really? Where did you get this info? Whether humans are born with any kind of morality is still being questioned. How do you know this?

If you want to argue that one subset is different than the other, then you need to show that to be the truth. It's not the other way around. I would view theists or atheists as morally equivalent until proven otherwise.
And even then it will be nothing more than a percentage because I can guarantee you that I am more moral than some theists...

Where am I arguing one subset is different than the other. I say I don't think moral equality can be proven. I would view moral equality between Atheists and Theists an unknown since that is the truth.

 

[Tim]

You don't believe in God because you haven't seen anything that would lead you to believe there is a God.Yet you say you believe there is life outside the universe without proof of such so you haven't seen anything that would lead you to believe such. Classic contradiction here. You believe in one thing without proof but you don't believe in something else without proof....That is just stupid. Maybe you shouldn't believe in life outside the universe. That would be much less hypocritical.

These two things don't contradict anything.

Let me see if I can clear this up for you...

I am an atheist because I do not believe in the existence of a deity. That's it, nothing more. That does not mean that I won't believe in something without proof such as life outside of our planet. It ONLY means that I do not believe in a god.

If we used your line of though on belief...
I as an atheist do not believe in god because I don't have proof, so I shouldn't believe in anything without having proof.
You as a theist believes in god without proof, so you should believe in all myths since you don't have proof... otherwise you are a hypocrite.

Doesn't work, does it?

And I believe that their is life in the universe besides our planet because the numbers suggest it.
I believe that life started on this planet because the conditions were right for it. If you look at the possible number of planets in our galaxy that would be capable of sustaining life, it's in the billions. And our galaxy is only one of billions of galaxies... The numbers of possible planets out there that could possibly sustain life is a number that's hard to comprehend. Now what are the chances that Earth is the only one of them? For me personally, I think that the probability of life ONLY being on our earth is as close to zero as you can get.

 

[doombug]

Let me see if I can clear this up for you...

I am an atheist because I do not believe in the existence of a deity. That's it, nothing more.

But you said earlier:

I am an atheist because I haven't seen anything that would lead me to believe there is a god.

It sounds like you are changing your story but what you are saying now makes more sense. The Atheists that seem to be more level headed say they don't believe in God, end of story. They don't seem to need to bash religion like other Atheists do. The Christian bashing Atheists seem like they are still trying to convince themselves they are right.

That does not mean that I won't believe in something without proof such as life outside of our planet. It ONLY means that I do not believe in a god.

Life outside our planet? I thought you referred to life outside our universe earlier. It wouldn't surprise me if they were life other than on Earth.

If we used your line of though on belief...
I as an atheist do not believe in god because I don't have proof, so I shouldn't believe in anything without having proof.

Yep, that would be a consistent worldview. Something many Atheists lack.

You as a theist believes in god without proof, so you should believe in all myths since you don't have proof... otherwise you are a hypocrite.

Doesn't work, does it?

Many people believe in God but see evidence in the physical universe as proof. I don't see anything wrong with that worldview. Science suggests the universe had a beginning and the first words in the Christian bible are "In the beginning". As someone who has looked at other religions I can say the Christian bible does make more sense. I don't hold anything against any other religion or anyone who practices it. My concern has been more for what I believe personally for myself. I think the world would be a better place if people learned how to live with one another. So my line of thought does work.

And I believe that their is life in the universe besides our planet because the numbers suggest it.
I believe that life started on this planet because the conditions were right for it.

I like science but it seems science always comes to a dead end at the beginning of something. If the conditions were right for life on Earth then there had to be a cause. I don't really see how everything on Earth came to be by accident. I refer to the example of a tornado that rips through a junkyard and a Boeing 747 was created by accident. How many times has that happened?

If you look at the possible number of planets in our galaxy that would be capable of sustaining life, it's in the billions. And our galaxy is only one of billions of galaxies... The numbers of possible planets out there that could possibly sustain life is a number that's hard to comprehend. Now what are the chances that Earth is the only one of them? For me personally, I think that the probability of life ONLY being on our earth is as close to zero as you can get.

You are now referring to life inside our universe. Before you referred to life outside our universe. That is a little confusing but life outside our universe carries more mystery that will probably never be solved even by science.

As I said before I like science but I don't see where it conflicts with religion that much. I see where others claim "the bible is a myth" as if that really proves anything. Think about it. If the bible was meant to be a true and accurate history/science account how many volumes would it take to include everything? When you consider how much information that would be it would be an enormous collection of books. The amount of information science has now is alot. Just consider how much we don't know. How would the bible be able to cover all that in a way many people could understand? There would still be a need for scientists to write about their own field of study so everyone would be relying on others to tell them what they should believe anyway. How many people undertand fully all the different fields of study in existence today?

That is why I don't really care how a religious text is written. I really don't care if the bible is historically or scientifically correct because that isn't the purpose of it. When I look at it like that then the way the bible is written makes sense. It was written in a way so many people could understand the most important messages. Same goes for other religious texts. But look how many Christians there are in the world today. Looks like that idea was a good one.(The way the bible is written)

 

[The Doc]

Technically the bible is the only history book that covers one of the longest time periods.

 

[doombug]

Technically the bible is the only history book that covers one of the longest time periods.

Err um...Really? Why do you say that?

 

[The Doc]

It covers from the 1st person to after the death of Jesus.

 

[doombug]

It covers from the 1st person to after the death of Jesus.

You know some people claim that is all a myth because there isn't any scientific proof that any of that happened.

 

[The Doc]

which part(s)?

 

[doombug]

which part(s)?

The story of Adam and Eve for sure. But other than that there were some pretty big events, like Noah and the flood, that there doesn't seem to be any evidence of. I have to admit that would be odd if I viewed the bible as a history book but my own belief is that it wasn't written as such. Whether the bible is historically correct doesn't mean that much to me.

 

[BornReady]

The bible is neither a history book nor a science book. The OT is a collection of Hebrew folklore, poetry, proverbs and Jewish law. The NT contains Christian folklore, a bunch of letters the early churches passed around and Revelation. Revelation is allegoric apocalyptic literature. If you've never read Revelation then you're in for a wild ride if you do.

 

[Greatest I am]

Technically the bible is the only history book that covers one of the longest time periods.

Yes.

Myths like to be universal.

Like God has no clothes.

Regards
DL

 

[doombug]

Yes.

Myths like to be universal.

Like God has no clothes.

Regards
DL

hahaha! GIA, you are good at creating your own myths.