Religion Ask a Christian - Continued in Part 2

[Chief]

Continued in Part Two:

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/ask-a-christian-part-2.1295001/unread

 

[Number37]

Literally a few posts above this comment....

View attachment 1277061

How is that "literally" an Atheist conceding God as a possibility?
It is another bit of mental gymnastics to avoid answering a very basic question.

The question is so simple.
But but but religion.
But religion
but religion
but religion.
but religion.

Why is the question being avoided?
Has Atheism become that much of a religion that Atheists can now casually put aside basic logic and reason because 'but religion'?

Is the only answer 'but religion' to any question now?

 

[Coopers]

No.

What about now?

It's having that effect on me.

 

[Roylion]

So again, you want twist what I said into what you want to reply to.

Merely responding to the comments you make. The only twisting is in your mind.

It can only be because your prejudices so hard wired.

I'm not an atheist. I've made that clear on a number of occasions.

 

[Number37]

As I pointed out to you earlier, lizard people can't be ruled out either. I rule out the possibility of biblegod for the same reason you rule out the possibility the world is run by lizard people.

Most of organised religion is equally insane as the idea of lizard people.

To satisfy you, I will agree that there's a possibility that biblegod is real. The odds are the same as lizard people being real.

Does that satisfy you?

I am not looking to be satisfied.
I was just trying to get a read on how rational the people who profess their rationality actually are.
Turns out, not very rational at all.

At the same time as lecturing about the scientific method they miraculously can absolutely rule out something in relation to something we have no idea about. Could be bloody anything, even Lizard people but we know fo-sho it isn't that God thing because reasons.

Your belief that it isn't that God thing is EXACTLY the same as the belief that it is that God thing.

 

[Roylion]

The question is so simple.

The question - your question - was... (I have highlighted your terminology.)

"Does God have to be made of something to exist?”

Why is the question being avoided?

Define what youi mean by "God". Seeing that you used the word. The we'll see if there's an answer to your question about "God".

 

[LFTWNG11]

How is that "literally" an Atheist conceding God as a possibility?
It is another bit of mental gymnastics to avoid answering a very basic question.

The question is so simple.
But but but religion.
But religion
but religion
but religion.
but religion.

Why is the question being avoided?
Has Atheism become that much of a religion that Atheists can now casually put aside basic logic and reason because 'but religion'?

Is the only answer 'but religion' to any question now?

The part where he conceded "you can't" in response to your query about ruling out god as "being an explanation for these unexplained events". I don't see the problem with providing the context that there is no proof that god is an explanation, do you?

 

[Number37]

Merely responding to the comments you make. The only twisting is in your mind.



I'm not an atheist. I've made that clear on a number of occasions.

You should be able to demonstrate where I mentioned religion for you to go on and on and on and on about religion or you can just say you twisted what I said to suit what you wanted to reply with.

 

[Roylion]

At the same time as lecturing about the scientific method they miraculously can absolutely rule out something in relation to something we have no idea about.

Nothing is ruled out. We have no idea about the existance of "God" nor the form of "God". There is no evidence in support of either.

That has been said a number of times.

 

[Roylion]

You should be able to demonstrate where I mentioned religion for you to go on and on and on and on about religion or you can just say you twisted what I said to suit what you wanted to reply with.

I made it very clear that we can't rule a phenomena out or in until robust, empirical evidence in favor of the existance of said phenomena (such as 'quarks') is discovered, tested extensively and proved conclusively through testable, repeatable, falsifiable experiments.

"God" may be included in this. Define what you mean by the term "God".

 

[Number37]

The part where he conceded "you can't" in response to your query about ruling out god as "being an explanation for these unexplained events". I don't see the problem with providing the context that there is no proof that god is an explanation, do you?

This is the 2nd time I have posed such a question, both times it has been answered with the same array of anti-religion twaddle.
I specifically did not mention religion. In response to people banging on about religion, I specifically said it was not about religion.
Still the but religion but religion but religion.

It is a very simple question that has been turned into something really complicated because it suits the 'but religion' narrative, I guess.

 

[Number37]

Nothing is ruled out. We have no idea about the existance of "God" nor the form of "God". There is no evidence in support of either.

That has been said a number of times.

The evidence part is stating the bleeding obvious and has been done to death already.

That you insist on repeating it , over and over, just reveals your hard wired prejudices.

This is the short answer that you can't bring yourself to say.

Nothing is ruled out.

 

[bfff]

That side of Big Bang there is no proof of anything. Quarks never been observed, just theoretical.

So by your logic can we rule everything out....which is clearly absurd.

Quarks are a part of an accepted theory, the Standard Model. Their existence has been observed indirectly. The Standard Model is not a complete explanation of all observed phenomena so different models are proposed. This does not change the fact of the observable physical phenomena.

This way of working appears backwards compared to the way the scientific method is commonly conceptualised.

Apologies for the science talk in a religion thread.

 

[Roylion]

That you insist on repeating it , over and over, just reveals your hard wired prejudices.

It was you that included the word "God" in your question.

Remember this:

Does God have to be made of something to exist?”

Define "God".

 

[Number37]

Quarks are a part of an accepted theory, the Standard Model. Their existence has been observed indirectly. The Standard Model is not a complete explanation of all observed phenomena so different models are proposed. This does not change the fact of the observable physical phenomena.

This way of working appears backwards compared to the way the scientific method is commonly conceptualised.

Apologies for the science talk in a religion thread.

There you go again making assumptions.
I was not criticising the scientific method. I was merely stating it.
It needed to be stated so as to attempt to stop people from going off on tangents with the 'but relgion, but religion'.

 

[LFTWNG11]

This is the 2nd time I have posed such a question, both times it has been answered with the same array of anti-religion twaddle.
I specifically did not mention religion. In response to people banging on about religion, I specifically said it was not about religion.
Still the but religion but religion but religion.

It is a very simple question that has been turned into something really complicated because it suits the 'but religion' narrative, I guess.

That question is answered in very basic terms. I can repeat for you though - yes god is a possible explanation for the unexplained. Based on current evidence its as possible as the flying spaghetti monster being an explanation for the unexplained.

What's wrong with citing the evidence when determining the likely possibility?

 

[Roylion]

This is the short answer that you can't bring yourself to say.

"Nothing is ruled out?" Didn't I say it?

 

[Roylion]

Based on current evidence its as possible as the flying spaghetti monster being an explanation for the unexplained.

Yep. The FSM is a possibility.

 

[Number37]

It was you that included the word "God" in your question.

Remember this:

Does God have to be made of something to exist?”

Define "God".

You choose what it means.

 

[Number37]

"Nothing is ruled out?" Didn't I say it?

Say it without qualification.
You could have said it without qualification at the very beginning but you chose not to, instead you chose to do the usual twaddle.

 

[bfff]

Number37
Atheists don’t believe in deities. Can you reframe your question?

 

[Number37]

That question is answered in very basic terms. I can repeat for you though - yes god is a possible explanation for the unexplained. Based on current evidence its as possible as the flying spaghetti monster being an explanation for the unexplained.

What's wrong with citing the evidence when determining the likely possibility?

Actually the flying spaghetti monster can't be an explanation.

Atoms were created as part of Big Bang.
Anything that is made up of atoms can't possibly be an explanation for something before atoms were created.

 

[Roylion]

Actually the flying spaghetti monster can't be an explanation.

Atoms were created as part of Big Bang.
Anything that is made up of atoms can't possibly be an explanation for something before atoms were created.

How do you know the FSM is made of atoms?

Are you claiming as a truth that the FSM is made of atoms?

Does the FSM have to be made of something to exist?

 

[Roylion]

Say it without qualification.
You could have said it without qualification at the very beginning but you chose not to, instead you chose to do the usual twaddle.

Oh yes....provision of evidence. Fancy requiring supporting evidence to determine the veracity of a claimed phenomena.

 

[Number37]

Oh yes....provision of evidence. Fancy requiring supporting evidence to determine the veracity of a claimed phenomena.

Twist and twist and twist...just to suit your bullshit.

We already established that we are in the realm of the wholly unknown.
There is no evidence for anything in the realm of the wholly unknown, that's why it is the wholly unknown. Basic. F'ing. Science. Logic. Reason.

 

[Roylion]

We already established that we are in the realm of the wholly unknown.
There is no evidence for anything in the realm of the wholly unknown, that's why it is the wholly unknown. Basic. F'ing. Science. Logic. Reason.

Yep. So define your terminology in the question you asked.

Define "God'. It was you that asked a question about "God".

If "God" is the "realm of the wholly unknown", then how do you know there is "God" in the first place?

What is "God"?