Objective Evidence.

Create a topic and discuss! No subject is off limits, but moderators have the right to remove asshat posts. What's an asshat post? Selling stuff, trolling, harassing--the usual stuff you don't want to see either. Happy posting!
Post Reply
Claire
Posts: 1081
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Objective Evidence.

Post by Claire » Thu Apr 05, 2018 2:41 am

A member here named Keep the Reason said:
Until you demonstrate a god exists, I totally agree that these are all offenses of humans. Of course nothing happens "by gods" because gods are a fiction created by humans to explain things they couldn't explain, and later on was used as a mechanism to control people -- often, but not always -- by fear of some eternal disposition that came after death.

I do not believe in gods, and until you show me some testable evidence, I shall not begin believing in them, and it's not my fault if YOU cannot demonstrate a claim YOU make isn't true. I do not have to prove your claim false; I merely have to reject it based on YOUR inability to bring to the stage convincing evidence that I can test and see the tests of others.
He can assert God is fiction, but that doesn't mean he's exempt from proving his claim. And, a lack of objective evidence for the existence of God isn't proof of nonexistence. Even if God was objectively proven to exist that doesn't mean that conclusion would be universally accepted by all scientists, or even the entire population of the world. There's numerous people who have been presented with facts, and chose to disregard/refute them based on a, b, and c reasons. Therefore, how could KTR ever know with any real certainty that he himself would accept God exists as a scientific fact? So, it's interesting to see people like him place vast amount of faith in facts, when facts are not always seen as such to many.
Last edited by Claire on Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1765
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Objective Evidence.

Post by SEG » Thu Apr 05, 2018 1:31 pm

Claire wrote:
Thu Apr 05, 2018 2:41 am

He can assert God is fiction, but that doesn't mean he's exempt from proving his claim.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... ayBys8gaJY
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

Claire
Posts: 1081
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Objective Evidence.

Post by Claire » Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:54 am

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Source: https://strangenotions.com/who-has-the- ... ssing-god/

If KTR called God fiction and wasn't trying to attack other's beliefs, sway, or call Christians idiots, then that would be fine. But, when he wants to push his view on others in such an aggressive way, then yes, he's liable to prove his claim God doesn't exist. And, he thinks if there is a God, or "gods", it's all their fault. Until he sees otherwise, it's people's fault. He can't accept that God existing doesn't mean people aren't just as imperfect and responsible as he already believes them to be.

SteveD
Posts: 27
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2018 11:40 pm

Re: Objective Evidence.

Post by SteveD » Fri Apr 06, 2018 2:45 am

I think this quote of KtR comes from a reply to one of my posts. I tend to agree with KtR, if I am asserting that God is real then it is up to me to prove my assertion not for him to disprove it. Otherwise he would spend years disproving all kinds of whacky ideas, never giving people the chance to hear his ideas and how he defends them.

That said, it makes me wonder why he wastes so much time debating Christians. I’ve been reading through the posts and it seems like KtR is really more interested in politics. I’m Canadian, so I clearly do not understand why Christianity and politics need to be as connected as they are in the US. Wouldn’t it just be a lot easier to keep religion and state separate and deal with each on their own (I’m being sarcastic, not naive).

Seriously, it would be cool if they could play nice together, but Christianity is not of this world, so it needs to be prepared to take a back seat in the political realm. God gives all of us the chance to live our lives based on our own individual choices. If we want to choose to live it without God, good luck to you. But if we choose to live it with God then we become citizens of a new Kingdom and are instructed to obey the authority in power as long as it doesn’t force us (i mean us personally, Christians) to do something against God. Fortunately this doesn’t really happen that often, not in Canada anyway.

This doesn’t mean that Christians have no voice. We can still vote, we can still run for office, we can advocate in law making. But once a law is made we need to obey it, as long as it doesn’t force us to contradict our individual allegiance to God.

I will remind the atheist though that the world’s most successful super power of our time (yup, that’s you USA) has in it’s pledge of allegiance ‘one nation under God’. Your founding fathers seemed to think building on a foundation of the Christian God was a smart thing to do and look at how their ideas panned out. But if you want to rock the foundation, it is your right to do so. Just be prepared to get hit in the head by falling bricks. I don’t know about you, but more recently I’ve been feeling a few tremors in the walls, I wonder if there is any correlation???

Claire
Posts: 1081
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Objective Evidence.

Post by Claire » Fri Apr 06, 2018 6:35 am

SteveD wrote:
Claire wrote:A member here named Keep the Reason said:
Until you demonstrate a god exists, I totally agree that these are all offenses of humans. Of course nothing happens "by gods" because gods are a fiction created by humans to explain things they couldn't explain, and later on was used as a mechanism to control people -- often, but not always -- by fear of some eternal disposition that came after death.

I do not believe in gods, and until you show me some testable evidence, I shall not begin believing in them, and it's not my fault if YOU cannot demonstrate a claim YOU make isn't true. I do not have to prove your claim false; I merely have to reject it based on YOUR inability to bring to the stage convincing evidence that I can test and see the tests of others.
He can assert God is fiction, but that doesn't mean he's exempt from proving his claim. And, a lack of objective evidence for the existence of God isn't proof of nonexistence. Even if God was objectively proven to exist that doesn't mean that conclusion would be universally accepted by all scientists, or even the entire population of the world. There's numerous people who have been presented with facts, and chose to disregard/refute them based on a, b, and c reasons. Therefore, how could KTR ever know with any real certainty that he himself would accept God exists as a scientific fact? So, it's interesting to see people like him place vast amount of faith in facts, when facts are not always seen as such to many.
I think this quote of KtR comes from a reply to one of my posts. I tend to agree with KtR, if I am asserting that God is real then it is up to me to prove my assertion not for him to disprove it. Otherwise he would spend years disproving all kinds of whacky ideas, never giving people the chance to hear his ideas and how he defends them.
I'm merely pointing out that if KTR is going to state God is fiction (which he has), attack other's beliefs (which he has), try to sway (which he has), and call Christians names like "idiots" (which he has), then he's liable to prove his claim that God doesn't exist.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1765
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Objective Evidence.

Post by SEG » Fri Apr 06, 2018 10:34 am

Claire wrote:
Fri Apr 06, 2018 6:35 am

I'm merely pointing out that if KTR is going to state God is fiction (which he has), attack other's beliefs (which he has), try to sway (which he has), and call Christians names like "idiots" (which he has), then he's liable to prove his claim that God doesn't exist.
KTR said that "because gods are a fiction created by humans" and I tend to agree with him when you think of gods in the classical sense. What is a god, spirit or a ghost anyway? I've got no idea apart from what I perceive as fictional notions. There is no scientific proof of anything supernatural. If you believe that your particular god (whatever that is) has the perfect qualities of being totally omniscient and omnipotent, then logically speaking it can NOT exist.
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

Claire
Posts: 1081
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Objective Evidence.

Post by Claire » Fri Apr 06, 2018 3:43 pm

SEG wrote:
Fri Apr 06, 2018 10:34 am
Claire wrote:
Fri Apr 06, 2018 6:35 am
I'm merely pointing out that if KTR is going to state God is fiction (which he has), attack other's beliefs (which he has), try to sway (which he has), and call Christians names like "idiots" (which he has), then he's liable to prove his claim that God doesn't exist.
KTR said that "because gods are a fiction created by humans" and I tend to agree with him when you think of gods in the classical sense. What is a god, spirit or a ghost anyway? I've got no idea apart from what I perceive as fictional notions. There is no scientific proof of anything supernatural. If you believe that your particular god (whatever that is) has the perfect qualities of being totally omniscient and omnipotent, then logically speaking it can NOT exist.
He was saying God(s) do not exist and he has said this for years. And, for reasons explained, he is liable to prove that claim.

SteveD
Posts: 27
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2018 11:40 pm

Re: Objective Evidence.

Post by SteveD » Fri Apr 06, 2018 9:04 pm

I hear you Claire, but he has already told you that he doesn’t believe in gods of any kind. It is pretty tough for anybody to talk about something that doesn’t exist in their mind, there is no frame of reference. And when he tries he makes up something that does not resemble anything like the Person you and I refer to as God.

As for the insults, God told you you should take joy in being persecuted for His Name. Meaning, this should not surprise you, he is only proving that God was correct, that you would be mocked and persecuted. Just be glad you don’t live in North Korea (seriously - please pray for the persecuted saints).

Sure KtR sounds like a grumpy old man, smart, but grumpy. Don’t make this your issue. And I always liked Walter Matthau so sit back and enjoy the show.

The question I have, that I think I’ve asked before is ... why would someone spend so much time with people talking about something he doesn’t believe in? As I said, I think this sounds more a political forum for KtR than a religious one, but somehow he has linked religion to state (seems like not too uncommon an occurrence in the US). If this is because Christians are trying to impose their beliefs on non-Christians, shame on us. However if KtR is asking how Christians make their own personal choices, then he needs to respect the answer and not call us crazy. I mean if he wants to be taken seriously, I’m not suggesting we repress his freedom of speech or anything.

Cheers - Steve

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1765
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Objective Evidence.

Post by SEG » Fri Apr 06, 2018 9:15 pm

Claire wrote:
Fri Apr 06, 2018 3:43 pm

He was saying God(s) do not exist and he has said this for years. And, for reasons explained, he is liable to prove that claim.
What are gods? If you can't reasonably define them, they can't reasonably exist. It can't get any simpler than that. What is your definition?
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

Claire
Posts: 1081
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Objective Evidence.

Post by Claire » Sat Apr 07, 2018 2:33 am

SteveD" wrote:
Claire wrote:
SteveD" wrote:I think this quote of KtR comes from a reply to one of my posts. I tend to agree with KtR, if I am asserting that God is real then it is up to me to prove my assertion not for him to disprove it. Otherwise he would spend years disproving all kinds of whacky ideas, never giving people the chance to hear his ideas and how he defends them.
I'm merely pointing out that if KTR is going to state God is fiction (which he has), attack other's beliefs (which he has), try to sway (which he has), and call Christians names like "idiots" (which he has), then he's liable to prove his claim that God doesn't exist.
I hear you Claire, but he has already told you that he doesn’t believe in gods of any kind. It is pretty tough for anybody to talk about something that doesn’t exist in their mind, there is no frame of reference. And when he tries he makes up something that does not resemble anything like the Person you and I refer to as God.
I agree and KTR not believing in God or gods is not the issue, nor is it about getting KTR to believe in God. This thread is just about how he claims God does not exist and says he doesn't have to prove that when in actuality he does.
SteveD wrote:As for the insults, God told you you should take joy in being persecuted for His Name. Meaning, this should not surprise you, he is only proving that God was correct, that you would be mocked and persecuted. Just be glad you don’t live in North Korea (seriously - please pray for the persecuted saints).

Sure KtR sounds like a grumpy old man, smart, but grumpy. Don’t make this your issue. And I always liked Walter Matthau so sit back and enjoy the show.
I brought up his tendency to insult to show how aggressively he pushes his worldview to the point where he attacks those who do not share his beliefs. It's not about me being surprised or even offended because I'm not. And, I will be sure to continue keeping the persecuted saints in my prayers.
SteveD wrote:The question I have, that I think I’ve asked before is ... why would someone spend so much time with people talking about something he doesn’t believe in? As I said, I think this sounds more a political forum for KtR than a religious one, but somehow he has linked religion to state (seems like not too uncommon an occurrence in the US). If this is because Christians are trying to impose their beliefs on non-Christians, shame on us. However if KtR is asking how Christians make their own personal choices, then he needs to respect the answer and not call us crazy. I mean if he wants to be taken seriously, I’m not suggesting we repress his freedom of speech or anything.
It's a valid question. There's many people who've concluded God does not exist, religion in general causes problems, and Christians are gullible, idiotic sheep, etc. And, some sign up to forums like this and use it as a stage to attack and ridicule. KTR not only does this but also mixes politics with religion and he certainly believes that many Christians are trying to impose their beliefs on non-Christians. And, he does not want any negative Christian influence in any Governmental capacity. But, sometimes his anti-Christian rhetoric goes so far that it would be easy to believe that he has an anti-religious agenda in which he would like to see religion completely eradicated, and would seek to impose his own political beliefs onto those around him. I'll add that KTR is justified in his anger towards certain behavior by Christians at times, and he has the right to speak his opposition to that behavior, as well as share his political opinions. However, that does not mean he's free from criticism and correction.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:He was saying God(s) do not exist and he has said this for years. And, for reasons explained, he is liable to prove that claim.
What are gods? If you can't reasonably define them, they can't reasonably exist. It can't get any simpler than that. What is your definition?
Existence has nothing to do with whether or not something can be defined. If you're fond of science as much as you'd like people to think you do, then you would realize that science is not a static source of information where nothing new is ever learned, discovered, or defined. And, whether or not you can personally understand or describe something has nothing to do with whether or not that thing you can't describe exists. For example, say there is an amazon tribe that you came into contact with who has no concept of the internet, and you're trying to tell them what a GIF is, and the tribe's people say that you can't properly define it to them, or describe it, so it doesn't exist.

Post Reply