IntenseDebate

8 years ago @ http://onthebox.us/ - Words of Comfort: &ldq... · 0 replies · +1 points

I was being sarcastic about complete uncertainty being a reasonable probability for an undefined God. It seemed funny but isn't valid. A specific God could have a probability assigned to it because even if there is no evidence for it there are claims made about it, attributes and qualities assigned to it. Such things could provide a basis for establishing a probability, possibly not a realistic or even defensible one but at least there would be a basis for it. That is not true of the question how likely is it that there is some sort of God existing somewhere. I can think of no basis on which to assign a probability to that. That is why I asked which God you wanted me to assign a probability to. Of course if you have some criteria in mind that could form a basis for assigning the probability of an undefined God existing I would be interested in hearing it.

8 years ago @ http://onthebox.us/ - Words of Comfort: Thos... · 0 replies · +2 points

That's OK though because there is no evidence that there is a God that needs pleasing. I appreciate you being honest about not having evidence though.

8 years ago @ http://onthebox.us/ - Words of Comfort: &ldq... · 0 replies · +1 points

Oh as to your first part both the existence of cancer and the prelevance of it were established by evaluating evidence.

8 years ago @ http://onthebox.us/ - Words of Comfort: &ldq... · 2 replies · +1 points

Lol yes I saw that you were Gish galloping and only chose to answer what I felt relevant. I will look into your point about complete uncertainty that could be a reasonable probability for a God. If so good point.

8 years ago @ http://onthebox.us/ - Words of Comfort: Thos... · 3 replies · +2 points

The Bible says lots of stupid stuff, that in no way means the stupid stuff it says is true.

You are free to believe silly mythology if it makes you happy but your belief does not make the silly mythology true.

To demonstrate your silly mythology as true you would need to provide evidence, something you can not do and are unlikely to even attempt.

8 years ago @ http://onthebox.us/ - Words of Comfort: &ldq... · 4 replies · +1 points

You can assign a probability to you having cancer because there is evidence cancer exists and evidence of the rate at which it occurs, without such evidence you would not be able to assign such probability. As there is no evidence of Gods then there is no basis for assigning probability. I also could not assign a probability to undetectable gnomes living in my nose

John Calvin is probably the theologian I have read most, I have also read Martin Luther heavily although I don't know if he would fit the category of systematic theologian. I've also read classical writers such as St. Anslem and Thomas Aquinas. I have read a number of other authors on the subject although I'm unsure if they could be called "Systematic Theologians" such as Strobel for example.

8 years ago @ http://onthebox.us/ - Words of Comfort: Thos... · 5 replies · +3 points

Actually it is all a ridiculous story about a petty vengeful myth figure which despite being all powerful can't forgive anyone without a blood sacrifice. There is no truth in it but there is also no justice in it. The Jesus myth is one of the most vile and unjust systems of mythology man has invented. At least some mythologies place value on actually being a good person rather than just being forgiven for happening to worship the right deity in the right way.

8 years ago @ http://onthebox.us/ - \"Atheist Central\" is... · 1 reply · +3 points

Agreed I have heard that reasoning for Christians as well. I really should be careful with my terminology, Raytheists really are not a good representation of Christianity.

8 years ago @ http://onthebox.us/ - Words of Comfort: &ldq... · 6 replies · +1 points

If there were evidence of the being then it would be possible to evaluate the probability of it existing. The lack of evidence is one of the principal reasons the existence of a God is not a falsifiable hypothesis. If some Christian ever presented evidence it would then be possible to set criteria for determining if that evidence supports the existence of a God and possibly how probable such a God would be.

As to your first part, I am extremely familiar with what Christian mythology teaches. Your description of your God is simplistic, incomplete and in no way refutes my claim that the Christian myth figure is necessarily impossible.

8 years ago @ http://onthebox.us/ - \"Atheist Central\" is... · 3 replies · +5 points

Asking if something is human is really the wrong question. Skin cells are indeed genetically human, so is blood, sperm, my appendix etc. The question should be is something a person, that is a lot less clear but I doubt a zygote, pharyngula or even most fetus could be considered a person by any reasonable metric. Late stage pregnancy is a lot more problematic to me but the law typically agrees and very few abortions occur at this stage and the ones that do usually involve cases where the pregnant woman, the fetus, or both will die without the procedure.

As to genocide, I doubt any Christian will give you a concrete answer. If they say it isn't wrong they are monstrous, if they say it is wrong then they admit their myth figure is monstrous, if they try to say it is OK in some cases such as when the God commands it or the people being slaughtered deserve it they are claiming moral relativism which Christians typically claim is bad and use as an insult against non Christians.

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with Ryk

People I'm following

Ryk