Workch:
You still cannot disprove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created Yahweh.

You cannot because it will reveal the fraud in your argument.
You see?

It's true. I will send it to nursery class and give you a contact. Your argument will be perfect there. Where you can dance in circles with the cradles.

hupernikao:


The only thing you do is to make jest of yourself in the face of any intelligent reader. A run in circle and avoidance of questions already showed how weak your points are. You only end up rubbishing your knowledge and false post you created. They were oy premised on poor assumptions and illusion.


Remember, when a man go with the wrong tool to harvest, he will labor so much and still be complaining.

You started using the laughing emoji dude.
I was engaging politely and I’m still engaging you politely.

I’m just laughing because your own logic is working against you now. It’s difficult for you to counter the Flying Spaghetti Monster claim.

hupernikao:


It's true. I will send it to nursery class and give you a contact. Your argument will be perfect there. Where you can dance in circles with the cradles.

Fallacy of ad hominem.

Just disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster claim. I will not denigrate you in this argument

IMAliyu:


What are your rules or at least the standards you use in your theology?

Like if for example I was looking at two different conceptual theological frameworks like Christianity and Zen Buddhism. How do I go about determining the validity/truthfulness of either with a degree of confidence?

There are no rules, your intellect and ability to critical reasoning is enough for you to know what's true. That's simple.

hupernikao:


There are no rules, your intellect and ability to critical reasoning is enough for you to know what's true. That's simple.

Little wonder 100 people can have 100 different interpretations to one bible verse.
All of them think their critical thinking and reasoning is correct since there is no method to verifiable or test any. It’s explains why we have numerous denominations making unscrupulous claims that contradicts each other.

And this is what you want rational people to take seriously?

Workch:
Little wonder 100 people can have 100 different interpretations to one bible verse.
All of them think their critical thinking and reasoning is correct since there is no method to verifiable or test any. It’s explains why we have numerous denominations making unscrupulous claims that contradicts each other.

And this is what you want rational people to take seriously?

Let someone who have understanding of discuss respond, you are clogging the thread.

Even your respond is already away from what he asked. Do you just respond because you feel like or you read properly before responding.

He asked a question on different sect, but your hatred for Christianity can't let you see beyond the false doctrine you have been taught.

Every of your text always make me pity you, because they reveal to me how badly taught you are.

hupernikao:


Let someone who have understanding of discuss respond, you are clogging the thread.

Even your respond is already away from what he asked. Do you just respond because you feel like or you read properly before responding.

He asked a question on different sect, but your hatred for Christianity can't let you see beyond the false doctrine you have been taught.

Every of your text always make me pity you, because they reveal to me how badly taught you are.

Why are you attacking me because you cannot disprove that flying spaghetti monster created your God?

Dude, it's just your logic that I am using against you, don't use it if you can't take it.
You want people who will not hit you with hard philosophical reasoning?

Don't argue with me if you cannot stand logic and reasoning. Stop getting too emotional

Workch:
Why are you attacking me because you cannot disprove that flying spaghetti monster created your God?

Dude, it's just your logic that I am using against you, don't use it if you can't take it.
You want people who will not hit you with hard philosophical reasoning?

Don't argue with me if you cannot stand logic and reasoning. Stop getting too emotional

Attacking?

I guess you like using sweet words for yourself. Well it's good for you.

But for me, let the one who have the ability to read well and ready for conversation post. You don't have any of the two, hence if left to you, all post will become a joke.

So let people who can handle proper discussing comment.

hupernikao:


Attacking?

I guess you like using sweet words for yourself. Your it's good for you.

But for me, let the one who have the ability to read well and ready for conversation post. You don't have any of the two, hence if left to you, all post will become a joke.

So let people who can handle proper discussing comment.

Then why can't you disprove the flying spaghetti monster claim?

If you try to, I'm just gonna shift the goalpost to where you can't reach. It's what you have been doing with your God.

It will strain you logically.

Workch:
Then why can't you disprove the flying spaghetti monster claim?

If you try to, I'm just gonna shift the goalpost to where you can't reach. It's what you have been doing with your God.

It will strain you logically.

I will await a mature member of your group to comment so as to have discussion. You can hold the feeder till then.

hupernikao:


There are no rules, your intellect and ability to critical reasoning is enough for you to know what's true. That's simple.

I think that's were my problem lays, there are no rules or methods.

It's easy to argue things in an isolated theological framework, like for example how to pray or the existence of Allah in Islam with confidence, because the theology would be restricted by the amount of material available which will be the Qur'an and Hadiths(maybe), and there can be rules governing the place and interpretation of these materials.

But introduction an alternate framework, with just as much depth and material behind it, with its own theologians and everything goes out the window.

TThe human mind is something proven to not be 100% reliable. As we are filled with bias and often hold strongly beliefs we were raised on. So I don't trust that my own independent reasoning, no matter how self critical I could be that I'm not under the influence of some bias.
So a form of determining a truth that is independent of my personal perceptions is something I'm looking for.

hupernikao:


I will await a mature member of your group to comment so as to have discussion. You can hold the feeder till then.

Yes, because you can't handle a Russell's teapot analogy of flying spaghetti monster.

It's too hard not just for you but for all religion. I know that feeling. Maybe you should read a little bit more about philosophy and logic then you will know why no religion can handle Russell's teapot

IMAliyu:

I think that's were my problem lays, there are no rules or methods.

It's easy to argue things in an isolated theological framework, like for example how to pray or the existence of Allah in Islam with confidence, because the theology would be restricted by the amount of material available which will be the Qur'an and Hadiths(maybe), and there can be rules governing the place and interpretation of these materials.

But introduction an alternate framework, with just as much depth and material behind it, with its own theologians and everything goes out the window.

TThe human mind is something proven to not be 100% reliable. As we are filled with bias and often hold strongly beliefs we were raised on. So I don't trust that my own independent reasoning, no matter how self critical I could be that I'm not under the influence of some bias.
So a form of determining a truth that is independent of my personal perceptions is something I'm looking for.

You just put it right but he will probably not get it because he wants a never ending argument.

I'm trying to make him see the numerous baises in religious by pointing to the flying spaghetti monster teapot analogy but he still doesn't get it, he thinks I'm making a joke out of it.

He's bais towards his own God that he doesn't like it when I compare his god to a flying spaghetti monster. Now since there are no rules, there's no basis to accept his god and discard the flying spaghetti monster.
It all depends on one's bias.

IMAliyu:

I think that's were my problem lays, there are no rules or methods.

It's easy to argue things in an isolated theological framework, like for example how to pray or the existence of Allah in Islam with confidence, because the theology would be restricted by the amount of material available which will be the Qur'an and Hadiths(maybe), and there can be rules governing the place and interpretation of these materials.

But introduction an alternate framework, with just as much depth and material behind it, with its own theologians and everything goes out the window.

TThe human mind is something proven to not be 100% reliable. As we are filled with bias and often hold strongly beliefs we were raised on. So I don't trust that my own independent reasoning, no matter how self critical I could be that I'm not under the influence of some bias.
So a form of determining a truth that is independent of my personal perceptions is something I'm looking for.

Well my response isn't considering religion in isolation. No. It puts into consideration any religion you want to ascertain.

I dont like speaking about another man's religion else I would have given you case study of what I meant.

But the truth is, when the scriptures of various religion are subject to scrutiny and proper examination based on contextual, historical and interpretations, a reasonable reader will come to a decision. If it's done within the confined of their truths.

The key challenge is, it's likely you meet a wrong interpretation that will affect the outcome of your decision. But if interpreted within the limits of its true origin and history, the outcome will be definite.

Workch:
WE have numerous fallacies that religious people often commit, it seems to me that one attribute of a religious person is their total lack of philosophy and logic knowledge, hence the inability spot logical fallacies in their points. Of the many fallacies that they commit, I will list 10.

1. Appealing to Ignorance
e.g.
i. No one knows how the universe actually started hence god must of done it.
ii. We don’t have the ability to know everything, there are some things that are beyond our understanding.
Logical position: Becasue we don’t know now doesn’t mean we won’t find out tomorrow. Ignorance of the topic is not evidence for god.

2. Fallacy of begging the question.
E.g.
I. Noah’s flood is right because the Bible said it.

Logical position: You can’t use the Bible to say the claims of the Bible is right, you have to find evidence to justify those claims outside of the Bible.

3. Argumentum ad Arboretum.
E.g.
I. Everything you see around you is evidence for god, the trees, planets and all of nature. They cannot exist on their own.

Logical position: The existence of nature is evidence that nature exist and not for god.

4. Appealing to authority
E.g. Newton was a Christian and he said scientists are only discovering the works of the creator.
Logical position: did newton provide evidence for this claim? If he didn’t then we will only take those things he provided evidence for and wait for evidence others to suffice.

5. Tu quoque (whatabaoutism)
E.g. Science is also based on beliefs, hypothesis are made from beliefs.

Logical position: Whether or not science is based on beliefs, it’s not evidence that a god exist. (Budatum committed this fallacy not too long ago.)

6. Special pleading fallacy
E.g. According to the cause and effect law, everything must have a cause including the universe, hence the ultimate cause must be god.

Logical position: Why must the cause be your god and who created your god? If your god cannot be created then why can’t the universe also exist without a creator? Why must you special plead your god from the law?

7. Argumentum ad populum (appealing to population)
E.g. There are more religious people than atheists, it means that the concept of a god is true. If it’s not true then why do so much people conceive it?

Logical position: Because so many hold a belief doesn’t make it true. We still require evidence to justify it even if the whole world believes it.

8. Ad hominem
E.g. A fool says in his heart that there’s no god.

Logical position: they are not fools because they don’t believe your claims. You need to provide evidence to convince them.

9. Fallacy of faulty equivalence
E.g. If a car can have a creator then the universe must have a creator which is god.

Logical position: We know the producers of cars, we know the factories, we know the engineers, we can meet them physically and we can even sue them if they make faulty cars. This cannot be applied to your god, it’s a faulty equivalence. We cannot sue your god for making cancer cells or earthquakes.
Dtruthspeaker is fond of this fallacy.

10. Circular reasoning.
E.g. : The Bible is true, so you should not doubt the Word of God.

Logical position: This argument rests on your prior acceptance of the Bible as truth even without any evidence that it’s true. You started with what you wanted to end the argument with.

I will add an important one.

Fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.
E.g. Can you prove that god doesn’t exist?

Logical position: No I can’t, same way I cannot prove that unicorns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn’t exist. They burden of proof is on those that claim that they exist.

We atheists hope that you can be more logical in your arguments so we can take you more seriously.

I am beginning to think that you just started reading some books on atheism recently. None of what you wrote up here is originally written and argued for by you.

So you are guilty of appealing to authority.
That’s one of the fallacies you talked about.

Can you tell me any of the arguments against Christianity developed originally by you ? All you do is glean one or 2 objections from experts in atheism and then run here to share same.

I would have loved you to counter the claims of the authenticity of the Bible esp the New Testament to be able to object to Bible accounts. The Christian believes the Bible accounts and knows the accounts are true and trustworthy. Thus if the Bible is believed and confirmed to be true, then what is says can be relied upon as true.

I noticed you didn’t make those cocky statements about science being able to answer all things. Rather you humbly implied science had yet to discover somethings in the future. That is FAITH. And it counters one of the points you made.

Of course you know that no amount of wind from a cyclone would blow through a chunk yard and leave a well constructed airplane.
And you also know that monkeys assembled to type continuously on a keypad couldn’t type out any coherent sentences let alone Shakespeare’s sonnet. Which brings you back to the issue of the origin of all things without a designer ?

Do you have an explanation for that? Share with us.

I like that you are obsessed with Christianity. Lol!
Let God of the Christians and their business keep your thoughts busy!

Nothingserious:


I am beginning to think that you just started reading some books on atheism recently. None of what you wrote up here is originally written and argued for by you.

So you are guilty of appealing to authority.
That’s one of the fallacies you talked about.

Can you tell me any of the arguments against Christianity developed originally by you ? All you do is glean one or 2 objections from experts in atheism and then run here to share same.

I would have loved you to counter the claims of the authenticity of the Bible esp the New Testament to be able to object to Bible accounts. The Christian believes the Bible accounts and knows the accounts are true and trustworthy. Thus if the Bible is believed and confirmed to be true, then what is says can be relied upon as true.

I noticed you didn’t make those cocky statements about science being able to answer all things. Rather you humbly implied science had yet to discover somethings in the future. That is FAITH. And it counters one of the points you made.

Of course you know that no amount of wind from a cyclone would blow through a chunk yard and leave a well constructed airplane.
And you also know that monkeys assembled to type continuously on a keypad couldn’t type out any coherent sentences let alone Shakespeare’s sonnet. Which brings you back to the issue of the origin of all things without a designer ?

Do you have an explanation for that? Share with us.

I like that you are obsessed with Christianity. Lol!
Let God of the Christians and their business keep your thoughts busy!

Christian god doesn't exist without evidence.
If you provide evidence I will change my mind

Workch:
Christian god doesn't exist without evidence.
If you provide evidence I will change my mind

Sounding like a broken record already.
Even if you feign not to remember our previous discussions, I do. Go back to one of your threads on philosophy and go through our discussions again.

Workch:
Christian god doesn't exist without evidence.
If you provide evidence I will change my mind

I was hoping you had alternate explanations for what I listed there.
Lol! No you don’t.

You would rather I agreed that a a Ford car had no designer and maker of its engine just because Mr Ford was not seen inside the engine compartment when you opened the hood.

You would also want us to believe that the driver and the mechanic who are now reviewing the car and can fix part of the mechanisms can claim Ford doesn’t exist because they couldn’t find him in the hood. Those are the fatal errors you make.

I was just hoping you could explain the cyclone building a jet fighter or monkeys typing Shakespeare’s sonnet.

So we cannot claim a complex design we see doesn’t have a designer behind them all. Or that the laws of nature do not have a lawgiver.

Nothingserious:


I was hoping you had alternate explanations for what I listed there.
Lol! No you don’t.

You would rather I agreed that a a Ford car had no designer and maker of its engine just because Mr Ford was not seen inside the engine compartment when you opened the hood.

You would also want us to believe that the driver and the mechanic who are now reviewing the car and can fix part of the mechanisms can claim Ford doesn’t exist because they couldn’t find him in the hood. Those are the fatal errors you make.

I was just hoping you could explain the cyclone building a jet fighter or monkeys typing Shakespeare’s sonnet.

So we cannot claim a complex design we see doesn’t have a designer behind them all. Or that the laws of nature do not have a lawgiver.

Just provide evidence for your God.

Nothingserious:


Sounding like a broken record already.
Even if you feign not to remember our previous discussions, I do. Go back to one of your threads on philosophy and go through our discussions again.

You still haven't told me why flying spaghetti monster didn't create yahweh, he created yahweh and I believe it without evidence