Atheists: If God existed would God……

[ppp]

Sorry, I left the If off my sentence. More correctly:

IF there is nothing that you understand about morality today that Bob in Jerusalem was

not capable of understanding 2,000 years ago why did Jesus say the following?

John 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

Jesus said that He had many things to say (what He would liked to have said) but He did not say them back then because people living back then were not ready to hear what Jesus would have said.

I don't see how that changes anything.
What does what Jesus said have to do with the immorality of those actions?

 

[Trailblazer]

What makes you think this is atheist thinking? The people who first formalized propositional logic.were rather vocal theists

I did not say that formal logic is atheist thinking, I said that it is the thinking of atheists on this forum who band together against me.

 

[F1fan]

There can be no objective evidence for God, but there is objective evidence for Messengers of God.

Untrue. There is only people who CLAIM to be messengers of God. There is NO objective evidence that demonstrates it's true.

You are convinced, but I don't remember you ever going step by step explaining every element, and piece of data, and then how you came to your series of conclusions.

As I just pointed out in my previous post, there are facts about Baha'u'llah and I consider that objective evidence.

As I have said many times, it is irrelevant what convinces you as an individual. It is whether the evidence is compelling to objective minds.

I understand you believe your evidence is good enough, but it simply isn't.

 

[ppp]

I did not say that formal logic is atheist thinking, I said that it is the thinking of atheists on this forum who band together against me.

I am using formal logic. Your inability to prove your claim does not change that fact that you still have the burden of proof.

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't see how that changes anything.
What does what Jesus said have to do with the immorality of those actions?

These actions were not considered immoral by people living in Jesus' day because of what NT scriptures say. For example, Paul taught that women should be subjugated to men. Baha'u'llah taught the equality of men and women because humans are now ready to hear that message and put it into practice.

 

[ppp]

Excuse me while I laugh. I do not believe the OT represents any of God's orders.

Interesting. So nothing in the OT is God's commandments. Not even the ten commandments? I thought Moses was supposed to be a messenger.

 

[ppp]

These actions were not considered immoral by people living in Jesus' day because of what NT scriptures say.

Again. So what?

 

[F1fan]

I said: No, it only shows that atheists think that my thinking doesn't follow the rules of logic. That does not mean that my thinking does not follow the rules of logic.

I was only pointing out that atheists think I am illogical because atheists think similarly to each other. I never said that atheist being an atheist is bad and I never implied that you are wrong for being atheists.

You might as well say it is blue-eyed people. Or men. Or vegans. It's an ad hominem. People pointing out your illogical posts has nothing to do with them being atheist or not. Pointing out your poor logic is a matter of people identifying your flaws, not about who they are.

You are saying we are wrong because we are atheists. You don't rebut our criticisms and show we are wrong.

Do you see how you've made the same fallacy TWICE, even though I explained it?

 

[Trailblazer]

Untrue. There is only people who CLAIM to be messengers of God. There is NO objective evidence that demonstrates it's true.

I said: There can be no objective evidence for God, but there is objective evidence for Messengers of God.

I did not say that the objective evidence proves that they were Messengers of God.

You are convinced, but I don't remember you ever going step by step explaining every element, and piece of data, and then how you came to your series of conclusions.

Why should I do that? What would it mean to anyone else? Everyone has to do their own research and investigation if they want to know the truth.

As I have said many times, it is irrelevant what convinces you as an individual.

And I have said the same thing -- it is irrelevant what convinces me as an individual.

I understand you believe your evidence is good enough, but it simply isn't.

It is good enough for me.
I do not care what is good enough for you because I am not responsible for you. I am only responsible for myself.

 

[Trailblazer]

People pointing out your illogical posts has nothing to do with them being atheist or not.

Too bad you have never been able to point out anything I have said that is illogical.

You are saying we are wrong because we are atheists.

No, I never said that so that is a straw man.

You don't rebut our criticisms and show we are wrong.

I do rebut your criticisms and explain why they are wrong. The evidence is all on this forum.

Do you see how you've made the same fallacy TWICE, even though I explained it?

What fallacy?

 

[Trailblazer]

I am using formal logic. Your inability to prove your claim does not change that fact that you still have the burden of proof.

I have no burden to prove anything because I am making no claims.

 

[F1fan]

It does not MATTER what I believe about the Messengers, as what I believe is not evidence. Everyone has to look at the evidence for themselves and decide what to believe. I explained that to Polymath257 in this post: #1446 Trailblazer

Nobody observes any such thing except you, and you are wrong.

My beliefs are not the evidence, I hold my beliefs because of the evidence.

There is no evidence that Baha'u'llah is what he claims to be. The texts are not very good evidence that they came from a God. You are trusting this guy and what he claims. There is nothing impressive as evidence that you believe true. You don't even argue for any of the texts as "evidence". You cite them, but you don't explain how they indicate the claims by Baha'u'llah are true. It's all circular reasoning, a fallacy. You read the claims, you trust the claims, you think the claims are evidence, therefore the claims are true. What is missing is what makes any of the texts indicative a uniquely divine source, and not human imagination.

I said: I will leave you with this analogy. If I believe that my mechanic is an excellent mechanic is that evidence that he is an excellent mechanic? No, the evidence that would show that he was an excellent mechanic would be that he had performed his work to many people's satisfaction and their cars were repaired correctly and were running well, and that he was reliable and trustworthy and honest.

If I believe that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God is that evidence that He was a Messenger of God? No, the evidence that would show that He was a Messenger of God would be that He had performed his work for God and that He was reliable and trustworthy and honest.

Then prove all that.

 

[Trailblazer]

Interesting. So nothing in the OT is God's commandments. Not even the ten commandments? I thought Moses was supposed to be a messenger.

I did not say that NOTHING in the OT is God's commandments. Moses was a Messenger of God so the ten commandments are valid. Most if the rest of the OT is anthropomorphisms about God.

 

[F1fan]

Too bad you have never been able to point out anything I have said that is illogical.

I just did and you avoided it. Twice.

More evidence that 1. you don't understand logical fallacies, 2. you don't care that you commit them, 3. you don't listen.

I do rebut your criticisms and explain why they are wrong. The evidence is all on this forum.

Like above when you completely ignored that I pointed out an ad hom fallacy, twice?

 

[Trailblazer]

There is no evidence that Baha'u'llah is what he claims to be. The texts are not very good evidence that they came from a God. You are trusting this guy and what he claims. There is nothing impressive as evidence that you believe true. You don't even argue for any of the texts as "evidence". You cite them, but you don't explain how they indicate the claims by Baha'u'llah are true. It's all circular reasoning, a fallacy. You read the claims, you trust the claims, you think the claims are evidence, therefore the claims are true. What is missing is what makes any of the texts indicative a uniquely divine source, and not human imagination.

You are free to believe whatever you want to believe about the evidence but you have no right to speak for me and what process of reasoning I went through to come to my beliefs. No, I did not read the claims, trust the claims, and think the claims were evidence, therefore the claims are true.

Then prove all that.

Not my job.

 

[ppp]

I have no burden to prove anything because I am making no claims.

Lol. You are nothing but a constant cavalcade of claimed. Even that ridiculous sentence is one of your claims.

 

[Trailblazer]

I just did and you avoided it. Twice.

More evidence that 1. you don't understand logical fallacies, 2. you don't care that you commit them, 3. you don't listen.

Like above when you completely ignored that I pointed out an ad hom fallacy, twice?

I did no ad hom fallacy. You project your own thoughts onto everything I say.
What it means to you has nothing to do with what I actually meant.
I explain something and you do not hear what I say because you project your own thoughts onto me and misunderstand what I am saying. You imagine I am putting down atheists when I never did any such thing. You imagine I expect you to believe what I believe just because I believe it but I never said any such thing and in fact I have said the exact opposite.

I cannot do anything about this, projection is a psychological problem.

Please explain why I do not have this problem with anyone else except you in spite of the fact that I post to atheists all day long. This has nothing to do with logic or atheism.

If the problem was with my communication I would have the same communication problem with other people on this forum, but I don't have this problem with anyone else. Logic tells me that it is not a problem with me.

 

[ppp]

I did not say that NOTHING in the OT is God's commandments. Moses was a Messenger of God so the ten commandments are valid. Most if the rest of the OT is anthropomorphisms about God.

Sorry. No. If you had read your Bible, it was Moses giving the orders as a messenger of god to commit those atrocities. Or do you just pick and choose. If you agree with it, then it is from God. If you disagree, it is not from God.

Heck, its almost exactly like you are God.

 

[Trailblazer]

Lol. You are nothing but a constant cavalcade of claimed. Even that ridiculous sentence is one of you claims.

I make no claims, I only believe the claims of Baha'u'llah.
I have nothing to claim because I did not do anything claimworthy.

You want to say I am making claims so you can say I have the burden of proof but it won't work.
I have no burden of proof. Baha'u'llah had the burden of proof becaue He made the claims.

And you consider yourself logical. You cannot even separate a claim form a belief.

 

[ppp]

I make no claims, I only believe the claims of Baha'u'llah.
I have nothing to claim because I did not do anything claimworthy.

There are three claims in those sentences alone.