PROVE ME WRONG... All religions are fake.

[shunyadragon]

And that's a negative. You have two options:

Concede that a negative CAN be proven, in which case you should prove the above.

Or:

Maintain that a negative CANNOT be proven in which case the above can't be proven and is therefore of little value.

I highly encourage you to do the first because its actually true. You CAN prove the above and it IS a negative, meaning you CAN prove a negative. Which means you can also comply with Robocop's request:

"to disprove it simply find two scriptures in two religions that contradict, or find a verse that can be proven false beyond the shadow of a doubt."

Since that is what you say cannot be done on account of negatives being unprovable.

I take the highlighted, and like @robocop (actually) you are playing word games. Interpretations of the Bible text are not objective verifiable evidence, and they cannot be proven false, ie prove the negative of such phony air balls.

@robocop (actually) argument is 'therefore of absolutely no value whatsoever.'

 

[robocop (actually)]

I take the highlighted, and like @robocop (actually) you are playing word games. Interpretations of the Bible text are not objective verifiable evidence, and they cannot be proven false, ie prove the negative of such phony air balls.

@robocop (actually) argument is 'therefore of absolutely no value whatsoever.'

​

Let's try a fruit basket turnover.

What verse cannot be considered false? You can use any scriptures from any religion.

 

[robocop (actually)]

I take the highlighted, and like @robocop (actually) you are playing word games. Interpretations of the Bible text are not objective verifiable evidence, and they cannot be proven false, ie prove the negative of such phony air balls.

@robocop (actually) argument is 'therefore of absolutely no value whatsoever.'

Text always contains information which can be tested. If it were a book other than the Bible, why would your argument be any different? A science fiction book may contain provable ideas. What evidence have you presented that the Bible doesn't work with some scientific tests other books do work with?

 

[Sir Doom]

I take the highlighted, and like @robocop (actually) you are playing word games. Interpretations of the Bible text are not objective verifiable evidence, and they cannot be proven false, ie prove the negative of such phony air balls.

Again, ridiculous. Your refusal to demonstrate that so does not constitute anything but that. Your refusal to do so. Even when I demonstrated that it was a self-defeating rule, you still come back with this. As if your assurance that they are 'phony air balls' is plenty to convince anyone of anything! But of course, as long as you phrase it as a negative you seem to have no burden of proof whatsoever of your claim since those are impossible to prove! WOW how amazing that rule works perfectly to absolve you of explaining any position you happen to take! What a great way to prevent discourse!

@robocop (actually) argument is 'therefore of absolutely no value whatsoever.'

Says you. Unfortunately, if you intend that to be convincing you'll have to do a bit better than just saying it over and over. You can demonstrate it, too. Or you can continue to not debate and excusing yourself from debate with fake logic.

 

[shunyadragon]

Again, ridiculous. Your refusal to demonstrate that so does not constitute anything but that. Your refusal to do so. Even when I demonstrated that it was a self-defeating rule, you still come back with this. As if your assurance that they are 'phony air balls' is plenty to convince anyone of anything! But of course, as long as you phrase it as a negative you seem to have no burden of proof whatsoever of your claim since those are impossible to prove! WOW how amazing that rule works perfectly to absolve you of explaining any position you happen to take! What a great way to prevent discourse!.

I have taken a position and I stand by it. The claim of evidence by @robocop (actually) is as bogus as a three dollar bill.

Says you. Unfortunately, if you intend that to be convincing you'll have to do a bit better than just saying it over and over. You can demonstrate it, too. Or you can continue to not debate and excusing yourself from debate with fake logic.

I am not trying to be convincing of anything here, because, a coherent argument has not been presented that is worth consideration.

 

[Sir Doom]

I have taken a position and I stand by it. The claim of evidence by @robocop (actually) is as bogus as a three dollar bill.

And yet, you still do not demonstrate that. You simply state it as fact offering no qualification at all. That's not an argument that's just being contrary. If you think he has bogus evidence then show that it is bogus.

I am not trying to be convincing of anything here, because, a coherent argument has not been presented that is worth consideration.

Well, of course not! It isn't because YOU don't have an argument, it's just not worth your time to formulate one because it's soooooooo bloody obvious that you are right. Get real. That is not debate. That is sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting lalalala I can't hear you.

 

[Deidre]

I think that religion is largely human-made, but God...in my opinion, is not a figment of my imagination. God is not fake, but the box in which we wish to place Him, may be.

 

[lukethethird]

I think that religion is largely human-made, but God...in my opinion, is not a figment of my imagination. God is not fake, but the box in which we wish to place Him, may be.

If one wishes to place God in a box, then God is a fake because only fake Gods come in a box.

 

[robocop (actually)]

I have taken a position and I stand by it. The claim of evidence by @robocop (actually) is as bogus as a three dollar bill.



I am not trying to be convincing of anything here, because, a coherent argument has not been presented that is worth consideration.

A coherent argument: The Bible contains things that don't make sense. But what if Rael produced a book that he claimed was dictated by Aliens? The Aliens did things that were recorded in the Bible that made sense. And what if all those things in the Bible that didn't make sense suddenly made sense in light of things that Aliens would want to do? What if there was a lot of unmistakable technology in the Bible like cloning, Internet and atomic bombs?

Again, the book is "Intelligent Design: Message from the Designers by Rael" at www.rael.org , anonymous and free.

 

[shunyadragon]

Let's try a fruit basket turnover.

What verse cannot be considered false? You can use any scriptures from any religion.

Again your position is not coherent on based on any evidence, In logic it is up to one making the claims to present a coherent argument, and not just demand others to prove the negative. You have failed to present a coherent argument with positive evidence for the existence of aliens nor technology of alien origin for your case.

Also, in science the hypothesis that aliens exist, and communicate or are involved in human affairs cannot be falsified nor demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt with out positive evidence.

I am familiar with the claims of Rael. Again, claims and a Bible interpretation do not represent evidence. There is no evidence for 'unmistakable technology in the Bible like cloning, Internet and atomic bombs?' Arguing that the Bible does not make sense, . . . therefore aliens, does not represent a coherent argument with evidence.

 

[shunyadragon]

If one wishes to place God in a box, then God is a fake because only fake Gods come in a box.

Predominantly Christians put God in a box, their box, and all other Gods are false Gods.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Again your position is not coherent on based on any evidence, In logic it is up to one making the claims to present a coherent argument, and not just demand others to prove the negative. You have failed to present a coherent argument with positive evidence for the existence of aliens nor technology of alien origin for your case.

Also, in science the hypothesis that aliens exist, and communicate or are involved in human affairs cannot be falsified nor demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt with out positive evidence.

I am familiar with the claims of Rael. Again, claims and a Bible interpretation do not represent evidence. There is no evidence for 'unmistakable technology in the Bible like cloning, Internet and atomic bombs?' Arguing that the Bible does not make sense, . . . therefore aliens, does not represent a coherent argument with evidence.

OK, good. You are familiar with Raelian claims.

Let's look at their first (the extra-terrestrial's first/Rael's first)commentary on a Blble verse:

Genesis 1:1, most commonly translated "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth."

"Elohim translated without justification in some Bibles by the word God means 'those who came from the sky', and furthermore the word is a plural. It means that the scientists from our world searched for a planet that was suitable to carry out their projects. They 'created', or in reality discovered the Earth, and realized it contains all the necessary elements for the creation of artificial life, even if its atmosphere was not quite the same as our own."

Please critique this as to whether or not this is evidence or proof of Raelism. It goes on like this for hundreds of pages.

 

[shunyadragon]

OK, good. You are familiar with Raelian claims.

Let's look at their first (the extra-terrestrial's first/Rael's first)commentary on a Blble verse:

Genesis 1:1, most commonly translated "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth."

"Elohim translated without justification in some Bibles by the word God means 'those who came from the sky', and furthermore the word is a plural. It means that the scientists from our world searched for a planet that was suitable to carry out their projects. They 'created', or in reality discovered the Earth, and realized it contains all the necessary elements for the creation of artificial life, even if its atmosphere was not quite the same as our own."

Please critique this as to whether or not this is evidence or proof of Raelism. It goes on like this for hundreds of pages.

No as before, again .... and again, interpretations of scripture do not represent evidence. There are many interpretations and this view represents only an anecdotal and subjective assertion.

One interpretation by the Jews who know Hebrew understand that the use of the plural in Hebrew tradition is representative of the power of God, and not plural Gods. Factually Hebrew evolved from Canaanite/Ugarit religion and language. The early Hebrews were polytheistic including a Canaanite female Goddess.

 

[siti]

Well, Christians as a whole seem to think so.

Yes but he seems not to have mad an unexpected call to the local chapter of the New Atheism appreciation society - which is kinda curious given that he claimed he was most interested in ministering to sinners...in which case, why does he almost exclusively appear to people who are already believers? Maybe they're the most sinful people? Or the most mistaken?

 

[robocop (actually)]

One interpretation by the Jews who know Hebrew understand that the use of the plural in Hebrew tradition is representative of the power of God, and not plural Gods.

That is what was being said about how it was mistranslated! The Hebrew word for create also means to organize just like you do a new planet to settle on.

The next two verses represent analyzing the planet and analyzing the Sun scientifically. We are doing this with Mars and quite recently we launched a Satellite to the surface of the Sun. So we follow the example.

 

[shunyadragon]

That is what was being said about how it was mistranslated! The Hebrew word for create also means to organize just like you do a new planet to settle on.

The next two verses represent analyzing the planet and analyzing the Sun scientifically. We are doing this with Mars and quite recently we launched a Satellite to the surface of the Sun. So we follow the example.

You claim mistranslated, but you have a problem with the Hebrew language that Jews for Millennia have known better than you nor the advocates of Raelian interpretations. I will go with the Hebrews with a better understanding of their own scriptures. This remains an anecdotal subjective interpretation that does not represent as evidence.

 

[robocop (actually)]

You claim mistranslated, but you have a problem with the Hebrew language that Jews for Millennia have known better than you nor the advocates of Raelian interpretations. I will go with the Hebrews with a better understanding of their own scriptures. This remains an anecdotal subjective interpretation that does not represent as evidence.

At real.org they prove that the word Elohim predated the Torah by a long time so that the Jews didn't know the meaning. Edit: I couldn't find this on the website today but that doesn't mean it's not there.

Anyway, I'm done posting. Just know that hundreds of pages of this stuff is supposed to add up. Catch you on another argument.

 

[robocop (actually)]

One more thing though... God is not scientific and I thought we already ended a thread between abiogenesis and astrobiology with the result that atheist intelligent design currently appears most likely. So the first verse of Genesis to Raelians corresponds to it. That won't convince you though. Again though, hundreds of pages of this stuff is supposed to add up.

 

[shunyadragon]

At real.org they prove that the word Elohim predated the Torah by a long time so that the Jews didn't know the meaning.

Yes, Elohim predated the Hebrew language, not necessarily the Hebrew tribes of Judean Hills which was a Canaanite tribe. As with much of Genesis, Elohim is a Canaanite Dog. When the Jews compiled their Pentateuch they derived a considerable amount of Text from Canaanite and Ugarit sources.

Anyway, I'm done posting. Just know that hundreds of pages of this stuff is supposed to add up. Catch you on another argument.

Your problem not mine. Still no objective verifiable evidence to support your Realist claims.

 

[sojourner]

Also, why is the Bible automatically such a weak source of information when it is the most read book of all time?

Why are Tolkien’s books such a weak source of information? Or A Child’s Garden of Verses, or The Hymnal 1982? They’re not designed nor intended to give factual information.