Science is a false God

[SkepticThinker]

If you can't prove it why should I believe you?

Your default position appears to be that fetuses, infants and children are evil. I'm asking you why that is.

I find it bizarre that you require proof that fetuses are evil. When has a fetus even had the chance to do anything that could be considered evil??

 

[Subduction Zone]

And since you are powerless to show that Jehovah God does not nor cannot exist . . .

No no no. You do not get to assume that your God exists any more than a believer in the Great Juju gets to assume that his God exists. The burden of proof is always upon the person making a positive claim. If a person cannot justify his belief that makes that belief an irrational belief.

No one has any burden of proof to even try to refute your version of God until you show some reliable evidence for that God.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Demanding outrageous levels of "proof" by others and not giving any evidence at all for one's own claims is . . . ?

BS?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Name them.

Or you could ask how he deals with the failed prophecies in the Bible. The Tyre prophecy comes to mind. It was a double failure. Zeke admitted that it did not come true and then immediately made another failed prophecy.

 

[sooda]

And yet, most scholars think these were written *after* the captivity.




The best way to explain it is that the texts were written after the events described. As that is what most scholars think and since there are no texts from earlier, that seems like the simplest explanation, don't you think?

That's the most likely scenario. Nothing much existed before the 5th century BC. Leviticus and Deuteronomy were written during and after the Babylonian exile... followed by Genesis and Exodus.

Have you ever considered the story about good figs and bad figs?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Just like the greatest most eminent thinkers of their day knew Alchemy, Neptunism, the geocentric universe, Spontaneous Generation, Lamarckism, Emication, the existence of the planet Vulcan, Lysenkoism, Gradualism, Trepanation, Miasma theory of disease, Telegony, the expanding earth, the existence of Phlogiston, martian canals, Luminiferous Aether, the Steady State Theory, Cold Fusion, Hollow Earth Theory and Phrenology were all absolutely true, right?

Categorical fallacy at its best.

Are you Jo Polanco?
Because Jo Polanco wrote those exact words here.

Plagiarism tells me that you have no answer of your own.

Plagiarism is dishonest.

I have caught 5 or 6 Christian creationists plagiarizing on this forum alone.

What is it about the conservative Christian belief system that drives them to such transparent dishonesty?

Are you suggesting that our straight shooter is making things up and stealing the ideas of others? I for one find his biblical, moral, ethical, historical, scientific and psychological revisionism and fiction to be refreshing.

Conflating all those disparate concepts that are a mix of creationist, political, religious and pseudoscientific claims and placing them under the heading of science is an act of revisionist contortion that defies the laws of physics. And to top it off by claiming others are using categorical fallacies and then posting this tribute to the fallacy in the form of his list. Priceless.

I cannot believe it. Say it ain't so Joe.

 

[ratiocinator]

And since you are powerless to show that Jehovah God does not nor cannot exist . . .

Just as you are powerless to show that my friend, the invisible pixie named Eric, does not nor cannot exist.

This is called an argument from ignorance fallacy.

An argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), or appeal to ignorance ('ignorance' stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It says something is true because it has not yet been proved false. Or, that something is false if it has not yet been proved true.​

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

No no no. You do not get to assume that your God exists any more than a believer in the Great Juju gets to assume that his God exists. The burden of proof is always upon the person making a positive claim. If a person cannot justify his belief that makes that belief an irrational belief.

No one has any burden of proof to even try to refute your version of God until you show some reliable evidence for that God.

I agree. I have a razor I use called xenoview's razor.

Xenoview's razor
Objective claims requires objective evidence

 

[sooda]

Or you could ask how he deals with the failed prophecies in the Bible. The Tyre prophecy comes to mind. It was a double failure. Zeke admitted that it did not come true and then immediately made another failed prophecy.

Part of the problem is our lazy, incorrect definition of Prophet.

A prophet is a person regarded as an inspired teacher or proclaimer of the will of God... a wise man but not necessarily someone who foretold the future.

In a general sense, a prophet is a person who speaks God’s truth to others. The English word prophet comes from the Greek word prophetes, which can mean “one who speaks forth” or “advocate.”

 

[Shad]

How can infants and fetuses be evil?

Depending on the interpretation of scripture and theology neither is considered evil. Death is a mercy, combined with concept of innocence, sin and judgement not as a punishment.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Part of the problem is our lazy, incorrect definition of Prophet.

A prophet is a person regarded as an inspired teacher or proclaimer of the will of God... a wise man but not necessarily someone who foretold the future.

In a general sense, a prophet is a person who speaks God’s truth to others. The English word prophet comes from the Greek word prophetes, which can mean “one who speaks forth” or “advocate.”

And the claim of literalists that the prophecies of the Bible are infallible. One has to jump through all sorts of selfcontradicting hoops when one does that.

If a prophet was merely a "wise man" I would not have that much trouble with the term. But as you see we are not arguing about that version of the word right now.

 

[sooda]

And the claim of literalists that the prophecies of the Bible are infallible. One has to jump through all sorts of selfcontradicting hoops when one does that.

If a prophet was merely a "wise man" I would not have that much trouble with the term. But as you see we are not arguing about that version of the word right now.

I think we get it in our heads as children in Sunday School that a prophet sees the future.. and that just isn't so.

The Schools of the Prophets – their origin and their purpose


The schools of the prophets were established by the prophet Samuel. The first mention of the “sons of the prophets”, as all the young men educated that way were called, we find it in 1 Samuel 10, when Saul is anointed as king.\

(1 Samuel 10:5) In the days of Samuel there were two schools of the prophets, one in Ramah, where the prophet Samuel lived, and one in Kiryat Yearim, where it was the ark of the covenant.

Later on some more schools of the prophets were established in Bethel (2 Kings 2:3), Jericho (2 Regi 2:15), Gilgal (2 Kings 4:38) etc.

snip

Samuel gathered companies of young men who were pious, intelligent, and studious. These were called the sons of the prophets…” (Education, 45-46)

continued

The Schools of the Prophets

 

[metis]

What's your problem with being good?

Huh???

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think we get it in our heads as children in Sunday School that a prophet sees the future.. and that just isn't so.

The Schools of the Prophets – their origin and their purpose


The schools of the prophets were established by the prophet Samuel. The first mention of the “sons of the prophets”, as all the young men educated that way were called, we find it in 1 Samuel 10, when Saul is anointed as king.\

(1 Samuel 10:5) In the days of Samuel there were two schools of the prophets, one in Ramah, where the prophet Samuel lived, and one in Kiryat Yearim, where it was the ark of the covenant.

Later on some more schools of the prophets were established in Bethel (2 Kings 2:3), Jericho (2 Regi 2:15), Gilgal (2 Kings 4:38) etc.

snip

Samuel gathered companies of young men who were pious, intelligent, and studious. These were called the sons of the prophets…” (Education, 45-46)

continued

The Schools of the Prophets

Sadly far too many have only a "Sunday School" level of understanding. Cults, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses inflict severe social punishment on those that do not toe the line of oversimplified interpretation.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Just as you are powerless to show that my friend, the invisible pixie named Eric, does not nor cannot exist.

This is called an argument from ignorance fallacy.

An argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), or appeal to ignorance ('ignorance' stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It says something is true because it has not yet been proved false. Or, that something is false if it has not yet been proved true.​

Is Eric the tall one with glasses, that cannot be seen or is he the short one that is always drinking coffee, that cannot be seen? I have not seen either of them, several times.

 

[Maximilian]

Just as you are powerless to show that my friend, the invisible pixie named Eric, does not nor cannot exist.

This is called an argument from ignorance fallacy.

An argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), or appeal to ignorance ('ignorance' stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It says something is true because it has not yet been proved false. Or, that something is false if it has not yet been proved true.​

Accordingly, Atheism is untenable.

 

[sooda]

Sadly far too many have only a "Sunday School" level of understanding. Cults, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses inflict severe social punishment on those that do not toe the line of oversimplified interpretation.

I know.. Its terrible to do that to anyone.. What good is faith if you have never questioned?

"The Greek word translated “prophesying” or “prophecy” in both passages properly means to “speak forth” or declare the divine will, to interpret the purposes of God,'

Makes more sense than that they were fortune tellers.

In common parlance, prophecy is often considered to be "predicting the future." For some, it conjures up images of telephone psychics and the like. Others might envision a crystal ball. It generally has a mystical connotation of some type.

On the other hand, the "prophets" of Scripture (e.g. Malachi, Habakkuk, Jonah) seem to be doing something different. Making explicit predictions about the future seems to be a small part of their function as a "prophet."

Perhaps two of the most famous minor prophets will illustrate that prophecy is not so much about telling the future as the present.

Jonah, for example, only issues a single proclamation about the future:

"Forty days, and Nineveh will be overturned," (Jonah: 3:2 RSV)

Perhaps two of the most famous minor prophets will illustrate that prophecy is not so much about telling the future as the present.

Jonah, for example, only issues a single proclamation about the future:

"Forty days, and Nineveh will be overturned," (Jonah: 3:2 RSV)

This does come to pass. Nineveh was overturned. They sat in sack cloth and ashes. Their hearts were overturned. If they had not been repented to God then they would have been destroyed but they were indeed overturned.

Amos, another prophet, makes very few predictions about the future, but again, the thrust of his message is that God's people need to shape up! This is true of Hosea, Malachi, and many others.

The non-writing Prophets - Samuel, Elijah, and Elisha, share the same distinction.

What is the Biblical definition of "prophecy"?

 

[Polymath257]

And since you are powerless to show that Jehovah God does not nor cannot exist . . .

Ultimately, that is not my burden of proof, it is yours. The burden of proof is on the one making the positive existence claim.

But the fact that there is less evidence for your deity than for invisible unicorns in my office is enough for me.

 

[Maximilian]

Huh???

From your replies it seems that you take issue with the obligation to be good. Is this so? Is being good too much to ask of you?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And the claim of literalists that the prophecies of the Bible are infallible. One has to jump through all sorts of selfcontradicting hoops when one does that.

If a prophet was merely a "wise man" I would not have that much trouble with the term. But as you see we are not arguing about that version of the word right now.

It is the same sort of acrobatics that are employed to support a global flood. In following that method, so many doors are opened to more questions that require even more thrilling acrobatics and the opening of more doors with more questions.

It is the Great Circle of Lies and they do not even have Mufasa or Zazu to help.