Originally posted by Suzianne
But I have nothing to prove to you, nor do I feel a need to prove anything.

Justification? Your argument is justification? I'm not justifying anything, and I do NOT "need to be able to justify [my] beliefs", to you, nor to anyone. God will judge me, and that fact makes me laugh at being "judged" by you.

I merely stated a fact, that my beliefs are n ridicule.

Go find a fundamentalist if you want a laugh, there are plenty of them here.

I am not 'after a laugh' or trying to ridicule you.

What you stated was a claim that your beliefs are not wrong.

For it to be considered fact by anyone other than you it has to be justified.

It is nonsensical to believe everything anyone claims as fact just because they say so.
30 seconds on these forums apart from anything else should be evidence enough for that.

So if you are claiming to have factual, true beliefs then you need to justify that statement.
Otherwise it's just so much hot air... or hot electrons possibly as this is an internet forum...

You want to simply claim you have faith in what you believe then ok, fine, I think that's a damn
silly and unsupportable position to have but I wont stop you from having no basis for your beliefs.

But if you want to claim that they are actually true then you need to be able to prove it.



However as I said earlier, what people believe is important, and effects other people.

It is thus important that they are true, as much as possible.

For example there was a post I responded to earlier where someone was talking about a child adopted by
a same sex couple who has shown to be unhappy with his physical gender, and has been started on
a drug regime that temporarily halts puberty so that he can get older and more mature before deciding
finally whether he wants to become a she.

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=142143&page=13

The poster of the story (who hasn't yet responded so I am not sure) seemed to be suggesting that it was the
fault of the same sex couple for making the kid this way.
Possibly based on the widespread theist belief that having same sex parents makes you more likely to be
homosexual.

This isn't true, and has been shown not to be true many times. Reveal Hidden Content
However this false belief has nevertheless caused many perfectly suitable and loving same sex couples to be
turned down for adoption, while there is a crisis in trying to find homes for orphans/homeless children.

This is doing measurable harm to the children in particular and society as a whole.

This is but one example of why beliefs matter, and why they should be demonstrably true wherever possible.

Which is why beliefs should be justified.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Thanks, let me digest this awhile. I am admittedly not familiar with Deuteronomy. Since I am not Jewish, the Mosaic laws have little import to me, and with the New Testament, these laws have been superseded anyway, in favor of another covenant.

well I would like to see where it says that because I have heard experts say differently.

Also, you're still claiming this to be the same god, so your basically just saying he's not as evil as he used to be.


EDIT:
http://www.evilbible.com/do_not_ignore_ot.htm

Matthew 5:18-19

King James Version (KJV)

18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Originally posted by googlefudge
No it doesn't, anyone can just declare their beliefs to be right and use them to justify anything
they like.

You need to be able to justify (to an objectively high standard) your beliefs.

So I say, prove your right.

You can't claim to only be relying on faith that your beliefs are true, and claim certainty that they are.

If you are sure how ...[text shortened]... matter."[/i]

EDIT: apologies saw your later post after posting this, see post below.

You are unable to justify your beliefs of atheism to a high standard.
Do we have a double standard here?

Originally posted by googlefudge
well I would like to see where it says that because I have heard experts say differently.

Also, you're still claiming this to be the same god, so your basically just saying he's not as evil as he used to be.


EDIT:
http://www.evilbible.com/do_not_ignore_ot.htm

Matthew 5:18-19

King James Version (KJV)

18For verily I say unto you, Till he ...[text shortened]... ut whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

He was referring to the Ten Commandments written by the finger of God
and given to Moses for Israel. He was not referring to the ordinaces set
forth by Moses.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You are unable to justify your beliefs of atheism to a high standard.
Do we have a double standard here?

Well, first I can justify my beliefs to a high standard.

Second Atheism is not a belief. It is DEFINED as a lack of belief.

There are no beliefs of atheism.

You can't justify something that doesn't exist.

I don't believe in god because that belief is unjustified.
The alternative to belief in god is non-belief in god.
As belief in god is not justified then non-belief is the only viable option.


So no there is no double standard.

Originally posted by Dasa
To say God does not exist is very foolish.

God is - first cause - power - intelligence - consciousness - awareness - creativeness - function - purpose - design - and a person.

A transcendental person one without a second - like no other.

A person because the effect cannot be greater than the cause.

To say their is no God is the same as saying all t ...[text shortened]... he scientific establishment is actually saying this.

How foolish and how dishonest they are..

Thumbs Up.

Originally posted by RJHinds
He was referring to the Ten Commandments written by the finger of God
and given to Moses for Israel. He was not referring to the ordinaces set
forth by Moses.

There are an lot of people who disagree, which is quite understandable given how vague and contradictory the bible is.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/otlaw.html


Genesis 17:19
And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Well, first I can justify my beliefs to a high standard.

Second Atheism is not a belief. It is DEFINED as a lack of belief.

There are no beliefs of atheism.

You can't justify something that doesn't exist.

I don't believe in god because that belief is unjustified.
The alternative to belief in god is non-belief in god.
As belief in god is not justified then non-belief is the only viable option.


So no there is no double standard.

How can you have a belief if there are no beliefs in atheism?

Originally posted by googlefudge
There are an lot of people who disagree, which is quite understandable given how vague and contradictory the bible is.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/otlaw.html


Genesis 17:19
And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.

The Holy Bible may be vague in some places; but I have never found a
contradiction, if properly understood.

Originally posted by RJHinds
How can you have a belief if there are no beliefs in atheism?

I have many beliefs. Atheism is a specific absence of belief.

Theists believe in a god.
Atheists don't.

The fact that I am an atheist doesn't tell you anything about my beliefs.
Apart from the fact that they don't include a belief in god.

This means that atheists are not a homogeneous group, there is not a unifying principle
to atheism as it isn't a set of beliefs or guidelines or tenets.

There are however secular groups and belief sets you could belong to.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Holy Bible may be vague in some places; but I have never found a
contradiction, if properly understood.

Were you ever reading it with the intent of checking it's self consistency?
If you have never read it cover to cover keeping track of what the passages
say it's not particularly likely you would spot that it isn't consistent.

Well the skeptics annotated bible has hundreds.
Have a look there and see if you can find any.
(not asking you to go through and refute all of them,
I appreciate you don't have the time)

Originally posted by googlefudge
Were you ever reading it with the intent of checking it's self consistency?
If you have never read it cover to cover keeping track of what the passages
say it's not particularly likely you would spot that it isn't consistent.

Well the skeptics annotated bible has hundreds.
Have a look there and see if you can find any.
(not asking you to go through and refute all of them,
I appreciate you don't have the time)

There will always be skeptics to about everything.
Like man going to the moon or evolution.
Some are justified, others are not.

Originally posted by RJHinds
There will always be skeptics to about everything.
Like man going to the moon or evolution.
Some are justified, others are not.

People who don't think we went to the moon are conspiracy theorists not skeptics.
There is a difference.

Also I suspect what you meant here was denier.

A skeptic looks at the world critically and wants propositions to be justified.
Given adequate evidence or reason a skeptic will be satisfied and agree.

A denier can be shown as much evidence as you like and will ignore it all and never change their mind.

Deniers often claim to be skeptics or get labelled as skeptics by people who don't (but should) know better.

People who say we didn't go to the moon in the face of all the overwhelming evidence and sheer implausibility
of the conspiracy needed for it not to be true are deniers and conspiracy theorists, not skeptics.
Skeptics looking at the evidence will all agree we went to the moon.

Incidentally you can say exactly the same about evolution.

Originally posted by googlefudge
People who don't think we went to the moon are conspiracy theorists not skeptics.
There is a difference.

Also I suspect what you meant here was denier.

A skeptic looks at the world critically and wants propositions to be justified.
Given adequate evidence or reason a skeptic will be satisfied and agree.

A denier can be shown as much evidence a ...[text shortened]... all agree we went to the moon.

Incidentally you can say exactly the same about evolution.

Thanks for correcting me.
I guess you would consider yourself a skeptic, while
the Jehovah's Witnesses are deniers. Is that close enough?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Thanks for correcting me.
I guess you would consider yourself a skeptic, while
the Jehovah's Witnesses are deniers. Is that close enough?

ah, depends on what your talking about.

I am indeed a skeptic, I don't trust what anyone says simply because they say it.
I require evidence and reason to back things up, however if evidence and reason
convince me something is right I will change my opinions/beliefs to accommodate it.

This does include belief in the existence of god/s, given strong enough evidence I
would change my opinion that there isn't one/any.

JW's are theists, of a particular stripe... Not sure I would call them deniers because
they are JW's. I might call them deniers with respect to specific things like evolution or
the moon landings.
But I don't know enough about the specifics of JW's to comment.

I would say someone who claimed that 9:11 was a government conspiracy and that the
towers were brought down with explosives is a denier.

Does that help?