Pretty much a straw-man

[Oats]

Has anyone realized that Atheist are pretty much arguing a huge straw-man when it comes to God?


I can explain....

but I'll let anyone state their case before I make mine.


Also, I think many are doing so unawares...

 

[Alabaster]

I couldn't resist....

 

[Oats]

I couldn't resist....

hahah

i can be crass

i apologize

 

[Alabaster]

Forgiven. God bless.

 

[theLords]

Glad to see you both worked this out. God bless you both.

Matthew 5:9
New International Version (©1984)
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.

:wink3

 

[Oats]

Glad to see you both worked this out. God bless you both.

Matthew 5:9
New International Version (©1984)
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.

:wink3

thanks


As far as this thread goes it can be closed, at your choice


I was hoping to talk about atheistic claims of God being imperfect

but he upholds the moral law, which does exist....

im not getting into it too much...

 

[Lance_Iguana]

Until you put forth an argument as example, I can't follow your logic/claim.

I'm atheistic and just don't accept your claims of a God, because I haven't been shown any physical evidence for one.

I don't consider your God to be a moral God, based on our understanding of morality. I dosen't matter if he claims he is moral, or if his morality is uncompromisable. All we have is our comprehension, so its by that standard that we have to judge him.


If we can't comprehend God, then any argument for or against him is a straw man technically. If no one can figure out what God is, then there is no accurate way to represent him. So, there is no way to not make a straw man against an undefinable entity.

 

[Oats]

Until you put forth an argument as example, I can't follow your logic/claim.

I'm atheistic and just don't accept your claims of a God, because I haven't been shown any physical evidence for one.

I don't consider your God to be a moral God, based on our understanding of morality. I dosen't matter if he claims he is moral, or if his morality is uncompromisable. All we have is our comprehension, so its by that standard that we have to judge him.


If we can't comprehend God, then any argument for or against him is a straw man technically. If no one can figure out what God is, then there is no accurate way to represent him. So, there is no way to not make a straw man against an undefinable entity.

Before I post my quote two things

1.Jesus is evidence of God, if you haven't found evidence look harder and accept if he was real and true you're going to hell if you don't repent. There is strong evidence for Jesus-- none against him

2. Don't talk to me arrogantly, if you continue to do so, i give you exclusive religion to take care of the situation altogether, i'll give you my info and you can erase my life

free of charge

God is perfect
God is perfect. When atheist offer the argument that he is not they are looking at it in an awfully wrong way

first off you cannot refute a God on the grounds that he is imperfect,

if someone tells you that an almighty lion is in the next room, and you can in no way know if is there

Of course for whatever reason you may find this silly

So he says the lion is going to judge you for your homosexuality (lets suppose you are gay)

Now it may be rational to say I don't believe in the lion because he is not "realistic"

but to refute him on the grounds that his law is imperfect is faulty

several clauses

a.The moral law does not exist outside of the lion, so he sets the bar for what is right and wrong

b.If the lion knows all then, he knows the true right and wrong, if he is perfect he would not do the wrong thing

(b.1) if the dragon did anything it would have to be seen as perfect. he is the only perfect example of perfection.

(b.2) if he is responsible for right and wrong then he would know the right and wrong thing. nothing he could do would be wrong, unless

he says he does no wrong
and does wrong

which has never happened

----

In the Bible Good sets a standard for and of himself and meets that standard.

He states what perfection is and then fulfills it

If you want to determine if he is imperfect you have to use the only actions and standards of him...

as you know this goes into much deeper detail, I don't mind engaging


----

Questions to answer:

What Standard must we use to determine God's sovereignty

Can you refute a being based on your standard of him?

How was your day
----

Thanks for reading at any rate....

my night last night

You are no more smarter than anyone on this board and this thread is not about you,

Its for God's glory

you are feigning ignorance

 

[Vic C.]

The bottom line for me is this Iggy; you cannot come here and ridicule us and accuse us of judging you (even though many of us here have done no such thing) but then believe it is ok for you come here and judge our Creator!

Where I come from many would consider that to be hypocrisy. :yes

Now if you can't come to the realization that you are a guest here on this Christian Forum and respect our simple rules of conduct and appreciate the many breaks we have biven you, then maybe this just isn't the place for you.

 

[Lance_Iguana]

Before I post my quote two things

1.Jesus is evidence of God,

No, that is an assumption. Jesus would be proof of Jesus, and his claims would then have to be weighed. His existance dose not prove his claims. We don't even know if Jesus himself existed.

if you haven't found evidence look harder

I'm asking you to produce the evidence. You are making teh claim that God exists. I'm asking you to show me the evidence that brought you to believe. I'm already trying to meet you half way.

and accept if he was real and true you're going to hell if you don't repent.

First you have to demonstrate that he dose exist before I take your claim. I don't respond to scare tactics or threats if I'm not convinced in the first place.

There is strong evidence for Jesus-- none against him

No, the only evidence for Jesus is the Bible and a passing remark by Josephus. Who wasn't an eye witness. Their are no other known historical accounts for Jesus.

I don't have to produce evidence that Jesus did not exist. Only not accept your claim if I can't find evidence that convinces me. I don't have to disprove your claim to not accept it. Just like you don't have to disprove Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Islam, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster to not accept their claims.

2. Don't talk to me arrogantly,

I'm talking to you as an equal. With the internet being mostly text based, a lot is lost in translation. I expect you to be just as honest as I am until shown differently. I give everyone this curtesy at first.

if you continue to do so, i give you exclusive religion to take care of the situation altogether, i'll give you my info and you can erase my life

free of charge

No, thank you.

You are no more smarter than anyone on this board and this thread is not about you,

I don't put myself on any pedestal, and I am only giving my opinion and have no delusions that this thread is about me. I'm just responding because you wanted a discussion about atheists using straw man arguments.

Its for God's glory

Then for the sake of your God's glory, lets have this discussion.

you are feigning ignorance

No, I'm just responding to your claim with my 2 sense for the sake of discussion and learning.

 

[Oats]

No, that is an assumption. Jesus would be proof of Jesus, and his claims would then have to be weighed. His existance dose not prove his claims. We don't even know if Jesus himself existed.

I'm asking you to produce the evidence. You are making teh claim that God exists. I'm asking you to show me the evidence that brought you to believe. I'm already trying to meet you half way.

First you have to demonstrate that he dose exist before I take your claim. I don't respond to scare tactics or threats if I'm not convinced in the first place.

No, the only evidence for Jesus is the Bible and a passing remark by Josephus. Who wasn't an eye witness. Their are no other known historical accounts for Jesus.

I don't have to produce evidence that Jesus did not exist. Only not accept your claim if I can't find evidence that convinces me. I don't have to disprove your claim to not accept it. Just like you don't have to disprove Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Islam, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster to not accept their claims.

I'm talking to you as an equal. With the internet being mostly text based, a lot is lost in translation. I expect you to be just as honest as I am until shown differently. I give everyone this curtesy at first.

No, thank you.



I don't put myself on any pedestal, and I am only giving my opinion and have no delusions that this thread is about me. I'm just responding because you wanted a discussion about atheists using straw man arguments.

Then for the sake of your God's glory, lets have this discussion.

No, I'm just responding to your claim with my 2 sense for the sake of discussion and learning.

Thanks Lance


Jesus didn't exist anymore than George Washington?

My evidence is just as strong as the evidence for George Washington...

is it not

 

[Lance_Iguana]

The bottom line for me is this Iggy; you cannot come here and ridicule us

I'm not ridiculing you. In discusion people disagree. The point of disscusion is to learn from each other and for both of us to either learn how to strengthen our argumetns or throw them away. If we can't do that, then what is the point of even allowing a discusion in the first place?

and accuse us of judging you (even though many of us here have done no such thing) but then believe it is ok for you come here and judge our Creator!

I'm responding to Oat's claim about Atheists and straw man arguments. Refuting his claim is not judging your God. Asking questions is the point of evaluating your position. If you want to convince me of your position, you have to let me evaluate your claims.

Where I come from many would consider that to be hypocrisy. :yes

No, I ask you to not to judge me without knowing me. I am evaluating your God, based on your claims. That is the difference.

I don't want people judging me before evaluating my position. Where I'm evaluating why I hold my position based on claims.

Now if you can't come to the realization that you are a guest here on this Christian Forum and respect our simple rules of conduct and appreciate the many breaks we have biven you, then maybe this just isn't the place for you.

You can put away the pride for a minute and try and understand my position before threatening me.

It dosen't seem like you understand my position.

I play by your rules. I'm not allowed to give my full position, and I have to submit to certain arguments because there is already an assumed bias that I'm evil no matter what unless I become like you guys.

I'm here defending my position and trying to dispel unfair assumptions against non Christians. I do this because you ask for my respect, and I ask for the same in return.

Though it seems like you guys don't want to give me the same respect most of the time anyway.

 

[Lance_Iguana]

Thanks Lance


Jesus didn't exist anymore than George Washington?

There is way more evidence for George Washington then Jesus.

My evidence is just as strong as the evidence for George Washington...

is it not

No, we have papers and documents signed by Washington himself. We have records of his service in the English and American Army. We have multiple historical references and records. We have some of his belongings and his grave. we also have letters he wrote directly.

Jesus on the other hand dose not have any of these save the Bible.

 

[Oats]

Until you put forth an argument as example, I can't follow your logic/claim.

I'm atheistic and just don't accept your claims of a God, because I haven't been shown any physical evidence for one.

I don't consider your God to be a moral God, based on our understanding of morality. I dosen't matter if he claims he is moral, or if his morality is uncompromisable. All we have is our comprehension, so its by that standard that we have to judge him.


If we can't comprehend God, then any argument for or against him is a straw man technically. If no one can figure out what God is, then there is no accurate way to represent him. So, there is no way to not make a straw man against an undefinable entity.

you should address my points

i want to get something out of this

Thanks Lance

 

[Lance_Iguana]

you should address my points

i want to get something out of this

Thanks Lance

I addressed the points made to me up to this point. Which ones did I miss?

 

[Vic C.]

You said this:

I'm responding to Oat's claim about Atheists and straw man arguments. Refuting his claim is not judging your God. Asking questions is the point of evaluating your position. If you want to convince me of your position, you have to let me evaluate your claims

But you also said this:

I don't consider your God to be a moral God, based on our understanding of morality. I dosen't matter if he claims he is moral, or if his morality is uncompromisable. All we have is our comprehension, so its by that standard that we have to judge him.

That is judging our God.

There was no pride in my previous post, just a black and white observation of your overall conduct on our site. Despite your claims, you do not always play by the rules. You've made it evident you're not here to learn, but to argue. God is not up to evaluation nor will He be mocked by you or any other unbeliever that comes to this site.