bornagainathiest Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 Just so that you're clear on this Ironhorse, here's how the situation currently stands between you and sdelsolray in this thread. . . . 1. You made the claim (your positive assertion) that, 'God created sex'. 2. I challenged you on that claim, asking to you to justify it. 3. Sdelsolray has correctly pointed that your beliefs fail to constitute evidence to justify your claim. You are employing the argument from incredulity, which is a logical fallacy, as per this link. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity 4. He has therefore called upon you to retract your claim or alter it's wording accordingly. 5. You therefore have three options open to you. . . . A. Do as you were asked to initially and provide evidence to support your claim. B. Retract your claim. C. Alter the wording of your claim. . . . Thanks, BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted June 14, 2015 Author Share Posted June 14, 2015 I just love how many great articles on this topic have been appearing since the Duggar scandal broke. Here is another one: http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/high-profile-patriarchal-right-wing-christians-are-obsessed-with-sex-heres-why/ This model of man as God’s representative here on Earth, is fundamental throughout the Bible. The texts assembled in the Bible were written during a time spanning hundreds of years, and much cultural evolution took place during that time. Even so, women and children remained chattel (property of men) clear through the New Testament, along with slaves and livestock. In the biblical view, all sentient beings including female humans were created by God for man’s pleasure and use, and man was granted dominion over them. All of this makes male control of female sexuality exceedingly important, because without male “headship” and (lots of) reproduction, the whole religious-cultural-economic model breaks down. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Furball Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Ironhorse stated this: My proof (or evidence) would be because I believe, by the complexity of this in all living things, it strongly suggest a creator. Science cannot even answer the question. 1. If you believe in a creator, why have you defaulted to the christian version of god? There were countless other gods (creators) worshipped millennia before the myth of jehovah even began. Did you know the first gods worshipped were women? That religious societies were matriarchal and not patriarchal? Have you ever actually done the exhaustive footwork to test the claims of christianity and all other religions? Or are you just choosing christianity based on its popularity? I don't have a problem with you ironhorse. What i do have a problem with, are christians coming on here without doing their homework and saying they are right, and that those of us who have exhaustingly done our painstaking homework over years and years are in the wrong. Christians base their beliefs on feelings and emotions, "it feels right," "it comforts me," etc. etc. Us ex-c's base OUR beliefs on actual tested facts and real life observations. Yet some how we are the crazy ones and they are the sane rational ones. 2. Science has answered the questions, you just haven't checked the facts for yourself. Or should i say you have willingly chosen to ignore the facts to keep your comfort. I get it, life can be scary at times, and there is always that unknown factor. But to default to an imaginary make believe "god" just shows that you lack critical thinking skills. Its not a put down, it's a fact. Please do your homework if you're going to push an already debunked dead religion on us. Thank you. -Cat 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FarflungWanderer Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 Anyone know if someone's ever written a "Semantics" song? Because Ironhorse might drive me into doing that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duderonomy Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 Anyone know if someone's ever written a "Semantics" song? Because Ironhorse might drive me into doing that. I don't know, but I suspect that Ironhorse wouldn't understand a "Semantics" song, even if it was covered on Sesame Street. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EyesOpened Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 Just so that you're clear on this Ironhorse, here's how the situation currently stands between you and sdelsolray in this thread. . . . 1. You made the claim (your positive assertion) that, 'God created sex'. 2. I challenged you on that claim, asking to you to justify it. 3. Sdelsolray has correctly pointed that your beliefs fail to constitute evidence to justify your claim. You are employing the argument from incredulity, which is a logical fallacy, as per this link. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity 4. He has therefore called upon you to retract your claim or alter it's wording accordingly. 5. You therefore have three options open to you. . . . A. Do as you were asked to initially and provide evidence to support your claim. B. Retract your claim. C. Alter the wording of your claim. . . . Thanks, BAA. I would like to hear the answer/s to this also, Ironhorse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justus Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 1. You made the claim (your positive assertion) that, 'God created sex'. Since all men are believers, if you do not believe this assertion then please feel free to response with the reason you believe that this assertion is in error, then your failure to response with evidence, or facts you believe would reprove Ironhouse’s assertion is prima facie affirmation of Ironhorse’s ipso facto claim that the Holy Ghost is responsible for procreative relations 2. I challenged you on that claim, asking to you to justify it. The motion of the wave upon the rod of the photon produced the first emission of particles of visible light so therefore they are without excuse Ironhorse, 3. Sdelsolray has correctly pointed that your beliefs fail to constitute evidence to justify your claim. He has therefore called upon you to retract your claim or alter it's wording accordingly. You therefore have three options open to you. A Do as you were asked to initially and provide evidence to support your claim. B Retract your claim. C. Alter the wording of your claim. Seems Ironhorse should be asking that of both of you. @ MYMISSTAKE Titus 1:15 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 Wingnut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EyesOpened Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 1. You made the claim (your positive assertion) that, 'God created sex'. Since all men are believers, if you do not believe this assertion then please feel free to response with the reason you believe that this assertion is in error, then your failure to response with evidence, or facts you believe would reprove Ironhouse’s assertion is prima facie affirmation of Ironhorse’s ipso facto claim that the Holy Ghost is responsible for procreative relations 2. I challenged you on that claim, asking to you to justify it. The motion of the wave upon the rod of the photon produced the first emission of particles of visible light so therefore they are without excuse Ironhorse, 3. Sdelsolray has correctly pointed that your beliefs fail to constitute evidence to justify your claim. He has therefore called upon you to retract your claim or alter it's wording accordingly. You therefore have three options open to you. A Do as you were asked to initially and provide evidence to support your claim. B Retract your claim. C. Alter the wording of your claim. Seems Ironhorse should be asking that of both of you. @ MYMISSTAKE Titus 1:15 I am not a believer. You started right off with a false claim. Therefore the rest of your statement is null and void to me. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted June 19, 2015 Author Share Posted June 19, 2015 @ MYMISSTAKE Titus 1:15 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Furball Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 Titus 1:15 Still taking Isaiah 55:11 literally justus? So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. You really think quoting a verse from a proven false book backed up by magic powers from an imaginary deity is going to accomplish anything here? Wow the delusion is contagious amongst your kind. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 1. You made the claim (your positive assertion) that, 'God created sex'. Since all men are believers, if you do not believe this assertion then please feel free to response with the reason you believe that this assertion is in error, then your failure to response with evidence, or facts you believe would reprove Ironhouse’s assertion is prima facie affirmation of Ironhorse’s ipso facto claim that the Holy Ghost is responsible for procreative relations 2. I challenged you on that claim, asking to you to justify it. The motion of the wave upon the rod of the photon produced the first emission of particles of visible light so therefore they are without excuse Ironhorse, 3. Sdelsolray has correctly pointed that your beliefs fail to constitute evidence to justify your claim. He has therefore called upon you to retract your claim or alter it's wording accordingly. You therefore have three options open to you. A Do as you were asked to initially and provide evidence to support your claim. B Retract your claim. C. Alter the wording of your claim. Seems Ironhorse should be asking that of both of you. @ MYMISSTAKE Titus 1:15 The Troll-Known-As-Ironhorse had a thread locked was because he failed to engage in proper dialog with us by responding to our questions and posts, Justus. You haven't responded to me, here... http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/67578-where-did-god-come-from/page-3#.VYRsCPlVhHw( # 55) You haven't responded to the RogueScholar, here... http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/67578-where-did-god-come-from/page-4#.VYRsfPlVhHw( #66) You haven't responded to me, here... http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/67578-where-did-god-come-from/page-4#.VYRsfPlVhHw( #72) You haven't responded to me, here... http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/67578-where-did-god-come-from/page-4#.VYRsfPlVhHw( #77) ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justus Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 Titus 1:15 Still taking Isaiah 55:11 literally justus? So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. You really think quoting a verse from a proven false book backed up by magic powers from an imaginary deity is going to accomplish anything here? Wow the delusion is contagious amongst your kind. So as an ex-Christian do you mind if I ask you if that is the way you perceived the scriptures , as in it was telling you that when you speak that it was going to be your word would which would not return unto you void etc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 Wingnut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 Something for Justus' benefit. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_by_assertion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duderonomy Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 Something for Justus' benefit. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_by_assertion I don't know if that link will help Justus any (I hope so) BAA, but I found it quite valuable. I saved it so I can return to it later. Thanks for posting the link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 Since all men are believers, if you do not believe this assertion then please feel free to response with the reason you believe that this assertion is in error, then your failure to response with evidence, or facts you believe would reprove Ironhouse’s assertion is prima facie affirmation of Ironhorse’s ipso facto claim that the Holy Ghost is responsible for procreative relations verbum acetaria. All men are not believers. God and The Holy Ghost are both fiction so cannot be responsible for anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 Since all men are believers, if you do not believe this assertion then please feel free to response with the reason you believe that this assertion is in error, then your failure to response with evidence, or facts you believe would reprove Ironhouse’s assertion is prima facie affirmation of Ironhorse’s ipso facto claim that the Holy Ghost is responsible for procreative relations verbum acetaria. All men are not believers. God and The Holy Ghost are both fiction so cannot be responsible for anything. "All men are believers" is Justus' logical fallacy of argument by assertion, as per the Rationalwiki link above. In a court of law that assertion would be ruled as inadmissible, so there's no reason why we should be obliged to accept it, even if he believes it's true. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justus Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 verbum acetaria. All men are not believers. God and The Holy Ghost are both fiction so cannot be responsible for anything. So you believe there is no God, correct? I didn't say that all men have faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted June 21, 2015 Author Share Posted June 21, 2015 I conclude there is no God. I'm confident beyond a reasonable doubt due to the mountain of available evidence. But that doesn't make me a "believer" in the Christian context because Christians use that word to mean "Christian". I have beliefs. For example: I believe that most Republican and Democrat politicians are mainly motivated to keep themselves in power. Having a belief doesn't make me a "believer". 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justus Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 Conclude - to form or state (an opinion) : to decide (something) after a period of thought or research Believe -: to hold an opinion : http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/believer Since you believe I am a Chrisitan, I conclude you are a believer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted June 21, 2015 Author Share Posted June 21, 2015 Conclude - to form or state (an opinion) : to decide (something) after a period of thought or research Believe -: to hold an opinion : http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/believer Since you believe I am a Chrisitan, I conclude you are a believer. You care committing a fallacy. If you change context or meaning it renders the thought invalid. The way you are using "believer" is meaningless because anybody conscious would qualify. But you are not going to use "believer" to talk about the entire set of conscious people. Unless your intent was to troll you have failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted June 21, 2015 Author Share Posted June 21, 2015 1. You made the claim (your positive assertion) that, 'God created sex'. Since all men are believers, if you do not believe this assertion then please feel free to response with the reason you believe that this assertion is in error, then your failure to response with evidence, or facts you believe would reprove Ironhouse’s assertion is prima facie affirmation of Ironhorse’s ipso facto claim that the Holy Ghost is responsible for procreative relations By the way, in post 13 I did provide several reasons. As usual, the Christians just ignored those reasons. Christians hardly ever respond to logic and facts. Your very request for reasons after I provided them is a perfect example of Christians ignoring the reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 Backpedalling wingnut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 Conclude - to form or state (an opinion) : to decide (something) after a period of thought or research Believe -: to hold an opinion : http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/believer Since you believe I am a Chrisitan, I conclude you are a believer. You care committing a fallacy. If you change context or meaning it renders the thought invalid. The way you are using "believer" is meaningless because anybody conscious would qualify. But you are not going to use "believer" to talk about the entire set of conscious people. Unless your intent was to troll you have failed. Justus' intent seems to be to 'win' at every point, no matter what it takes and to hell with truth, integrity and honesty. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts