Who do you think is the worse Christian?

[Kidlicious]

To be clear, I'm not an atheist.

Not having watched the video, it sounds about as offensive as your average post on feminism and/or Islam. So your posting status illustrates the answer you seek.

(Although his retraction of the tweet is clearly something you'd never do.)

That's right I wouldn't, because I have more integrity. Although I do have to give Dawkins credit for at least criticizing other atheists.

This is the woman who is the supposed victim. Stop believing everything you hear, especially when it comes from feminists.

[Bereta_Eder]

We have long concluded from this thread that nazis in the US hide behind various brands of christianity that they have deformed so much they are barely recognizable (except perhaps by hilter if was pro freemarkets and a whitey)

[Ben Kenobi]

For every question you have, consider there a potential sect to believe one of the possible answers.

Well that's why I'm amused that his only defense to his statement is to make up bull**** rather than cite some god and prove his case. It's not really that hard.

[Ben Kenobi]

The route I am taking is the one that proves your claim false.

How so? You've already conceded that we have nothing to empirically detect God.

[Aeson]

How so? You've already conceded that we have nothing to empirically detect God.

I didn't "concede" that, that was a point I made which you tried to dismiss as irrelevant. It is a point that illustrates that the evidence for your god is no more valid than the evidence for Hvrasamaoliphenoe. (Or indeed, any other conceivable god that doesn't make testable claims.)

The simple, obvious, proven fact is that gods do not have to have moral codes. You tried to claim that all gods must have moral codes. Hvrasamaoliphenoe is an example which disproves your claim. There are ~infinite others of course. I only need one to show your claim was false.

[Ben Kenobi]

I didn't "concede" that, that was a point I made which you tried to dismiss as irrelevant.

Which is why I used that word?

I stated pretty clearly that empiricism makes no testable theological claims. It's the wrong tool. You're not going to get empirical claims about God, because we have no way of establishing proper experimental controls.

It is a point that illustrates that the evidence for your god is no more valid than the evidence for Hvrasamaoliphenoe. (Or indeed, any other conceivable god that doesn't make testable claims.)

And again, microbes weren't proven to exist until a microscrope was built. Did that mean that microbes didn't exist before then? No. Did they exist and surround everyone before then? Absolutely.

Just because there is absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The simple, obvious, proven fact is that gods do not have to have moral codes.

I cited three that did. You've yet to cite one. All you have to do is cite just one god, Aeson.

There are ~infinite others of course.

Anthropologically this is not the case. If there were, why would syncretism exist?

[Dauphin]

Well that's why I'm amused that his only defense to his statement is to make up bull**** rather than cite some god and prove his case. It's not really that hard.

Your amusement belies your inability to understand the simple logical point being made, or the irony of your position.

[Ben Kenobi]

Your amusement belies your inability to understand the simple logical point being made, or the irony of your position.

Quite the opposite. I'm amused that he's been unable to adequately refute my point that all gods have morals through a citation of an actual god.

[Aeson]

Which is why I used that word?

Which is why you used that word to claim it is the wrong tool!

It's the wrong tool.

See ... there you said it again. You are saying empiricism is irrelevant to the issue.

I am the one who brought up empirical evidence (or the lack thereof), and you are the one trying to handwave it off as irrelevant.

You're not going to get empirical claims about God, because we have no way of establishing proper experimental controls.

Thus empirically speaking, your god is no more or less valid than Hvrasamaoliphenoe.

And again, microbes weren't proven to exist until a microscrope was built. Did that mean that microbes didn't exist before then? No. Did they exist and surround everyone before then? Absolutely.

Thus the sound position to take in regards to your god or Hvrasamaoliphenoe or indeed any non-testable god is soft-agnosticism. But they are still gods, even if they can't be proven to exist. This because the term "gods" describes supernatural beings which can't be proven to exist. Hvrasamaoliphenoe is a god without a moral code, thus your position that all possible gods must have moral codes is obviously wrong.

Just because there is absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I'm glad you admit the absense of evidence for Hvrasamaoliphenoe does not mean that Hvrasamaoliphenoe does not exist

(Hvrasamaoliphenoe doesn't care whether you do or not of course.)

I cited three that did. You've yet to cite one. All you have to do is cite just one god, Aeson.

Hvrasamaoliphenoe! You need to learn to count.

Your position requires you to show that all possible gods have morals as your claim is that all possible gods must have morals. 3 just isn't going to cut it.

I need 1, which I already have.

[Aeson]

Quite the opposite. I'm amused that he's been unable to adequately refute my point that all gods have morals through a citation of an actual god.

There are no "actual" gods. Only unsubstantiated claims as to the nature of gods. Hvrasamaoliphenoe stands among the gods as an equal in this regard.

You only pretend you can disprove Hvrasamaoliphenoe's existence, because you are a hypocrite. Hvrasamaoliphenoe neither notices nor cares that you are a hypocrite.

[Ben Kenobi]

There are no "actual" gods. Only unsubstantiated claims as to the nature of gods.

Take it up with anthropology.

You only pretend you can disprove Hvrasamaoliphenoe's existence, because you are a hypocrite. Hvrasamaoliphenoe neither notices nor cares that you are a hypocrite.

Nonsense. I'm actually suggesting a citation from anthropology will do as sufficient evidence, ie, I'm making a falsifiable claim. Have at it.

I am the one who brought up empirical evidence (or the lack thereof), and you are the one trying to handwave it off as irrelevant.

I'm not brushing it off. I'm pointing out that it's the wrong tool for the job. That's a factual statement because empiricism makes no testable theological claims.

Hvrasamaoliphenoe is a god without a moral code,

Are there any reliable sources that attest this?

[Aeson]

I'm not brushing it off. I'm pointing out that it's the wrong tool for the job.

It's hilarious how your actions refute your claim directly after making it. You are brushing it off as the wrong tool for the job. Which you reiterate just after claiming you aren't doing so.

That's a factual statement because empiricism makes no testable theological claims.

You have it backwards. Purely theological claims offer no empirical evidence to support themselves. They reside int he same "unsupported claim" realm as every other claim that offers no empirical evidence. They are all equally unsubstantiated until they make some testable claim that holds up.

Are there any reliable sources that attest this?

Apolyton c 2016

"Hvrasamaoliphenoe is a god without a moral code ... "

[Ben Kenobi]

It's hilarious how your actions refute your claim directly after making it. You are brushing it off as the wrong tool for the job. Which you reiterate just after claiming you aren't doing so.

Find a reliable source from anthropology that makes your claim.

Purely theological claims offer no empirical evidence to support themselves

And again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Your theories would lead us to reject the existence of microbes for which we could only observe second hand.

[Aeson]

Anthropology is simply the study of humans. So either you're trying to say I'm not human, or you're too stupid to read and need an anthropologist to explain to you what I've said. (The latter sounds about right.)

Your theories would lead us to reject the existence of microbes for which we could only observe second hand.

Until there are testable claims made about gods, there is no way to differentiate between them in regards to the status of their existence or lack thereof. They are all equally unsubstantiated.

And again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I must admit I am surprised that you are fighting so hard to protect Hvrasamaoliphenoe against claims that Hvrasamaoliphenoe doesn't exist, especially since no one has yet claimed Hvrasamaoliphenoe doesn't exist.

[Ben Kenobi]

need an anthropologist to explain to you what I've said.

It's your claim. Claims require evidence from a reliable source in order to be verified.