cofty

Joined

• started 464 topics
• posted 24,957 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by cofty

• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

  various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

  i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  By the way you have not adequately addressed natural evil.

  To say that it is necessary is not an answer. Tsunamis are clearly not necessary.
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

  various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

  i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  Well you seem to call scientific or empirical evidence as "objective fact". This is pure nonsense.

  Empirical evidence is objective fact.

  You seem to talk about a very strict concept of God. A Sola Scriptura pentecostal/calvinist concept of God.

  My OP is an observation about all forms of theistic deity. It doesn't depend on sola scriptura as I have pointed out multiple times. The god of the pope is equally guilty.

  You seem to apply scientific evidence to refute a philosophical system (theism). This is scientism.

  I am not objecting to a "philosophical system" I am objecting to claims that theists make about god. Things that conflict with reality. By god I mean the god and father of Jesus.

  These are basically the problems in your OP.

  These are only problems in your imagination.
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

  various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

  i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  If there any observations in the OP that you think are contradicted by evidence be sure to let me know John_Mann.

  It is page 12 after all. It's about time you addressed the actual topic as opposed to your generic apologetics.
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

  various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

  i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  Do you mean the scientific evidence? Do you mean philosophical objectivity? Or objectivism?

  The answers to those questions are all in the OP
  
  
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

  various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

  i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  Cofty talks about god; I am refering to Jehovah of the Bible - Fishy

  Everything in the OP, and what I have written in this thread since, applies perfectly to Jehovah of the bible.

  The bible makes a lot of specific claims about Jehovah, his nature and his works.

  All of those claims are contradicted by objective facts that are available to all. I set out a number of those inconvenient facts in my OP. You and John_Mann are yet to address any of them specifically.

  When anybody asks theists difficult questions they always want to change the subject.
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

  various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

  i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  Your arguments always are centered in scientific evidence. Even in non scientific subjects. This is scientism/positivism. - John_Mann

  The OP of this thread has absolutely no connection with "scientism". It would be a more interesting discussion if you would drop this red herring and focus on the specific points made in the OP.

  Not believing doesn't make it so either. --except for cofty - Fishy

  Of course not. The difference is that I offer objective evidence against theism.
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

  various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

  i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  I would be happy to discuss the ontological argument John_mann but it has nothing at all to do with this thread.

  Scientism is also an interesting topic. Science has its limitations but there is nothing in my OP that could even remotely be associated with "scientism".

  We are on page 11 and you still haven't addressed anything in the OP.
• 
  1

  Meaning & Chaos Harris Peterson round 2

  by azor in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  check it out on sam harris podcast "waking up".

  this is what it should have been on the first round.

  what are your thoughts?.

  1. 
• 

  cofty

  Thanks Azor, I will check it out later. Round 1 was frustrating.
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

  various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

  i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  cofty, according to your morality, why shouldn't you allow God to be unmeasuable instead of having to measure up to your rules of evidence - Fishy

  I don't measure god by my standards; I hold him up to his own claims.

  He claims to be love but by his own definition of love he is a hypocrite. Theism is internally contradictory.
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

  various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

  i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  SBF - I am perfectly satisfied with the clarity of my OP.

  So far you have tried to divert the topic to your usual boring po-mo rhetoric and now you seem to think I need your help to explain myself.

  I sigh every time I see your icon on one of my threads.