Banjo,

<<You continue to quote the bible as the sole evidence of the existence of a deity but, as I already explained clearly, OzSpen, I am not prepared to have blind faith in multi-generational copies of manuscripts – of which the exactitude is questionable – written (or dictated) more or less 2,000 years ago by devout religious individuals already gained to the cause.>>

You misrepresent what I've stated. I've NOT given the Bible as the sole evidence of the existence of God. I've referred you to the intricate creation and sustenance of the universe. 'The Earth would become uninhabitable if its average distance from the Sun was reduced by as little as 1.5 million km – which is only about four times the Moon’s distance from Earth!', http://www.sciencefocus.com/space/how-much-closer-to-the-sun-could-earths-orbit-get-and-still-be-habitable/

As for 'multi-generational copies of manuscripts', you are not prepared to examine historical science and textual criticism to determine how any historian determines the reliability of ANY document, from Aristotle (ca. 384-322 BC), to the biblical history, to Hitler's genocide.

When you refuse to engage in historical criticism, there is no way you can determine the history of the Israelites release from Egyptian slavery, Emperor Nero's existence and atrocities committed, Jesus' life, death, burial and resurrection, or the evidence Scripture provides for God's existence.

Your resistance to this evidence demonstrates your short-sightedness when it comes to historical validation and the content of those documents.

david f,

<<Please explain how pointing out the flaws of a belief system have anything at all to do with guilt by association. Ad hominem means attacking the person instead of speaking to the argument. That has nothing to do with guilt by association. I have not attacked you in any way. You brought your superstition into the discussion, and I called it what it is.>>

You have provided an example of one Ad Hominem fallacy (Abusive) that I did not use in reference to your reasoning.

Please understand that logical fallacies do not deal with 'the flaws of a belief system'. They use fallacious/erroneous reasoning. These are some of the Ad Hominem fallacies:

1. Ad Hominem (Abusive): http//www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/1/Ad-Hominem-Abusive

2. Ad Hominem (Circumstantial): http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/9/Ad-Hominem-Circumstantial

3. Ad Hominem (Guilt by Association): http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/10/Ad-Hominem-Guilt-by-Association

4. Ad Hominem (Tu quoque): http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/11/Ad-Hominem-Tu-quoque

5. Poisoning the Well Fallacy is a pre-emptive Ad Hominem fallacy: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/140/Poisoning-the-Well

You stated: <<Please learn what ad hominem means.>>

I know what THEY mean. I suggest you come up to speed with your knowledge of the various types of Ad Hominem fallacies.

<<Belief is not evidence. Even though many believe in God there is no evidence for her existence. Go and learn>>

Evidence leads to belief. It seems as though you are not open to consider ALL of the evidence that demonstrates the existence of God.

Let's get back to the topic: Outspoken Christians will not be tolerated. You are outspoken in your comments against God on OLO. Why are you not attacked like Israel Folau has been?

Banjo,

<<We also have no idea how big space is. The nearest star to our Sun is Proxima Centauri which is four light years away - about 38,624 trillion km. Our Galaxy, the Milky Way, is about 100,000 light years across. Even travelling at the speed of light it would take 100,000 years to fly from one side to the other. Scientists think there might be as many as 500 billion galaxies and that is just too big to think about. The most distant galaxy scientists have ever seen is 13 billion light years away, i.e., 125,529, 000,000,000,000,000,000 km away. What, if anything, is beyond that, we have no idea.>>

Surely this screams at you: There is the Great Designer who made this intricate, complicated and enormous universe and keeps it going!

I question your attempt at point scoring.
In the text of your previous post you quote God as being female.
Well it may irk you to be reminded that God has always been referred to as He, Him, or as being male.
The male has always been the dominant overseer and protector of all they are responsible for.
The male has always been the one people turn to for guidance and advice in the event of any life threatening or major physical or social, even perceived, attack, physical or otherwise.
You are at liberty to say whatever you wish, about whatever topic you wish, I am merely reminding you of the historical and present day reference to God, by 'those who believe in him'.
For my part, if I were even a little more religious, I would remind everyone that God is not human but a spiritual creation by those who realised a way of controlling people easily, because a God is an unknown entity and if you put it out there that HE is all powerful and can strike you down at a moments notice if he desires or you do something to piss him off, then you'd better watch out.
And so you get to control the weaker of mind, into doing 'your' bidding, all in the name of God.
So unless you're a feminist, or God shows himself, or itself, we have always believed, and will continue to believe, that God is male.

ALTRAV,

<<For my part, if I were even a little more religious, I would remind everyone that God is not human but a spiritual creation by those who realised a way of controlling people easily, because a God is an unknown entity and if you put it out there that HE is all powerful and can strike you down at a moments notice if he desires or you do something to piss him off, then you'd better watch out.>>

From whom or where did you generate those ideas about God?

OzSpen wrote: "Let's get back to the topic: Outspoken Christians will not be tolerated. You are outspoken in your comments against God on OLO. Why are you not attacked like Israel Folau has been?"

Folau has been sacked for breach of contract. He obligated himself to abide by the rules of his sporting club. Those rules limited his speech. He is a public person who has agreed to certain limits on his behaviour and speech as part of his employment. I am free to say that Christianity is a silly superstition. I have agreed to no limitation on my speech outside of what is already in law. You are attacking me, but you are free to do so as long as it is only a verbal attack. I have a right to point out what I think as wrong in any belief system. If Israel Folau did not have a contractual obligation he would be as free as I am to express an opinion. I disagree with his opinion, but I certainly think he has a right to express it as a private person. As an employee who agreed to certain restrictions in his contract he has given up that right. I have said nothing against God. I don't criticise what does not exist.