NationStates Jolt Archive

The Christian god doesn't exist

The concept of god in Christianity, which is derived from the bible in a selective approach, is containing stuff as:

• All mighty
• Faultless
• Pure goodness
• Love for people

With some investigation one can easily detect that this god, as described in the old and new testament, is no good at all, according the ethical standards of today.

That means that god is according our criteria unethical and that he isn’t answering the principle of being faultless. In spite of this, Christians still insist that god is perfect. So he doesn’t exist.

Some will say that he’s formatted according what the early Christians defined as being good. But then the same would be valid for Tezcatlipoca (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tezcatlipoca) of the Aztecs, the Shiva (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiva) from Vishnu and with even more reasons for Amithaba Buddha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amitabha). So why should one select Yahweh as premium choice?

Every attempt to immunise voices inside Christianity against rational critique will fail on the conclusion that these immunisation techniques are equal usable to defend the voices of other religions and sects, including the most absurd ones.

Or one has a definition to give the bible and Christianity a privileged statue but then one must be able to present that definition or one does not have that definition. In the last case, all religions and sects and their revelations have in the field of speaking the truth equal worth.

[SIZE="5"][B]*snip* - something I wish I could do with this entire subject

Can we take this broken record off the NSG decks and put on some soothing James Galway?

Here is your god:

http://sydlexia.com/imagesandstuff/spring/troll.jpg

:)

Can we take this broken record off the NSG decks and put on some soothing James Galway?

That would only escalate claims of the lack of a God. I suggest "dance" music. I don't like it, but we could find a nice corner, get a drink, and watch the wimminz dancing......

Can we take this broken record off the NSG decks and put on some soothing James Galway?

I'm glad you have no critique on my posting, so I can assume you are of the same mind

Thank you, for agreeing with me.

Here is your god:

http://sydlexia.com/imagesandstuff/spring/troll.jpg

:)

I'm glad you have no critique on my posting, so I can assume you are of the same mind

Thank you, for agreeing with me.

I'm glad you have no critique on my posting, so I can assume you are of the same mind

Thank you, for agreeing with me.

You're Welcome. God Bless You. :)

That would only escalate claims of the lack of a God. I suggest "dance" music. I don't like it, but we could find a nice corner, get a drink, and watch the wimminz dancing......

We can dance (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcOZ6xFxJqg):)

Best video evah!

From the start, you can see LG bobbling along with the singer.

Have you met UB yet?
Perhaps the two of you could participate in mutual mental masturbation via TG.
You know, instead of posting the same thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=540926&highlight=god%20doesn%92t%20exist) again even though it's ten posts down.

I'm glad you have no critique on my posting, so I can assume you are of the same mind

Thank you, for agreeing with me.

This response is exactly why I didn't post the first time I read the OP.

Dorothy Parker wrote a play (adapted from her short story) called "Are We There Yet?" It is the story of a newlywed couple journeying by train to Niagra Falls for their honeymoon. The two are trying to find their way into marriage, and defining how their life will be. Basically, he manages to put his foot in his mouth whenever he speaks and she manages to misconstrue everything he says. In one exchange, she asks him to fetch her hat from the shelf. When he does, she asks him if he likes it. Rather than simply saying "yes", he says "I also like your green hat." This sends her into fits of tears because he must hate this blue hat, and so he hates her. She comments that one of her bridesmaids looked pretty, he agrees and says another one did as well. She then blows up and asks if he thought her so much better looking than his bride, why he didn't marry her instead. And so on.

The point I am making here, Edwinasia, if I may mangle a metaphor to do so, is that you need to be careful about making too much stew from no oysters at all. Sometimes not making a comment does not mean "I agree with you" it merely means "I have nothing to say about what you said."

The best thing we can do is ignore the op. Of course, once the troll starves to death, another one takes his or her or its place.

The best thing we can do is ignore the op. Of course, once the troll starves to death, another one takes his or her or its place.

How many times did you die today?

I agree with you that God doesn't exist, but not for the same reasons. You state that because christians say God is something that he is not, God does not exist. This is equivalent to grass not existing because I say "Grass is blue". Your argument simply doesn't add up - just because there is ambiguity or disagreement about God's "character", that doesn't mean he does not exist. However, the scientific evidence does!

I agree with you that God doesn't exist, but not for the same reasons. You state that because christians say God is something that he is not, God does not exist. This is equivalent to grass not existing because I say "Grass is blue". Your argument simply doesn't add up - just because there is ambiguity or disagreement about God's "character", that doesn't mean he does not exist. However, the scientific evidence does!

Simple said:

• Christians claim that god is perfect.
• According their own bible god isn't perfect according the ethical and moral codes of present time.
• So god is imperfect.
• If he's imperfect than it fights with their claim he's perfect
• So he doesn't exist

How many times did you die today?

What? Looking at the threads you made, you are someone who likes to use illogical arguments to prove something that can never be proven or disproven, possibly to start a "flame war". And didn't you make a thread like this earlier? On the same topic? Just slightly rewritten and using a different argument? You had to make a new thread when you could and should have used a nearly identical one that's still on the first page? Attention whore.

*snip*

Could you write that a little bigger, my grandma can't quite read it. She requires size 8 font at least

Simple said:

• Christians claim that god is perfect.
• According their own bible god isn't perfect according the ethical and moral codes of present time.
• So god is imperfect.
• If he's imperfect than it fights with their claim he's perfect
• So he doesn't exist

Hmm. :rolleyes:

I think the phrase you're looking for is "The Christian God as defined by Christians doesn't exist". I know that already.

Simple said:

• Christians claim that god is perfect.
• According their own bible god isn't perfect according the ethical and moral codes of present time.
• So god is imperfect.
• If he's imperfect than it fights with their claim he's perfect
• So he doesn't exist

Logic <---------------------------------------> Edwinasia

"I have nothing to say about what you said."

Why making noise to make clear you want to be silent?

When one has no arguments contra, one starts sho(o)(u)ting the messenger.

Simple said:

• Christians claim that god is perfect.
• According their own bible god isn't perfect according the ethical and moral codes of present time.
• So god is imperfect.
• If he's imperfect than it fights with their claim he's perfect
• So he doesn't exist

My god, I have never seen such horrible reasoning. I may have kicked logic in the balls a couple of times, but you took out a shotgun and blew logic's balls off and poured salt on the fresh wound. How the hell did you pass first grade? Or did you?

With some investigation one can easily detect that this god, as described in the old and new testament, is no good at all, according the ethical standards of today.

Exactly, the ethical standards according to today, with a book compiled 1700 years ago, and much of it written long before that. Another thing that you aren't considering is that God does not necessarily need to conform to our ethical standards, it is clear that we aren't perfect. This post was rediculous, I have seen much better in the NS forum then this. F.

My god, I have never seen such horrible reasoning. I may have kicked logic in the balls a couple of times, but you took out a shotgun and blew logic's balls off and poured salt on the fresh wound. How the hell did you pass first grade? Or did you?

I'm 3 years old...and passed university 2 years ago.

You're Welcome. God Bless You. :)

Awesome....

Exactly, the ethical standards according to today, with a book compiled 1700 years ago, and much of it written long before that. Another thing that you aren't considering is that God does not necessarily need to conform to our ethical standards, it is clear that we aren't perfect. This post was rediculous, I have seen much better in the NS forum then this. F.

F! F? Have you read his logic? Even a G wouldn't be enough. There's not a letter in the bloody alphabet that would be enough.

Simple said:

• Christians claim that god is perfect.
• According their own bible god isn't perfect according the ethical and moral codes of present time.
• So god is imperfect.
• If he's imperfect than it fights with their claim he's perfect
• So he doesn't exist

And you know what ultimate moral perfection is that you can judge God? Also, one could argue that perfection itself has shifted from OT to NT, in which case who is to say that God isn't perfect? Or perhaps he is following a different (better?) moral code, or standard than the one that you follow... these are things which cannot be derived by your close-minded resoning alone....

Logic <---------------------------------------> Edwinasia

:)

Exactly, the ethical standards according to today, with a book compiled 1700 years ago, and much of it written long before that. Another thing that you aren't considering is that God does not necessarily need to conform to our ethical standards, it is clear that we aren't perfect. This post was rediculous, I have seen much better in the NS forum then this. F.

A perfect god would have perfect ethics.
That god isn't having perfect ethics. So he doesn't exist.

I'm not claiming god is perfect, others do.

Anyone who takes the Bible literally, either as a Christian, or as someone using the literal interpretation as an argument against Christianity, is quite literally, a moron.

F! F? Have you read his logic? Even a G wouldn't be enough. There's not a letter in the bloody alphabet that would be enough.

Actually, this post was only half-way through the OP....

F! F? Have you read his logic? Even a G wouldn't be enough. There's not a letter in the bloody alphabet that would be enough.

Can you stop the insults, please? Thank you.

I'm not claiming god is perfect, others do.

Instead you're claiming that humans are perfect and God should follow them if he were perfect

Can you stop the insults, please? Thank you.
We're not insulting you. We are merely making a qualitative judgement on your post. Also, Copycat Threads (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=540512) are illegal. A Mod will be by to attend to you shortly :)

Why making noise to make clear you want to be silent?

You do realize that you have missed the entire point of my post, right?

I DID have something to say about your assumption that 'no comment' meant 'support.'

When one has no arguments contra, one starts sho(o)(u)ting the messenger.

No, often when one has no arguments FOR OR AGAINST a particular statement, one goes off on a tangent, which is what has happened with this thread. No one is shooting or shouting (I assume that is what you meant by all that (o)(u) business) at you, they are merely wandering off in other directions because they don't have anything to say about your OP.

*edit* Other than that your logic suffers, that is.

Can you stop the insults, please? Thank you.

Can you? You imply that Christians (and, really many other religious persons) are completely devoid of logic, and hence are all idiots, based off of honestly, the worst 'logical' (I hate assigning that label, but it is technically true) attempt at justifying any view ever....

Anyone who takes the Bible literally, either as a Christian, or as someone using the literal interpretation as an argument against Christianity, is quite literally, a moron.

Is it?
And who will decide which parts we'll take literally and which ones not?
You?

By instance:

The Christian god doesn't like gay people. He even kills them.

Present times, we don't kill people just 'cause their sexuality.

How should we interpret this one?

Can you? You imply that Christians (and, really many other religious persons) are completely devoid of logic, and hence are all idiots, based off of honestly, the worst 'logical' (I hate assigning that label, but it is technically true) attempt at justifying any view ever....

Show me, where I called religious people idiots...

Is it?
And who will decide which parts we'll take literally and which ones not?
You?

By instance:

The Christian god doesn't like gay people. He even kills them.

Present times, we don't kill people just 'cause their sexuality.

How should we interpret this one?
You think that the Christian God literally killed gay people? (I assume you are talking about Soddom and Gomorrah.) So you believe that people were literally turned into pillars of salt?

Show me, where I called religious people idiots...

Read again, I used the word implied.

We're not insulting you. We are merely making a qualitative judgement on your post. Also, Copycat Threads (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=540512) are illegal. A Mod will be by to attend to you shortly :)

'cause it isn't in line with your opinion and 'cause you do not have any single argument to fight my opinion, you start calling this a copycat thread and stuff.

Poor.

Simple said:

• Christians claim that god is perfect.
• According their own bible god isn't perfect according the ethical and moral codes of present time.
• So god is imperfect.
• If he's imperfect than it fights with their claim he's perfect
• So he doesn't exist

God doesn't follow man-made rules, and shouldn't have to (obviously), so your argument is invalid.

How many people does God kill in the Bible and how many people does the Devil kill? You tell me who's more evil.

God doesn't follow man-made rules, and shouldn't have to (obviously), so your argument is invalid.

Thank, wherever you actually stand on the subject, at least you get it.

You think that the Christian God literally killed gay people? (I assume you are talking about Soddom and Gomorrah.) So you believe that people were literally turned into pillars of salt?

Not necessarily.

Turning people in pillars of salt is a nice thing to do?

Is the law in your (or any) country allowing this?
And if we forget the legal issue, is it not fighting with your ethics and morality?

What the message in turning gay people in pillars of salt? We can spit on them? We can kill them?

How many people does God kill in the Bible and how many people does the Devil kill? You tell me who's more evil.


That's probably one of the worst attempts of justification and of 'who is nicer' that I've ever seen. The Holy Bible is a book written that focuses on God and on humans struggling through life, with God; therefore, judging the devil's works through a book created that focuses strictly on God is not do-able.

Perhaps if there was a book that the devil himself created, you'd be able to compare? But as of now, there is no such thing, so comparison is impossible.

... Not to mention that the devil purposely seeks to destroy souls and lead them astray from God, for eternal damnation... I would think that the devil would seem ....psychotic.

I could get into detail about justifications, but really, I'd rather not.

God doesn't follow man-made rules, and shouldn't have to (obviously), so your argument is invalid.

So he can have less ethics as we, poor humans?

Which is making him less perfect as we are, no?

BUT...Christians claim he's perfect while he's imperfect. So he doesn't exist.

For those for whom this deep, philosophical discussion is beyond the limits of intellect...some soothing James Galway (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_ZSSkMzS5E)

:)

Not necessarily.

Turning people in pillars of salt is a nice thing to do?

Is the law in your (or any) country allowing this?
And if we forget the legal issue, is it not fighting with your ethics and morality?

What the message in turning gay people in pillars of salt? We can spit on them? We can kill them?

Actually, since you are bringing law into this, it was they who broke His (God's, pardon the implication that God is a dude, it's irrelevent to this thread) law, moreover, perhaps we as humans are following a law that is corrupt, or unethical, and God is following the true morality, or perhaps God does not need to hold himself accountable to you, or perhaps the rules are different for him becuase he is omnipotent....

So he can have less ethics as we, poor humans?

Which is making him less perfect as we are, no?

BUT...Christians claim he's perfect while he's imperfect. So he doesn't exist.

Ethics is a man-made term, along with it's meaning. There is no ethics code for a god. Being perfect in itself deems himself without an ethic/honor code. Once again, you seem to be missing the point I'm trying to make. Man has created an ethics code, because we make mistakes and we sin, thus committing unethical actions. God does not sin, is perfect, and therefore has no ethics code.

Your argument is invalid.

How many people does God kill in the Bible and how many people does the Devil kill? You tell me who's more evil.

The bible god killed almost entire humanity (and most animals) once.

It happened short after some Noah finished building some ship.

Performed the thing, that you are calling devil, such mass genocide?

'cause it isn't in line with your opinion and 'cause you do not have any single argument to fight my opinion, you start calling this a copycat thread and stuff.

Poor.
No, I am fighting you opinion.

Also, if it quacks and looks like a duck, it probably is a duck. This IS a copycat thread.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=540926

Instead you're claiming that humans are perfect and God should follow them if he were perfect

No I didn’t.

But I am willing to claim that we, poor humans, have a richer and superior moral and ethical code as the Christian bible god.

Or don’t you?

Not necessarily.

Turning people in pillars of salt is a nice thing to do?

Is the law in your (or any) country allowing this?
And if we forget the legal issue, is it not fighting with your ethics and morality?

What the message in turning gay people in pillars of salt? We can spit on them? We can kill them?

What do the laws of man have to do with whether God is a good character or not?

God has always been above those rules, by the very definition of what a god is.

And if God's morals and mine don't match up, that only proves we two work on a different value system. If Christians are OK with God's system, she CAN still be perfect for them, and so your original argument doesn't work.

As to bad messages, the bible is FULL of them. People are smitten by God all over the place for all sorts of offenses that mean nothing to me. If they mean something to God, that is fine... but again, none of this proves God does not exist.

The bible god killed almost entire humanity (and most animals) once.

It happened short after some Noah finished building some ship.

Performed the thing, that you are calling devil, such mass genocide?

They broke God's law, so he was righteous in his actions (bad logic, my apologies, but maybe it will get through to him).

And if not... well, 'might makes right' maybe?

Not necessarily.

Turning people in pillars of salt is a nice thing to do?

Is the law in your (or any) country allowing this?
And if we forget the legal issue, is it not fighting with your ethics and morality?

What the message in turning gay people in pillars of salt? We can spit on them? We can kill them?
As long as you don't believe that God really killed people for being gay. In which case your only problem is that God doesn't like gay people. And that is fine. We have differing opinions on that. In fact, in the Catholic Catechism, which is essentially the rule book for Catholics (outside the Bible of course), it states that it IS ok to be gay. You just can't have sex. But then again, you can't have sex before marriage either. So it all works out. So what was your point again?

So he can have less ethics as we, poor humans?

Which is making him less perfect as we are, no?

BUT...Christians claim he's perfect while he's imperfect. So he doesn't exist.

Less ethics? DIFFERENT, perhaps.

But this doesn't prove that God is less perfect than we are. Nor that if he were, this would mean he doesn't exist.

Simply because some people CLAIM he is perfect doesn't make it so.

Can you stop the insults, please? Thank you.

First, let me ask you to stop copycatting YOUR OWN threads. Please. Especially when both of the previous ones are still on the first page.

Second, your logic sucks. You say something does not exist because you disagree with its description.

Here's an example of the "logic" you used. "You said your hotdog tasted good. I think hotdogs are nasty. Therefore, your hotdog couldn't possibly taste good. If your hotdog couldn't possibly taste good and you said it tasted good, then your hotdog must not exist."

"Ethics" isn't like green or three feet tall. Ethics aren't facts like green or three feet tall. Ethics is basically an opinion, like good or ugly. It's like capital punishment. Some people view killing anyone as wrong no matter what. Others view some people as simply too dangerous to everyone else and must be dealt with with what they see as appropriate procedure, like making them ride the lightning. Niether side is right. One wants to protect society from a threat (by executing a dangerous criminal). The other wants to protect society from itself (by opposing the use of the death penalty). A third might want anarchy. You know, lynch mob on Evergreen and gang warlords on MLK. Why great men make lousy, crime-ridden streets I don't know.

My point is, you are using an opinion to prove something more fact-heavy. Logic doesn't work that way. So, please. Leave logic alone. It never wronged you.

Actually, since you are bringing law into this, it was they who broke His (God's, pardon the implication that God is a dude, it's irrelevent to this thread) law, moreover, perhaps we as humans are following a law that is corrupt, or unethical, and God is following the true morality, or perhaps God does not need to hold himself accountable to you, or perhaps the rules are different for him becuase he is omnipotent....

Is it?

And why don't we read something in the newspaper about some massive disappearing of gay people? Your friend, god, is better than Copperfield, he could do it.

Why is San Francisco still on the map?
Why do we have Gay Parades in Berlin?

So seriously, is it ethical to kill gay people?

Ethics is a man-made term, along with it's meaning. There is no ethics code for a god. Being perfect in itself deems himself without an ethic/honor code. Once again, you seem to be missing the point I'm trying to make. Man has created an ethics code, because we make mistakes and we sin, thus committing unethical actions. God does not sin, is perfect, and therefore has no ethics code.

Your argument is invalid.

If he has no ethics than he is not perfect.

You can't be all-loving and having few morality and ethical code at the same time.

Again. Your invisible friend is not perfect, so he doesn't exist.

Is it?

And why don't we read something in the newspaper about some massive disappearing of gay people? Your friend, god, is better than Copperfield, he could do it.

Why is San Francisco still on the map?
Why do we have Gay Parades in Berlin?

So seriously, is it ethical to kill gay people?

I don't think it is ethical to kill gay people. So what? This does not prove anything about the existence of God.

But God has never killed gay people for being gay. Being gay is not a good thing, in the Christian faith. But God does not hate them. Only moronic Christian types who take the Bible literally hate them. Almost as stupid as people who take the literal interpretation of the Bible to claim that God hates gay people.

Is it?

And why don't we read something in the newspaper about some massive disappearing of gay people? Your friend, god, is better than Copperfield, he could do it.

Why is San Francisco still on the map?
Why do we have Gay Parades in Berlin?

So seriously, is it ethical to kill gay people?

Just curious as to why you've seemingly skipped my points of logic earlier in the thread, or if you've chosen to not respond to them.


Also, you ever hear of 'mistranslations'? The people of whom caused the destruction of the city were idolators, as well as immoral, which does not automatically refer to 'homosexuality', which the current terminology states.

Sometimes I really wish we could refer back to the original Bible that was written, because since then, it's been horribly translated through time to lose much meaning. The King James version was probably one of the worst translations.

No, I am fighting you opinion.

Also, if it quacks and looks like a duck, it probably is a duck. This IS a copycat thread.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=540926

You're not fighting my opinion. You are just insulting and screaming it's a copycat.

The subjects are similar but are not the same.

I believe that there are dozen threads running about god (they are always running, it's god-doesn't-exist-month I assume) now.

We should ban all of them, except the one you like. Of course.

If he has no ethics than he is not perfect.

You can't be all-loving and having few morality and ethical code at the same time.

Again. Your invisible friend is not perfect, so he doesn't exist.
Who said he isn't perfect? God does things for his own reasons. We are not to question those reasons, because we are not wise enough to understand them. Are you so much wiser than everybody else, that you know what God should and shouldn't do. I seriously doubt it.

You're not fighting my opinion. You are just insulting and screaming it's a copycat.

The subjects are similar but are not the same.

I believe that there are dozen threads running about god (they are always running, it's god-doesn't-exist-month I assume) now.

We should ban all of them, except the one you like. Of course.
Never screamed. Never insulted. But you have posted two threads of similar nature today. That is called Copycatting.

If he has no ethics than he is not perfect.

You can't be all-loving and having few morality and ethical code at the same time.

Again. Your invisible friend is not perfect, so he doesn't exist.

You keep using the same argument, and it keeps on not working.

Logically it just doesn't work.

1- John says Tom is not perfect.
2- Gail says Tom is perfect.
3- Therefor Tom does not exist.

Sorry, the argument does not fly, no matter how many times you say the same thing over and over.

What do the laws of man have to do with whether God is a good character or not?

God has always been above those rules, by the very definition of what a god is.

And if God's morals and mine don't match up, that only proves we two work on a different value system. If Christians are OK with God's system, she CAN still be perfect for them, and so your original argument doesn't work.

As to bad messages, the bible is FULL of them. People are smitten by God all over the place for all sorts of offenses that mean nothing to me. If they mean something to God, that is fine... but again, none of this proves God does not exist.


So 'perfect' people are not allowed to kill gay people else they would be not that perfect anymore.

But some god can?

And if god is following another value system, which one do we have to follow?

So 'perfect' people are not allowed to kill gay people else they would be not that perfect anymore.

But some god can?

And if god is following another value system, which one do we have to follow?

You seem to have missed my post earlier. Read that again.

God does not follow a system, as he is perfect, and has no need to do so. We follow a system that we created, hence why it is man-made. It was created for the purpose of deeming things ethical and unethical, as we sin, and must be forced to put those decisions on one side or the other. God does not sin, therefore, he has no need for 'human-made ethical judgements'.

As long as you don't believe that God really killed people for being gay. In which case your only problem is that God doesn't like gay people. And that is fine. We have differing opinions on that. In fact, in the Catholic Catechism, which is essentially the rule book for Catholics (outside the Bible of course), it states that it IS ok to be gay. You just can't have sex. But then again, you can't have sex before marriage either. So it all works out. So what was your point again?


You can be gay, but no sex. :)

The Catholic Catechism is not the word of god.
And even so...

Genocide. How is the Catholic Church looking at that?

I don't think it is ethical to kill gay people. So what? This does not prove anything about the existence of God.

A lot.

A being that's killing gay people can be considered as not perfect.

Do we have a deal about that one?

Watch Zeitgeist.

All religions contain bits of wisdom, but people who eat the various dogmas whole, are peons.

You can be gay, but no sex. :)

The Catholic Catechism is not the word of god.
And even so...

Genocide. How is the Catholic Church looking at that?
Not the word of God, but the interpretation of the word of God. It is how the Catholic faith has officially interpreted the Bible. It is essentially what Catholics believe.

The Catholic Church naturally abhors genocide. You would never see them going on Crusades these days. Or witch hunts.

A lot.

A being that's killing gay people can be considered as not perfect.

Do we have a deal about that one?
Who said that a being killing gay people in not perfect? It could be that humans were never meant to have gay sex, and as such, they are doing something very evil. It is not up to YOU to decide. And besides, God never killed gay people.

So 'perfect' people are not allowed to kill gay people else they would be not that perfect anymore.

But some god can?

And if god is following another value system, which one do we have to follow?

No. People, (whether perfect or not, and I don't know any who ARE) are not allowed to kill gay people.

God, by definition, is omnipotent and can do whatever she damned well pleases.

God MAKES her own value system. We have to follow the laws that we have enacted. So what?


Again, nothing in your statement points to God not existing.






For any who may be thinking otherwise, I am not actually arguing that God DOES exist, merely that Edwinasia's reasoning for the non-existence of God is ill conceived.

But God has never killed gay people for being gay. Being gay is not a good thing, in the Christian faith. But God does not hate them. Only moronic Christian types who take the Bible literally hate them. Almost as stupid as people who take the literal interpretation of the Bible to claim that God hates gay people.

So he really didn't kill any gay? Can you tell me which version of the bible you are reading?

Are you suggesting that god is pro gay marriage, gay sex, gay TV? That he adores gays?

You can be gay, but no sex. :)

The Catholic Catechism is not the word of god.
And even so...

Genocide. How is the Catholic Church looking at that?

Considering that the Holocaust was allowed to slide by the Catholic Church with relative ease, the answer is that, at least at one point, genocide was OK by them.

Things have, of course, changed.

So he really didn't kill any gay? Can you tell me which version of the bible you are reading?

Are you suggesting that god is pro gay marriage, gay sex, gay TV? That he adores gays?

Thanks for ignoring all of my points. You've proven yourself to be quite the troll, ignoring a proper debate. I'll no longer bother to respond to this thread until my points can be properly countered.

So he really didn't kill any gay? Can you tell me which version of the bible you are reading?

Are you suggesting that god is pro gay marriage, gay sex, gay TV? That he adores gays?
Wait, so you're taking the Bible LITERALLY? Well, that isn't a very prudent thing to do. I mean, Catholics don't take it literally.

And of course the Christian God isn't PRO gay. But he loves all of humanity. Even the gay ones. You can love someone without supporting what they do.

Simple said:

• Christians claim that god is perfect.
• According their own bible god isn't perfect according the ethical and moral codes of present time.
• So god is imperfect.
• If he's imperfect than it fights with their claim he's perfect
• So he doesn't existI don't know if anyone's bothered to point out that:
1. Christians aren't necessarily perfect, and thus not necessarily right.
2. Christian scripture isn't necessarily representative of Christian beliefs.
3. Even if the previous assumptions weren't fallacious, it still wouldn't follow the God thingy is imperfect; modern ethics might be imperfect.
4. Unless Christians are God, Christians aren't necessarily perfect, and thus might be wrong.
5. Again, it's a non sequitur. It does not follow that your god doesn't exist.

But hey, if you're gonna be wrong, you might as well do a proper job of it, right?

Thanks for ignoring all of my points. You've proven yourself to be quite the troll, ignoring a proper debate. I'll no longer bother to respond to this thread until my points can be properly countered.
It's your fault for making such good points, old friend.

Just curious as to why you've seemingly skipped my points of logic earlier in the thread, or if you've chosen to not respond to them.


Also, you ever hear of 'mistranslations'? The people of whom caused the destruction of the city were idolators, as well as immoral, which does not automatically refer to 'homosexuality', which the current terminology states.

Sometimes I really wish we could refer back to the original Bible that was written, because since then, it's been horribly translated through time to lose much meaning. The King James version was probably one of the worst translations.

Oh, a translation error? Could happen.

So it's bad to kill gays, but good to kill immoral people?

I don't believe that the entire world was immoral once. Still that same god killed entire humanity except Noah & friends.


Samuel 1:26
26 I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother;
you were very dear to me.
Your love for me was wonderful,
more wonderful than that of women.

Oh, a translation error? Could happen.

So it's bad to kill gays, but good to kill immoral people?

I don't believe that the entire world was immoral once. Still that same god killed entire humanity except Noah & friends.


Samuel 1:26
26 I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother;
you were very dear to me.
Your love for me was wonderful,
more wonderful than that of women.
Wait, so you literally believe that the entire world was wiped out? You are actually interpreting the Bible literally? That isn't a very prudent thing to do. I mean, Catholics don't interpret the Bible literally.

Thanks for ignoring all of my points. You've proven yourself to be quite the troll, ignoring a proper debate. I'll no longer bother to respond to this thread until my points can be properly countered.

Stop moaning, please

It’s hard to catch up all postings. And most people know that I do my best.

If I see that your opinion, argument or question is already handled in another reply from me to another poster, I will sometimes not answer yours.

And sometimes I just skip without any intention.

English is not my mother tongue, so it is costing some time to read and write postings. But we can go on in Dutch or French if you want…

You keep using the same argument, and it keeps on not working.

Logically it just doesn't work.

1- John says Tom is not perfect.
2- Gail says Tom is perfect.
3- Therefor Tom does not exist.

Sorry, the argument does not fly, no matter how many times you say the same thing over and over.

A = B

B = C

What if A <> C ?

Oh, a translation error? Could happen.

So it's bad to kill gays, but good to kill immoral people?

I don't believe that the entire world was immoral once. Still that same god killed entire humanity except Noah & friends.


Samuel 1:26
26 I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother;
you were very dear to me.
Your love for me was wonderful,
more wonderful than that of women.

You are arguing that God doesn't exist, and what proves this is that she is evil, and what proves this is that she wiped out the earth?

So basically you are saying that God wiping out the earth proves that she doesn't actually exist.

How does that work exactly?

Wait, so you literally believe that the entire world was wiped out? You are actually interpreting the Bible literally? That isn't a very prudent thing to do. I mean, Catholics don't interpret the Bible literally.

But who is deciding what should one take literally and what not?

If he's killing gays then you'll answer "yeah, but uhm that's just joking..."

The god in the bible is more than just a homophobia creature.

He's a racist as well:

The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, “These are the regulations for the Passover: No foreigner is to eat of it.”
— Exodus 12:43

A = B

B = C

What if A <> C ?

Doesn't address the quoted post.

I say that my friend has blonde hair.
A book claims that my friend has brown hair.
Does my friend exist?

But who is deciding what should one take literally and what not?

If he's killing gays then you'll answer "yeah, but uhm that's just joking..."

The god in the bible is more than just a homophobia creature.

He's a racist as well:

The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, “These are the regulations for the Passover: No foreigner is to eat of it.”
— Exodus 12:43
Intelligent scholars decide what one should take literally. Or if you don't accept that, YOU can decide. Though prepare to be made a mockery of if you don't do it prudently. The story of Noah's Ark is a moral tale based upon the great floods around Egypt at that time. No wise person truly believes that all of humanity was wiped out. It isn't a matter of 'just joking'. The Bible, especially the Old Testament, is a collection of stories and wisdom designed as a moral text, to prescribe to people how to live their lives in a good and healthy way. It contains a lot of history, but it also contains a lot of fiction. Only imprudent people take the entire thing literally.

How is that racist? Passover is a feast for that religion. People not of that religion should not take part. Not racist.

I don't know if anyone's bothered to point out that:
1. Christians aren't necessarily perfect, and thus not necessarily right.
2. Christian scripture isn't necessarily representative of Christian beliefs.
3. Even if the previous assumptions weren't fallacious, it still wouldn't follow the God thingy is imperfect; modern ethics might be imperfect.
4. Unless Christians are God, Christians aren't necessarily perfect, and thus might be wrong.
5. Again, it's a non sequitur. It does not follow that your god doesn't exist.

But hey, if you're gonna be wrong, you might as well do a proper job of it, right?


There's a possibility that the god invented by the Christians is not around.

That’s what I understood from your post.

Everything could be wrong, including the existence of some god, no?

You are arguing that God doesn't exist, and what proves this is that she is evil, and what proves this is that she wiped out the earth?

So basically you are saying that God wiping out the earth proves that she doesn't actually exist.

How does that work exactly?

Christians describe god as faultless being.

Performing a genoice isn't faultless.

Or god is not faultless, which the christians will not agree, or he doesn't exist.

Doesn't address the quoted post.

I say that my friend has blonde hair.
A book claims that my friend has brown hair.
Does my friend exist?

Not in the presentation of a brown haired guy.

Intelligent scholars decide what one should take literally. Or if you don't accept that, YOU can decide. Though prepare to be made a mockery of if you don't do it prudently. The story of Noah's Ark is a moral tale based upon the great floods around Egypt at that time. No wise person truly believes that all of humanity was wiped out. It isn't a matter of 'just joking'. The Bible, especially the Old Testament, is a collection of stories and wisdom designed as a moral text, to prescribe to people how to live their lives in a good and healthy way. It contains a lot of history, but it also contains a lot of fiction. Only imprudent people take the entire thing literally.

How is that racist? Passover is a feast for that religion. People not of that religion should not take part. Not racist.

Exluding foreigners is racism.

Christians describe god as faultless being.

Performing a genoice isn't faultless.

Or god is not faultless, which the christians will not agree, or he doesn't exist.
Who said genocide isn't faultless? For humans to do it, yes, it is wrong. But we are but creations of God, and he may do what he pleases with us. God doesn't live by human laws and morals. He is beyond us. Your mistake is putting God under human values. You can't do that.

Exluding foreigners is racism.
The 'foreigners' God was talking about, were the non-Jews. In that time, Jews were only Israelites, no other race. Just like non-Muslims can't participate in Hajj, non-Jews can't participate in Passover. It just happened that back then, all Jews were of one race. Not racism.

I said you are trying to use this as logic:
1- John says Tom is not perfect.
2- Gail says Tom is perfect.
3- Therefor Tom does not exist.

Then you replied:
A = B

B = C

What if A <> C ?

No. Just no. On so many levels. First off, the logical formula you propose does not represent what I listed. More correct (but not completely right) would be
1 A = B
2 C = ˜B
3 Therefore D

Where A is "John says"
B is "Tom is perfect"
C is "Gail says"
and D is "Tom doesn't exist"

But regardless of that, the logical formula does not work. D is not proven.

Who said genocide isn't faultless? For humans to do it, yes, it is wrong. But we are but creations of God, and he may do what he pleases with us. God doesn't live by human laws and morals. He is beyond us. Your mistake is putting God under human values. You can't do that.

How is it possible that a perfect god have less morality as poor dumb humans?

How is it possible that a perfect god have less morality as poor dumb humans?
It is not LESS morality. It is DIFFERENT morality. Different rules. Is it wrong for lions to kill antelope? God is NOT a human.

Christians describe god as faultless being.

Performing a genoice isn't faultless.

Or god is not faultless, which the christians will not agree, or he doesn't exist.

You missed my point. How can anything that someone actually does be used to prove that they don't exist? If they don't exist, they didn't do it. If they did it, they exist.

So no matter how evil genocide may be, if God did it, she exists, no matter what the Christians claim about her.

If she doesn't exist, then she didn't do it, so a genocide that she did not commit cannot be used as proof against her.

There's a possibility that the god invented by the Christians is not around.

That’s what I understood from your post.

Everything could be wrong, including the existence of some god, no?In that case, you misunderstood my post with a vengeance. I'd elaborate, but there are some against whom even the gods struggle in vain. If you think you missed something important, you can instead read the Wiki entry on logic.

It is not LESS morality. It is DIFFERENT morality. Different rules. Is it wrong for lions to kill antelope? God is NOT a human.

Ah, we are just prey for god?

Ah, we are just prey for god?
We could be! Who knows? We're just poor dumb antelope :)

How is it possible that a perfect god have less morality as poor dumb humans?

She is God. Our rules and moralities do not apply.


For the fifth time.

Ah, we are just prey for god?

Only if you think God is a lion.


And lions exist, by the way.

Only if you think God is a lion.


And lions exist, by the way.
No they don't!

Not in the presentation of a brown haired guy.

That makes absolutely no sense at all. Less, even, than your OP.

No they don't!

LOL!

I know someone who told another person "I was offended by what you said!"

The second person responded "No you weren't!"

All of us were dumbfounded by that one. :D

Not in the presentation of a brown haired guy.

So, even if the book and I agree on every other aspect of my friend's existence, my friend does not exist based on the fact that the book is wrong about one thing, or I am wrong about one thing?

LOL!

I know someone who told another person "I was offended by what you said!"

The second person responded "No you weren't!"

All of us were dumbfounded by that one. :D
Hehe. I ran into someone like that yesterday. They called me a liar because I told them my own beliefs.

The Christian god doesn't exist

The concept of god in Christianity, which is derived from the bible in a selective approach, is containing stuff as:

• All mighty
• Faultless
• Pure goodness
• Love for people

With some investigation one can easily detect that this god, as described in the old and new testament, is no good at all, according the ethical standards of today.

That means that god is according our criteria unethical and that he isn’t answering the principle of being faultless. In spite of this, Christians still insist that god is perfect. So he doesn’t exist.

Some will say that he’s formatted according what the early Christians defined as being good. But then the same would be valid for Tezcatlipoca (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tezcatlipoca) of the Aztecs, the Shiva (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiva) from Vishnu and with even more reasons for Amithaba Buddha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amitabha). So why should one select Yahweh as premium choice?

Every attempt to immunise voices inside Christianity against rational critique will fail on the conclusion that these immunisation techniques are equal usable to defend the voices of other religions and sects, including the most absurd ones.

Or one has a definition to give the bible and Christianity a privileged statue but then one must be able to present that definition or one does not have that definition. In the last case, all religions and sects and their revelations have in the field of speaking the truth equal worth.

So? Gravity as defined by Newton doesn't exist. Yet something keeps us from falling upwards.

Fire as the phlogiston theorists understood it doesn't exist. Yet candles still burn.

Just because people get the details wrong doesn't mean that the thing they're talking about doesn't exist.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a big believer in the Christian worldview, but the logic here for defeating it isn't sound.

So, even if the book and I agree on every other aspect of my friend's existence, my friend does not exist based on the fact that the book is wrong about one thing, or I am wrong about one thing?

Or he is blond or he is brown or he doesn't exist.

You can't have it all, no?

If god is all good, and so is he claims the christians, then he should be all good. And according their own papers, god is not all good.

If god is not all good, then the christians are wrong, which make their claim for their god disputable.

Or he is blond or he is brown or he doesn't exist.

You can't have it all, no?

If god is all good, and so is he claims the christians, then he should be all good. And according their own papers, god is not all good.

If god is not all good, then the christians are wrong, which make their claim for their god disputable.
No, the Bible never says that God is not all good. YOU say it, because you are fallaciously applying your own morals to God's actions. The Bible says that God does what he damn well pleases and human morals do not apply. No contradiction. Thankyou, come again.

Or he is blond or he is brown or he doesn't exist.

You can't have it all, no?

If god is all good, and so is he claims the christians, then he should be all good. And according their own papers, god is not all good.

If god is not all good, then the christians are wrong, which make their claim for their god disputable.

So their claim that there exists an omnipotent, omniscient being, that created all of existence, but wasn't itself created, and that this being has set out rules for us to live by is not disputable on it's own?

Really, if you want to go about proving there isn't a god, this is not the way to do it.

Yet it is designed to provoke response, so well done for that!

Firstly, God and faith would be much better off without religion clogging up the system, and powerful people (Church leaders in America and Britain, the Vatican, even Osama bin Laden) twisting the message of God that came to Palestine through Jesus, Arabia through Mohammed, Northern India through Siddartha Gautama (sorry about any spelling mistakes there) and anyone else that has ever preached that we should all be nice to one another for a change.

It makes me so angry that any good faith religion like Islam or Christianity is used to justify anything other than giving everything you have to help those less fortunate than yourself. To be honest, the existence of one image of God versus another is irrelevant when there is so much injustice in the world and so much killing and hurt while the west sits here bullying everyone else. I personally think that He's there, but that doesn't mean you have to, and militant atheists who go about slating God and the many great people who have been affected by Him are just as bad as wacko christians who go about evangelising with a bullhorn and shouting about going to hell.

It's really quite obvious, it works: If we ALL love each other for who we are, and share what we have, and go some way to righting the injustice in the world in our short lives, then the world will be a better place, and that is how (i think) God wants us to be and how he wants us to live, nothing else.

We don't need religion, but we could use the love of God...

Was that bullhorn evangelising? maybe, sorry :S

What a delightful thread.

-I say that Edwinasia is an anthropomorphic mango.
-Edwinasia is not an anthropomorphic mango.
-Therefore, Edwinasia does not exist.

There, now I feel better.
No more feeding the troll now.

So? Gravity as defined by Newton doesn't exist. Yet something keeps us from falling upwards.

Fire as the phlogiston theorists understood it doesn't exist. Yet candles still burn.

Just because people get the details wrong doesn't mean that the thing they're talking about doesn't exist.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a big believer in the Christian worldview, but the logic here for defeating it isn't sound.

Yet when a Cristian claims that the Bible is Gods word and as such is completely true and correct then you can see that this is a special case.

What a delightful thread.

-I say that Edwinasia is an anthropomorphic mango.
-Edwinasia is not an anthropomorphic mango.
-Therefore, Edwinasia does not exist.

There, now I feel better.
No more feeding the troll now.

I don't exist as an anthropomorphic mango.

I'm having trouble following Edwinasia's logic and discerning his true nature.

Therefore, Edwinasia does not exist.

I don't exist as an anthropomorphic mango.
No, but your logic is about as good as one!

No, but your logic is about as good as one!

There's nothing wrong with my logics.

It's not me who's claiming that a god is all good, full of loving and faultless is killing gays, committing genocide, etc etc etc.

And if you mention this one, then they start moaning that it was not for real, that I don’t have to interpret the bible literal…

So, I have to interpret literal that he’s an invisible dude that created everything, is having phone lines with all people, installed big brother tools in every house hold, etc, but I may not interpret his genocide on gays and just ordinary people (and even innocent children) as genocide.

Or he’s good and he didn’t do it. But then the bible is lying, which makes the position of god disputable. How can we be sure, what’s wrong and what not…

Or he’s really bad but that interferes with the almighty goodness (not claimed by me) of this being. And this one makes the position of god again disputable.

And further on, everybody is very silent about the last part of my initial posting. But I’ll repeat:

Or one has a definition to give the bible and Christianity a privileged statue but then one must be able to present that definition or one does not have that definition. In the last case, all religions and sects and their revelations have in the field of speaking the truth equal worth.


Any way, few people played the ball, most played the man.

Maybe it's my English, for me it's so clear, so obvious... :)

The bible god killed almost entire humanity (and most animals) once.

It happened short after some Noah finished building some ship.

Performed the thing, that you are calling devil, such mass genocide?

He said, 'hey Brother Noah, I'll tell ya what to do, build me a floating zoo and take... some of them green alligators and long neck geese, some humpty-back camels and some chimpanzees; some cats some rats some elephants and don't you forget my unicorn!'

:D :D :D :D :D

we don't KNOW what does or does not exist.

but ONE possiblity out of an infinity of possibilities IS ONE POSSIBILITY out of an INFINITY (and inifinite diversity) of others.

not really the greatest imaginable odds.

=^^=
.../\...

Please don't. I hate it when people make threads like this. It's not on. You do realise that THERE ARE CHRISTIANS HERE. Like myself and what your saying could be considered offensive.

The 'foreigners' God was talking about, were the non-Jews. In that time, Jews were only Israelites, no other race. Just like non-Muslims can't participate in Hajj, non-Jews can't participate in Passover. It just happened that back then, all Jews were of one race. Not racism.

But that was then and this is now...

...and exactly why can't I participate in Passover? Not that I actually want to, but... you know, you're saying that because of that I can't. Personally I'd love it if that were the case because then it would discourage my (Jewish) parents-in-law from trying to get me to join in their religious crap.

Please don't. I hate it when people make threads like this. It's not on. You do realise that THERE ARE CHRISTIANS HERE. Like myself and what your saying could be considered offensive.

Why is it offensive to question whether or not God exists?

Please don't. I hate it when people make threads like this. It's not on. You do realise that THERE ARE CHRISTIANS HERE. Like myself and what your saying could be considered offensive.
Everything is offensive to somebody. You're not special.

He's not made it a question but a fact.

Why is it offensive to question whether or not God exists?
It is offensive to me to NOT question. Guess that means everybody has to do so all the time, lest I be offended! Mwa ha.

It is offensive to me to NOT question. Guess that means everybody has to do so all the time, lest I be offended! Mwa ha.

I defy you. I'm not questioning at the moment! (because I'm busy eating a sandwich)

Christianity ruined part of my life.
At the moment, I believe in no one religion.
I know Yahweh exists, as does Lucifer, and many other gods.
That is what I believe. I do not worship one particular god - I do not worship any, at the present time.
I just acknowledge existance, and get on with my damned life.
:)

Please don't. I hate it when people make threads like this. It's not on. You do realise that THERE ARE CHRISTIANS HERE. Like myself and what your saying could be considered offensive.

Please don't. I hate it when people make posts like this. You do realize there are people who don't like christianity. Like myself and you telling me you're a christian could be considered offensive.

I'm glad you have no critique on my posting, so I can assume you are of the same mind

Thank you, for agreeing with me.

seriously, this is like the third or fourth thread you've made using fallible logic as your argument. not that i don't enjoy these types of debates, but it gets a bit annoying. Are you one of those poeple that throws a rabbit into a pit of starving wolves just to see what happens?*

*don't do that. that's stupid and cruel to both the wolves and the rabbit. its meant as a metaphor.

PS: if you want to use a more developed athietical argument, look at examples from classic and modern philosophy first. i suggest the metaphor of the cave for starters...but, its just a suggestion.

as for my reasons for not directly responding to this thread...
"To my friends, no explanation is necessary; to my enemies, no explanation will suffice."

But that was then and this is now...

...and exactly why can't I participate in Passover? Not that I actually want to, but... you know, you're saying that because of that I can't. Personally I'd love it if that were the case because then it would discourage my (Jewish) parents-in-law from trying to get me to join in their religious crap.
I'm not sure about now, and frankly, I don't think you can get out of it. But back then Jews were heavily persecuted. Nowadays, its cool to be a Jew. But it still holds true for non-Muslims and Hajj.

I've heard things about beating a dead horse, but Edwinasia beat the horse, creamated it, tooks it's DNA and cloned it just to beat it again. All along this horse is named "Bad Logic." Face it Edwinasia, you lost. Thread win for... everyone else really.

Just to state, I am Christian, so that side of my opinions will be stated.

Edwinasia, you claim God killed gay people. Did you stop to consider that they actually did something wrong? Should we be able to sin with imputiny? God created us, should he not be able to exact justice on his creation? (This thread was about God's existance, nothing else) And as I believe it, God turned people into pillars of salt because they turned around to look at the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. You claim God nearly killed off everything with the flood. If He was so pissed off, why did He tell Noah to save two of every animal and his family?

Am I missing anything?

The Christian god doesn't exist



No shit

Christians describe god as faultless being.

Performing a genoice isn't faultless.

Or god is not faultless, which the christians will not agree, or he doesn't exist.

So whoa! This bad logic just blew my mind.

God is bad because He committed genocide, therefore he doesn't exist. But... if He doesn't exist, how can He commit genocide?

Face it, you lost Edwinasia.

The Christian god doesn't exist

The concept of god in Christianity, which is derived from the bible in a selective approach, is containing stuff as:

• All mighty
• Faultless
• Pure goodness
• Love for people

With some investigation one can easily detect that this god, as described in the old and new testament, is no good at all, according the ethical standards of today.

That means that god is according our criteria unethical and that he isn’t answering the principle of being faultless. In spite of this, Christians still insist that god is perfect. So he doesn’t exist.



There are concepts in religion and/or philosophy which are not supposed to answer in the line of time, but in eternity.

I've heard things about beating a dead horse, but Edwinasia beat the horse, creamated it, tooks it's DNA and cloned it just to beat it again. All along this horse is named "Bad Logic." Face it Edwinasia, you lost. Thread win for... everyone else really.

Just because you are incapable of understanding his rather simple point doesn't mean he lost. It means you did.

Edwinasia, you claim God killed gay people. Did you stop to consider that they actually did something wrong? Should we be able to sin with imputiny? God created us, should he not be able to exact justice on his creation? (This thread was about God's existance, nothing else)

So a parent should be able to do whatever he wants to his children?

Am I missing anything?

a lot, apparently.

Just because you are incapable of understanding his rather simple point doesn't mean he lost. It means you did.

I wouldn't suppose you know what logic is? The guy is bitching about God doign all this bad stuff, but then claims that because of the bad stuff that God doesn't exist because of it! How the fuck does that work? If you can give me a (well thought out) answer to that, I will take back everything I said. FOR THE RECORD!

So a parent should be able to do whatever he wants to his children?

Well... yeah. We hear atheist parents bitching about the Pledge of Alleigance in schools with "under god" in it. They claim it is stopping (the parents) from raising their kids the way they like.

I wouldn't suppose you know what logic is? The guy is bitching about God doign all this bad stuff, but then claims that because of the bad stuff that God doesn't exist because of it! How the fuck does that work? If you can give me a (well thought out) answer to that, I will take back everything I said. FOR THE RECORD!
don't be angry.

This might help.

Edwi-whatever is setting up a false choice, and you are right, it's bad logic.

E-whatever says "if God is this then He can't be that, and since I dub Him that then he doesn't exist"

nobody knows the nature of God, therefore nobody can comment on whether or not God exists in any logical way.

If the nature of God in the Bible is contradictory then we know either the Bible is wrong, or God is, neither make the other "not exist".

I wouldn't suppose you know what logic is? The guy is bitching about God doign all this bad stuff, but then claims that because of the bad stuff that God doesn't exist because of it! How the fuck does that work? If you can give me a (well thought out) answer to that, I will take back everything I said. FOR THE RECORD!

From what I can see, it's a very standard argument:

1) IF God is Good

AND

2) God is omnipotent

AND

3) Bad stuff still happens

THEN

You have two options:

-God wants bad things to happen, and thus God isn't Good (#1= false).
-God is unable to stop bad things from happening, and thus God isn't omnipotent (#2 = false).

In either case, God--as typically defined by Christians--cannot exist.


Well... yeah. We hear atheist parents bitching about the Pledge of Alleigance in schools with "under god" in it. They claim it is stopping (the parents) from raising their kids the way they like.
Actually, atheists complain because "under God" being inserted into a loyalty oath runs contrary to the founding values of our country, and is also rather unconstitutional.

Christians who have a shred of personal integrity also object to "under God" in the Pledge, because they know that it was only added to the Pledge as part of political posturing during the Cold War, and it is a needlessly divisive and offensive addition to what was once a pretty nice Pledge. Religious people who don't like seeing their faith used as a political prop tend to oppose having their faith used as a political prop, you see.

From what I can see, it's a very standard argument:

1) IF God is Good

AND

2) God is omnipotent

AND

3) Bad stuff still happens

THEN

You have two options:

-God wants bad things to happen, and thus God isn't Good (#1= false).
-God is unable to stop bad things from happening, and thus God isn't omnipotent (#2 = false).

In either case, God--as typically defined by Christians--cannot exist.

or God doesn't want bad things to happen but allows them to because He lets people have free will.

or God doesn't want bad things to happen but allows them to because He lets people have free will.
If God is omnipotent, then by definition he is capable of creating a world in which people have free will and there is also no evil. If he has not done so, it's either because he wants evil to exist or because he's not capable of creating free will without evil. Same place as we were before.

Also, the free will thing tends to fall apart when you realize that so much of the bad shit that happens has fuckall to do with human choices. Or are you one of those people who think that earthquakes are caused by human sin?

If God is omnipotent, then by definition he is capable of creating a world in which people have free will and there is also no evil. If he has not done so, it's either because he wants evil to exist or because he's not capable of creating free will without evil. Same place as we were before.

Also, the free will thing tends to fall apart when you realize that so much of the bad shit that happens has fuckall to do with human choices. Or are you one of those people who think that earthquakes are caused by human sin?

stop being smart. :mad:

stop being smart. :mad:

There there. You're still getting used to this "atheist" thing. :fluffle:

I don't exist...

Well that takes care of this thread then.

... as an anthropomorphic mango.

Seriously, though, this is the closest you have come to proving your point. If you are simply trying to claim that the exact God that some Christians say is so good and wonderful and would never do all the bad things you have mentioned probably does not exist in that exact form, then OK, I can agree with that. You are probably right.

It doesn't, however, prove that the Christian God doesn't exist at all.

I wouldn't suppose you know what logic is? The guy is bitching about God doign all this bad stuff, but then claims that because of the bad stuff that God doesn't exist because of it! How the fuck does that work? If you can give me a (well thought out) answer to that, I will take back everything I said. FOR THE RECORD!Assuming "good", "benevolent", "loving" and similar human attributes can be applied to the homophobic God without modifications, if's or but's, and assuming the homophobic God is indeed homophobic, then the god is either schizophrenic or fictional. To use an analogy, it can't both be round, square and have a fixed shape.

But whatever. What kind of a human being would pay homage to a homophobic deity? That's right up there with worshipping Bush or Bin Landen...Well... yeah. We hear atheist parents bitching about the Pledge of Alleigance in schools with "under god" in it. They claim it is stopping (the parents) from raising their kids the way they like.How can you justify making little ignorant children pledge themselves to assorted crap, when you not only acknowledge they're incapable of giving their legal consent, but forbid then from even trying to do so in pretty much every other possible context?

Then again, you're presenting a strawman. Atheists (and others) take issue because the country is supposed to have a separation of church and state, and not endorse any one particular religion or set of religions. Courthouse commandments, slogans on money and all that shit, flies in the face of that.

Not to mention the whole discrimination issue... But I'm sure US Christians would be perfectly OK with a pledge that went something like this: "I pledge my allegiance to the fags of the Communist States of America. One Commune, free from gods, with liberty and justice for all."

How come the only source for the Christian god is the bible?

In the last case, all religions and sects and their revelations have in the field of speaking the truth equal worth.


Yes. All religions and sects have their own versions of the truth. Why can't they all be true? We are talking about gods here, after all. And a god can make anything true, even a paradox.

Personally, I don't think they are all right, but that is just my opinion, and does not count as actual proof of anything.

Perhaps every single religion has got it 100% right from the beginning.

But that was then and this is now...

...and exactly why can't I participate in Passover? Not that I actually want to, but... you know, you're saying that because of that I can't. Personally I'd love it if that were the case because then it would discourage my (Jewish) parents-in-law from trying to get me to join in their religious crap.

You absolutely can. I have participated in Passover with Jewish friends, and invited them to share Christmas with my family. You don't have to believe it to be the ultimate truth, just be willing to share the feelings and fellowship, and be open to listening to the myths.

If God is omnipotent, then by definition he is capable of creating a world in which people have free will and there is also no evil. If he has not done so, it's either because he wants evil to exist or because he's not capable of creating free will without evil. Same place as we were before.

Also, the free will thing tends to fall apart when you realize that so much of the bad shit that happens has fuckall to do with human choices. Or are you one of those people who think that earthquakes are caused by human sin?

But what is evil? What is good and what is bad? The definitions change so many times, good and evil have no meaning.

And who is to say that free will can exist without evil? Evil is a choice. For you to truly have a choice, you must be able to choose between a good decision and a bad one.

As for natural disasters, maybe God wants them to happen. Maybe he wants people to develop in a hellhole before they live with him in heaven. Maybe Earth is just bootcamp. Who the hell fricken knows?

The Christian god doesn't exist

The concept of god in Christianity, which is derived from the bible in a selective approach, is containing stuff as:

• All mighty
• Faultless
• Pure goodness
• Love for people


Ah, Epicurus has a nice one to say about omnipotence/omnibenevolence

Is god able to prevent evil, but not willing? Then he is not omnibenevolent.
Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he both willing and able? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither willing nor able? Then why call him god?

also, when did the NationStates forums just turn into one eternal bitchfest about Christianity?

How come the only source for the Christian god is the bible?

That's an inaccurate declaration to form your question.

The Bible is formed of what used to be many different sources from different eras, ages and different authors, all assembled in one place for convenience.

Assuming "good", "benevolent", "loving" and similar human attributes can be applied to the homophobic God without modifications, if's or but's, and assuming the homophobic God is indeed homophobic, then the god is either schizophrenic or fictional. To use an analogy, it can't both be round, square and have a fixed shape.

And who (other than you and Edwinasia) are claiming God is homophobic? Last time I checked, God loves each and every child of His, no matter of they're gay, straight, man, woman, Christian, atheist, Muslim, whatever.

But whatever. What kind of a human being would pay homage to a homophobic deity? That's right up there with worshipping Bush or Bin Landen...

If people worship Bush or Bin Laden, we've got bigger issues than whether God exists or not. I'm just saying...

How can you justify making little ignorant children pledge themselves to assorted crap, when you not only acknowledge they're incapable of giving their legal consent, but forbid then from even trying to do so in pretty much every other possible context?

Don't really know where "legal consent" came from in this thread. I know I didn't say anything about it.

Then again, you're presenting a strawman.

Only half way ;)

Atheists (and others) take issue because the country is supposed to have a separation of church and state, and not endorse any one particular religion or set of religions. Courthouse commandments, slogans on money and all that shit, flies in the face of that.

Valid point, but I could've said it without the insultive cursing. Gratuitious cursing is fine.

Not to mention the whole discrimination issue... But I'm sure US Christians would be perfectly OK with a pledge that went something like this: "I pledge my allegiance to the fags of the Communist States of America. One Commune, free from gods, with liberty and justice for all."

I don't know what pledge that is, but please don't infringe on my right of free exercise. kthankxbye :D

Why would Christians pledge alleigance to a commune free from gods? And discrimination? Honestly, people say people should be politically correct, but then try to derive every possible meaning from something people say, just looking for a reason to get pissed off.I'll say my piece on this: the Pledge of Alleigance is not discriminatory. (Oh holy shit, did he just say that?!)

You know what? Political correctness is gay.

But debating the Pledge of Alleigance should be a different thread.

• Christians claim that god is perfect.
• According their own bible god isn't perfect according the ethical and moral codes of present time.
• So god is imperfect.
• If he's imperfect than it fights with their claim he's perfect
• So he doesn't exist


Edwinasia claims he/she is correct.
To be correct one must employ clear and logical reasoning.
He/she fails to take into account anyone's arguments but his/her own.
Ignoring other evidence is in conflict with logical reasoning.
Therefore he/she is not correct.
Therefore we may as well act as if he/she does not exist.

I only made it to page 8 before my brain pleaded for mercy....

That's an inaccurate declaration to form your question.

The Bible is formed of what used to be many different sources from different eras, ages and different authors, all assembled in one place for convenience.


"Lord of the rings" is a trilogy...That still doesn't mean that events described in it happened.

If God is omnipotent, then by definition he is capable of creating a world in which people have free will and there is also no evil. If he has not done so, it's either because he wants evil to exist or because he's not capable of creating free will without evil. Same place as we were before.

Or she did, but we are not that world.

Also, the free will thing tends to fall apart when you realize that so much of the bad shit that happens has fuckall to do with human choices. Or are you one of those people who think that earthquakes are caused by human sin?

No, earthquakes are not caused by human sin (yet, anyway... we haven't set off any planet cracker bombs) however, isn't it possible that earthquakes exist so that we will have something to choose with our free will? We know they do happen, so we can choose to build stronger buildings to protect people or build cheap ones that don't. When the ground starts to move we can save others or ourselves. Once the quake is over we can share our supplies with others or hoard them for ourselves...

If bad things never happened, free will would be extraneous because we would never have any important choices to make. Adam and Eve lived in perfection, but Eve (thankfully) chose to eat the apple and give us MORE than perfection. I will take a world that allows me the opportunity to live and grow and learn over stagnant perfection any day.





(To clarify, I use the myth of Adam and Eve to make the point, not because I think there is any truth in it.)

The Christian god doesn't exist

The concept of god in Christianity, which is derived from the bible in a selective approach, is containing stuff as:

• All mighty
• Faultless
• Pure goodness
• Love for people

With some investigation one can easily detect that this god, as described in the old and new testament, is no good at all, according the ethical standards of today.

That means that god is according our criteria unethical and that he isn’t answering the principle of being faultless. In spite of this, Christians still insist that god is perfect. So he doesn’t exist.

Some will say that he’s formatted according what the early Christians defined as being good. But then the same would be valid for Tezcatlipoca (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tezcatlipoca) of the Aztecs, the Shiva (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiva) from Vishnu and with even more reasons for Amithaba Buddha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amitabha). So why should one select Yahweh as premium choice?

Every attempt to immunise voices inside Christianity against rational critique will fail on the conclusion that these immunisation techniques are equal usable to defend the voices of other religions and sects, including the most absurd ones.

Or one has a definition to give the bible and Christianity a privileged statue but then one must be able to present that definition or one does not have that definition. In the last case, all religions and sects and their revelations have in the field of speaking the truth equal worth.
**Yawns**
Why single out Chritianity?
all religions and sects and their revelations have in the field of speaking the truth equal worth.
Err, nope!
I do Darwin but if you want to do God (as you seem to) where do you see it coming from? If you don't believe in Chritianity you cannot believe in Islam as it is based on Christinity.
I think we go a bit further back than either.

So a parent should be able to do whatever he wants to his children?


No.

So what does that prove about God? Not a thing, since she is not subject to our rules.

"Lord of the rings" is a trilogy...That still doesn't mean that events described in it happened.

The Lord of the Rings was written by one person. The Bible was assembled by different works of different authors who wrote over a span of many hundreds of years in different languages and different countries. Not at all similar to a work by a single author.

Edwinasia, don't be too sure of yourself when you make a statement like this.

And as far as "our criteria" go, what, exactly, constitutes "our" criteria? Your standards and my standards are completely different...I don't subscribe to the atheistic view that you hold so dear.
The term "separation of church and state" has been so twisted by the radical leftists that it means something entirely different from what the Founding Fathers intended. What they were saying is that the government would not establish an official state religion, as they had in England, where anyone who did not subscribe to Anglicanism would be sorely persecuted. They never once intended that government be free from religion. Whether one likes it or not, the law of God in Judeo-Christianity (not Islam, not Buddhism, not anything else) was established in America. Unfortunately, we as a society have completely rebelled against it (I point my finger at the 1960s as the starting point for all of this, though I'm sure the foundations were laid much earlier).
It seems to me that it would require more faith to subscribe to the atheistic view of things than it would to simply accept the fact that there is an all-good God who allows things to happen so as to chastise the sins of man (not the least of which is pride, which forms the basis of Edwinasia's original statement). I personally prefer to trust in Our Lord Jesus and Our Lady, the Blessed Virgin Mary (and no, we Catholics don't worship her...we honor her as the Theotokos) than surrender to the ultimate despair of atheism.

You know, reading this thread I am reminded of the concept of

Free will

and

You get what you pay for

This is what happens when you get your will for free. :D

Now that you have defenstrated logic, common sense, and good will can you please let them back in? They have been banging on the front door for the last 5 pages. Your strawman argument seems to be very afraid of fire ... I wonder why?

Simple answer:

Man is the measure of all things.
Man must measure God through the measure of man.
Man is imperfect.
All of man's measurements of God must be imperfect.
Since men are imperfect, men reading the bible must also be imperfect.

The Lord of the Rings was written by one person. The Bible was assembled by different works of different authors who wrote over a span of many hundreds of years in different languages and different countries. Not at all similar to a work by a single author.

(http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684857960/ref=pd_cp_b_3/103-5513986-4090258?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-41&pf_rd_r=00DQAGAV9S13H7SJ1GAK&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_p=317711001&pf_rd_i=0393975088)

OK, here is a book written over 30 years by over 200 different authors. It, like the Bible, is fiction. How does the number of authors involved prove a book's veracity?

The Christian god doesn't exist

The concept of god in Christianity, which is derived from the bible in a selective approach, is containing stuff as:

• All mighty
• Faultless
• Pure goodness
• Love for people

With some investigation one can easily detect that this god, as described in the old and new testament, is no good at all, according the ethical standards of today.

That means that god is according our criteria unethical and that he isn’t answering the principle of being faultless. In spite of this, Christians still insist that god is perfect. So he doesn’t exist.

Some will say that he’s formatted according what the early Christians defined as being good. But then the same would be valid for Tezcatlipoca (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tezcatlipoca) of the Aztecs, the Shiva (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiva) from Vishnu and with even more reasons for Amithaba Buddha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amitabha). So why should one select Yahweh as premium choice?

Every attempt to immunise voices inside Christianity against rational critique will fail on the conclusion that these immunisation techniques are equal usable to defend the voices of other religions and sects, including the most absurd ones.

Or one has a definition to give the bible and Christianity a privileged statue but then one must be able to present that definition or one does not have that definition. In the last case, all religions and sects and their revelations have in the field of speaking the truth equal worth.

I must reiterate an argument I used on another thread:

The Christians believe Santa Claus put the presents under the tree.

The non-religious theists think someone else did.

The atheists think the presents just appeared under the tree.

(http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684857960/ref=pd_cp_b_3/103-5513986-4090258?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-41&pf_rd_r=00DQAGAV9S13H7SJ1GAK&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_p=317711001&pf_rd_i=0393975088)

OK, here is a book written over 30 years by over 200 different authors. It, like the Bible, is fiction. How does the number of authors involved prove a book's veracity?


Your link doesn't work for me...

As to your question though, I didn't prove the veracity of the Bible. I addressed the misleading question, How come the only source for the Christian God is the Bible?, and I showed that the Bible IS multiple sources.

If God is omnipotent, then by definition he is capable of creating a world in which people have free will and there is also no evil. If he has not done so, it's either because he wants evil to exist or because he's not capable of creating free will without evil. Same place as we were before.

I don't mean to be going back so far in this conversation nor do I have any interest in running in circles... but I can't help myself.

I see your point and agree... but you really need to do better research. If the God we are discussing is the God referred to in the Bible, then he did create a world in which people have free will and there was no evil. The problem? According to Genesis, that "free will" that God gave to Adam kind of ended that utopia when Adam decided to not listen to God... just so you know.

I can't tell you how many times my mom told me to avoid getting into fights at school. Does that mean that when I didn't listen and came home with a bloody nose, my mom no longer existed? No. That's ridiculous! I can't believe time would actually be wasted debating such a concept.

Just because I don't listen to the more intelligent being (being my mom) and get myself in stupid messes that would have been avoided by listening to her in the first place, in no way affects my mom's existence. It just means she warned me, I ignored her, she was right after all.

Just because we make stupid chooses doesn't mean that a God couldn't exist. It just means we make stupid chooses.

As far as determining his “goodness”, how can we determine “good”? We don't see it how God sees it. Our view is limited, so it is difficult for us to really determine what is best for us. It’s like if a company owner says, “No, we can’t get a vending machine”. We could all sit back and say how evil he is and carry on for hours. But, on the flip side, what if he simply looked in his pocket book and realized that in order to continue making pay roll, he had to forgo the vending machine idea. Is he still evil? No. Now he’s realist. So why doesn’t God have to be different?

The existence of God is a debate that has been going on for centuries between the greatest of philosophers and intellectuals with no resolution. People state their opinion, but when it comes down to it, it is just as easy to prove Gods existence, as it is to prove God's non-existence. For years, philosophers, theologians and scientist (theist and atheist) have debated this, trying to confuse or corner one another and in the end, they are no closer to getting an answer then they were before they started.

People will believe what they want to believe and will die believing it. But the fact that there is corrupt people, pain, suffering, etc, proves nothing about God’s existence. If anything, it proves that we as humans exist and are at many time irrational.

And who (other than you and Edwinasia) are claiming God is homophobic? Last time I checked, God loves each and every child of His, no matter of they're gay, straight, man, woman, Christian, atheist, Muslim, whatever.I made no such claim. You asked:The guy is bitching about God doign all this bad stuff, but then claims that because of the bad stuff that God doesn't exist because of it! How the fuck does that work? If you can give me a (well thought out) answer to that, I will take back everything I said. FOR THE RECORD!I can't say I care whether the deity in question is homophobic, nice, or conforms to human standards of benevolence. However, you asked for a logical argument along those lines, so I offered you one. It's not my fault if you've changed your mind about wanting it. I'm not psychic mate.If people worship Bush or Bin Laden, we've got bigger issues than whether God exists or not. I'm just saying...:D Seen Jesus Camp? Scary shit that.Don't really know where "legal consent" came from in this thread. I know I didn't say anything about it.It came from the post you quoted. I used it to demonstrate inconsistent behaviour. Do you want me to quote myself?Only half way ;)Eh?Valid point, but I could've said it without the insultive cursing. Gratuitious cursing is fine.Again: eh? How was it insulting?I don't know what pledge that is, but please don't infringe on my right of free exercise. kthankxbye :DTo the very best of my knowledge, I've never even considered stopping you from exercising. No, I'm not gonna pick up your gym expenses, but you could always get a job.Why would Christians pledge alleigance to a commune free from gods?That's just it. Why would Christians want non-Christians to pledge allegiance to their deity, when they themselves won't pledge allegiance to the deities of others (or lack of deities)?And discrimination? Honestly, people say people should be politically correct, but then try to derive every possible meaning from something people say, just looking for a reason to get pissed off.I'll say my piece on this: the Pledge of Alleigance is not discriminatory. (Oh holy shit, did he just say that?!)Right, it's not discriminatory in the same way the pledge I made up isn't discriminatory against pretty much everyone.You know what? Political correctness is gay.You happen to be addressing a bisexual opponent of PC, who've seen past gay lovers end up in the hospital after being attacked by violent homophobes. If you think me writing the word "shit" is insulting, you might want to take a look at your own posts. Not that I'm actually insulted, it just seems a bit hypocritical.But debating the Pledge of Alleigance should be a different thread.You brought it up, not I.

I made no such claim. You asked:I can't say I care whether the deity in question is homophobic, nice, or conforms to human standards of benevolence. However, you asked for a logical argument along those lines, so I offered you one. It's not my fault if you've changed your mind about wanting it. I'm not psychic mate.:D

Yeah, I'm just not seeing what argument you made. That doesn't make me dumb, or stoopid, or blinded by faith (as some might say), I just don't see it. I don't even know what your arguing about anymore.

Seen Jesus Camp? Scary shit that.

Why yes I have seen Jesus Camp, and it is scary shit. It's one thing to teach your kids about faith, it's another thing to brainwash. Faith isn't about brainwashing.

It came from the post you quoted. I used it to demonstrate inconsistent behaviour. Do you want me to quote myself?

I never said "legal consent". Never did I say the phrase before in the thread. Nor do I consider the Pledge of Alleigance a lawful pledge. If it was, the people that didn't say would be hunted and jailed, in an extreme situation.

Eh?Again: eh? How was it insulting?To the very best of my knowledge, I've never even considered stopping you from exercising. No, I'm not gonna pick up your gym expenses, but you could always get a job.

But I don't wanna a job!!!

That's just it. Why would Christians want non-Christians to pledge allegiance to their deity, when they themselves won't pledge allegiance to the deities of others (or lack of deities)?

Please point me to the section of the pledge that says the United States is a Christian nation. Granted that brings up the point of "under God" even being in the pledge, but I'm not here to debate that. I'm not even here to debate the pldge at all! Damnit people can't we stick to Edwinasia and his bad logic?!

Right, it's not discriminatory in the same way the pledge I made up isn't discriminatory against pretty much everyone.

Thank you for seeing my viewpoint.;)

You happen to be addressing a bisexual opponent of PC, who've seen past gay lovers end up in the hospital after being attacked by violent homophobes.

Yeah, I'm sorry that happened, but I can't be held accountable for violent extremists. I follow the "love the sinner, hate the sin" idea. I have gay friends. Believe me, you're not the first. I've been around extremely flaming gay people, and to this day they are still doing whatever it is they do.

If you think me writing the word "shit" is insulting, you might want to take a look at your own posts. Not that I'm actually insulted, it just seems a bit hypocritical.You brought it up, not I.

It all depends on what context the aforementioned 'shit' took place in. If someone said that a Jesus freak was pushing their "Bible believing shit down my throat," than I would consider that offensive. But if someone said "Oh shit! I can't believe that just happened!" I would not consider that offensive.

(I'm not quoting anyone on those two phrases.)

It's really quite obvious, it works: If we ALL love each other for who we are, and share what we have, and go some way to righting the injustice in the world in our short lives, then the world will be a better place, and that is how I would want us to be and how I would want us to live, nothing else.

We don't need a god, but we could use a little empathy...


Sorry, for some reason I felt the inner Athiest in me fighting its way out for a moment there.

As far as the actual thread topic... this should have ended way back on page one or two when someone said the correct statement would be "God as the perfect figure some Christians claim him to be cannot exist". Which to me seems to potentially be an issue with the OP speaking here in a third (or possible further down the list) language.

But seriously, why has it continued for 11 pages?

if the christian god doesn't exist than no god exists, therefore we as a race are completely screwed, now aren't we? It doesn't matter what you call god as long as the message is the same. People who say otherwise are looking at this from a human view point and wouldn't be able to understand it anyway.

if the christian god doesn't exist than no god exists, therefore we as a race are completely screwed, now aren't we?

how is that logical leap possible?

The Bible was assembled by different works of different authors who wrote over a span of many hundreds of years in different languages and different countries. Not at all similar to a work by a single author.

Prove it.

if the christian god doesn't exist than no god exists, therefore we as a race are completely screwed, now aren't we? It doesn't matter what you call god as long as the message is the same. People who say otherwise are looking at this from a human view point and wouldn't be able to understand it anyway.


And you are looking at this from a non-human standpoint, are you?

The Christian god doesn't exist

The concept of god in Christianity, which is derived from the bible in a selective approach, is containing stuff as:

• All mighty
• Faultless
• Pure goodness
• Love for people

With some investigation one can easily detect that this god, as described in the old and new testament, is no good at all, according the ethical standards of today.

That means that god is according our criteria unethical and that he isn’t answering the principle of being faultless. In spite of this, Christians still insist that god is perfect. So he doesn’t exist.

Some will say that he’s formatted according what the early Christians defined as being good. But then the same would be valid for Tezcatlipoca (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tezcatlipoca) of the Aztecs, the Shiva (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiva) from Vishnu and with even more reasons for Amithaba Buddha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amitabha). So why should one select Yahweh as premium choice?

Every attempt to immunise voices inside Christianity against rational critique will fail on the conclusion that these immunisation techniques are equal usable to defend the voices of other religions and sects, including the most absurd ones.

Or one has a definition to give the bible and Christianity a privileged statue but then one must be able to present that definition or one does not have that definition. In the last case, all religions and sects and their revelations have in the field of speaking the truth equal worth.


Um...I was under the impression that this was a forum for political debate, not theological debate... Are we running out of policy or governmental issues to talk about?

Um...I was under the impression that this was a forum for political debate, not theological debate... Are we running out of policy or governmental issues to talk about?

You meagre post count says that you are not well-versed in the ways of NSG.

So he can have less ethics as we, poor humans?

Which is making him less perfect as we are, no?

BUT...Christians claim he's perfect while he's imperfect. So he doesn't exist.

Sure.
Why do 'ethics' make someone more perfect?
Who defines these 'ethics'?
BUT...I claim water is dry while water is wet. So water doesn't exist.

Poppin' my head in. Is it worth it?

I'm unaware of any convincing evidence of God. If some compelling evidence is presented to me I am willing to accept that God exists. But until I can see and evaluate that evidence I remain unconvinced of the existence of God.

I'm also unaware of any convincing evidence of magic, cryptozooids, UFOs, ESP or super powers of mind etc. But I am willing to accept convincing evidence of any of those phenomena.

It is up to the claimant of any of those beliefs to offer evidence, it is not my job to disprove their claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Since there are so many different religions out there and were so many thousands of different religious beliefs in times before how can any religious person today be confident in their belief? Don't they rely on faith? Isn't that just another way of saying they aren't confident but choose to set aside doubt for acceptance?

I've heard things about beating a dead horse, but Edwinasia beat the horse, creamated it, tooks it's DNA and cloned it just to beat it again. All along this horse is named "Bad Logic." Face it Edwinasia, you lost. Thread win for... everyone else really.

Just to state, I am Christian, so that side of my opinions will be stated.

Edwinasia, you claim God killed gay people. Did you stop to consider that they actually did something wrong? Should we be able to sin with imputiny? God created us, should he not be able to exact justice on his creation? (This thread was about God's existance, nothing else) And as I believe it, God turned people into pillars of salt because they turned around to look at the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. You claim God nearly killed off everything with the flood. If He was so pissed off, why did He tell Noah to save two of every animal and his family?

Am I missing anything?



I don't claim anything. The Christian bible does. That book is claiming that god committed genocides on gays, heterosexuals, Belgians, Americans, kangaroos and all salt and freshwater fishes.

Well, even you don't like gays, you don't have the right to kill them. I know, it's hard, not killing a gay, but that's how it present times works.

Oh, but god can do it! Sure. But then he's not perfect anymore. Perfect, all loving beings don't kill. And the Christian bible is claiming god is all loving, almighty and faultless. And if he's not perfect anymore then he doesn't exist.

God is hoax. I'm very sorry.

So whoa! This bad logic just blew my mind.

God is bad because He committed genocide, therefore he doesn't exist. But... if He doesn't exist, how can He commit genocide?

Face it, you lost Edwinasia.

No, you don't understand it.

Your bible is describing him as faultless (not me!). Faultless beings don't commit genocides.

Or he didn't. But then the bible is lying and some can start asking questions about everything

Or he did. But then it is interfering with his faultless label and some can start again asking questions about everything.


It's not a game about you-win or I-win. He doesn't exist, that's all.

I don't win anything by stating that god isn't around.

don't be angry.

This might help.

Edwi-whatever is setting up a false choice, and you are right, it's bad logic.

E-whatever says "if God is this then He can't be that, and since I dub Him that then he doesn't exist"

nobody knows the nature of God, therefore nobody can comment on whether or not God exists in any logical way.

If the nature of God in the Bible is contradictory then we know either the Bible is wrong, or God is, neither make the other "not exist".

Smunk-something,

There’s no contradiction about the countless genocides. They are clearly written inside the bible.

Which is making the existence of your invisible dude disputable, ‘cause in other parts he’s described as being faultless.

Well faultless beings don’t kill gays. Do you kill gays?

You can’t kill gays and be good at the same time. So, we can safely assume that your bible, which is btw a boring book, is false from the first till the last page.

Get over it, god doesn’t exist. And it isn’t that hard, you’re still fine.

Well that takes care of this thread then.



Seriously, though, this is the closest you have come to proving your point. If you are simply trying to claim that the exact God that some Christians say is so good and wonderful and would never do all the bad things you have mentioned probably does not exist in that exact form, then OK, I can agree with that. You are probably right.

It doesn't, however, prove that the Christian God doesn't exist at all.

Just go outside and shout 5 times for his goddess appearance as a naked blonde.

If you don't see a naked blonde after 15 minutes then you'll be locked in your local psychiatric clinic and you may assume that god doesn't exist.

Ah, Epicurus has a nice one to say about omnipotence/omnibenevolence


also, when did the NationStates forums just turn into one eternal bitchfest about Christianity?


You don't know, cause it is your FIRST (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13143081&postcount=150) posting.

Or you are using another nick, to hide yourself as a coward.

And who (other than you and Edwinasia) are claiming God is homophobic? Last time I checked, God loves each and every child of His, no matter of they're gay, straight, man, woman, Christian, atheist, Muslim, whatever.



How did you checked this one?

Last time, I checked your bible, he still was killing gays.

Your god killed more gays than Hitler.

Well I recognize the place of religion and of various mythic spiritualities and they're place in history, in ancient times we different ways of explaining the universe depending on social institution, culture, language, land etc, I recognize that institutions like religion exist because of the given historical forces. I feel that these days science explains enough for me, modern 'religion' is a strange paradox however because it is fighting against these historical forces which prove it to be technically false, don't get me wrong but what was in Jesus', Plato's etc time stays there, digging up these archaic mythos is confusing to me. I don't want to get into this 'End of history' stuff but we are living in an amazing time for religion, it will be interesting to see in the face of science how long until he collapses, and how violently it will go down.

So while I do not discount the astronomical possibility of the Christian God existing in particular, I also cannot preclude Thor, Amon, Zeus and other deities from existing either, do you still worship them? Of course not, that is because they existed as a representation of the social culture of the time, and so at this time they are insufficient to explain us, we have science instead and modern knowledge, Worship of God and Jesus may have explained enough for their historical periods, but they clearly fo not suffice for now. Believe these days in Christianity is ridiculous, I may as well start up a Norse religion for Odin, it just shows that people can be ignorant and superstitious even in the face of reason.

The difference of course between historical religion and modern is that religion must continually defend it's own irrelevance, while in the past it was accepted as tradition.

Your bible is describing him as faultless (not me!). Faultless beings don't commit genocides. Why not?

Can you objectively prove what is and isn't a fault?

Actually Edwinasia if the OT God truly was omnipotent then he would be expected to act far more mysterious than he does, in the OT he's a whimsical capricious, symbol-fetishist who constantly contradicts himself and kills anyone who disagrees with him, including gays and people who like partying, and who thinks the greatest moral act is the willingness of an old man to commit infanticide because he hears schizophrenic voices telling him to do so. Yeah, great role model...

I hope no God, especially the OT God, exists, imagine it, living every second of your life under constant surveillance and every thought and deed preserved for judgment, it's like living in a police state.

How did you checked this one?

Last time, I checked your bible, he still was killing gays.

Your god killed more gays than Hitler.


? Speaking of being selective ??

The Bible is a historical document that has some......get it.....some modern day application. Why does everyone take it so literally?? Why do so few people take time to consider the historical/political/cultural context of the Bible??

If I were to disrespect or disadvantage anyone for their choice of lifestyle or belief, I would be contravening every ethic and principle that is dear to me as a follower of Jesus Christ.

But that isn't what many people, Christian or not, want to hear. I'm supposed to be outraged and vitriolic towards gays, atheists, etc. That would be utterly misrepresenting the Bible in the extreme but hey, so what?? What's popular is a misguided, literal interpretation of a historical document. That's what keeps the fires of disharmony alight on both sides of the fence and a good fight is what people seem to be after.

Poppin' my head in. Is it worth it?

Nope. Get out while you can. :D

I don't claim anything. The Christian bible does. That book is claiming that god committed genocides on gays, heterosexuals, Belgians, Americans, kangaroos and all salt and freshwater fishes.

No. It doesn't. You are referring, I assume, to the flood? In which case, it is possible to draw the conclusion that genocide was committed on all humanity (which would include heterosexuals and homosexuals, but for reasons having nothing to do with sexuality), but not Belgians or Americans because there were no such things, and not kangaroos because they are animals and genocide refers to humans, and not any fish because THEY CAN SWIM.

Well, even you don't like gays, you don't have the right to kill them. I know, it's hard, not killing a gay, but that's how it present times works.

It's hard, not killing a gay?????

OK, you need to back up a step there. If you INTENDED this to be sarcastic, please understand that it certainly didn't come across that way.

Oh, but god can do it! Sure. But then he's not perfect anymore. Perfect, all loving beings don't kill. And the Christian bible is claiming god is all loving, almighty and faultless. And if he's not perfect anymore then he doesn't exist.

The operative word here is "claiming". Just because something is CLAIMED doesn't make it so. I can CLAIM that you are the Queen of England. Does that mean we need to start curtseying if you go out in public wearing pearls? No.

The Christian bible CLAIMS god is all loving, almighty and faultless. Where is the proof that this claim is true? You CLAIM, without any proof, that an omnipotent God cannot be perfect if she does things you think are wrong. But lack of perceived perfection is also no proof of lack of existence, as we keep telling you over, and over, and over.


God is hoax. I'm very sorry.

No need to apologize for the hoax that is God, but you do need to think about the hoax that is your logic.

Just go outside and shout 5 times for his goddess appearance as a naked blonde.

If you don't see a naked blonde after 15 minutes then you'll be locked in your local psychiatric clinic and you may assume that god doesn't exist.

This makes no sense at all.

*I* never claimed that God does exist. However, if I did, how would God not appearing at my demand prove that she doesn't exist? God doesn't appear at anyone's demand.

Although if God were the kind of creature that DID appear when someone demanded it, why shouldn't she show up as naked and blonde? She would be omnipotent, so she could show up as a purple tentacled bug eyed alien if wanted to.

If God is omnipotent, then by definition he is capable of creating a world in which people have free will and there is also no evil. If he has not done so, it's either because he wants evil to exist or because he's not capable of creating free will without evil.
He is capable of creating a world without sin. That's how every thing was in the first place. Then Satan came in and wrecked it all using mankind's freewill against him. Let's use this example.

A mother just made a fresh plate of cookies just before dinner. She had a little toddler and he wanted a cookie obviously, she told him not to take a cookie then left the room. Now I have a question for you. Do you think the toddler took one anyway? Of course! Did the mother know this would happen? Duh. Did she do anything to stop? No. Why? Because it was inevitable. Did she let it happen? No. Why? Same as the other why question.

How did you checked this one?

Last time, I checked your bible, he still was killing gays.

Your god killed more gays than Hitler.

Could you please point out what passage in the bible says that God is still killing gays?

This makes no sense at all.

*I* never claimed that God does exist. However, if I did, how would God not appearing at my demand prove that she doesn't exist? God doesn't appear at anyone's demand.

Although if God were the kind of creature that DID appear when someone demanded it, why shouldn't she show up as naked and blonde? She would be omnipotent, so she could show up as a purple tentacled bug eyed alien if wanted to.

I see a nekkid and blonde Godess every night. No wait... thats my wife!

Christians get hammered for proselytizing all the time, but isn't the end goal of this thread to change religious views? If that is your goal, how is it different from proselytizing?

Edwinasia: are you hoping to persuade Christians that their beliefs are wrong by posting this? Or is there another goal--possibly to irritate, annoy and/or enrage people who find their identity in their particular religion?

Why paint yourself as a secular person if your goals are primarily rooted in religious (or anti-religious) concerns? And if your goals for starting this thread are not religious, what are they?

Christians get hammered for proselytizing all the time, but isn't the end goal of this thread to change religious views? If that is your goal, how is it different from proselytizing?

Edwinasia: are you hoping to persuade Christians that their beliefs are wrong by posting this? Or is there another goal--possibly to irritate, annoy and/or enrage people who find their identity in their particular religion?

Why paint yourself as a secular person if your goals are primarily rooted in religious (or anti-religious) concerns? And if your goals for starting this thread are not religious, what are they?

Edwinasia only wants to rant, and argue. Which is fine as long as you realise that is his sole intent.

I don't claim anything. The Christian bible does. That book is claiming that god committed genocides on gays, heterosexuals, Belgians, Americans, kangaroos and all salt and freshwater fishes.

This might surprise you, but there were no Belgians or Americans in Biblical times. And how would God kill fish with a flood exactly? And the Bible never even said the word genocide. It can't even be termed genocide because (as far as we know) homosexuality isn't based on a gene. Last time I checked, God killed "sinners."

Well, even you don't like gays, you don't have the right to kill them. I know, it's hard, not killing a gay, but that's how it present times works.

And it's things like this that make me believe Christians like me are more tolerant than atheists as a whole. I have gay friends, I know gay people. I'm fine with them, just don't hit on me.

Oh, but god can do it! Sure. But then he's not perfect anymore. Perfect, all loving beings don't kill. And the Christian bible is claiming god is all loving, almighty and faultless. And if he's not perfect anymore then he doesn't exist.

Um, yeah God can do it. God can do what He damn well wants. And sometimes, JUST SOMETIMES, good people kill. Policeman kill, sometimes in self defense. Homeowners kill if there is an intruder in their house. While they're not perfect according to your twisted logic, they are regular, good people. So now they don't exist cause they did something bad? Answer the question, because that is what you are claiming.

God is hoax. I'm very sorry.

Well you'd have to offer proof. And sadly (for you, that is) nothing you've said on these pages could ever be taken as proof.

No, you don't understand it.

I'm pretty sure a lot of people don't understand your logic. I'd get used to it. I doubt your argumentative skills are going to get better if you rely on such a bad argument.

Your bible is describing him as faultless (not me!). Faultless beings don't commit genocides.

Honestly, who are you to say what "faultless beings" do and do not do? You don't have the authoritah to say that. You can say it, it just don't mean shit.

Or he didn't. But then the bible is lying and some can start asking questions about everything

In order to lie, you would need a stated truth. Show me the truth.

Or he did. But then it is interfering with his faultless label and some can start again asking questions about everything.

I just don't know where this came from. Why would God ask questions? Because of your bad logic saying He doesn't exist because (as you claim) He committed genocide? How can something or someone not exist because of something they did?

It's not a game about you-win or I-win. He doesn't exist, that's all.

I don't win anything by stating that god isn't around.

You sure do seem to feed you're ego.

I see a nekkid and blonde Godess every night. No wait... thats my wife!

Yay for you!!!!!* :D

But do you go outside and shout for her to appear? That seems to be the key here. You apparently have to go outside and shout 5 times, and if she doesn't appear in 15 minutes, you get hauled off to the loony bin and she doesn't exist.

Thus spake the gospel according to Edwinasia...








*For those folks who may still be under the mistaken impression that I am a man, I believe my NOT ASKING FOR PICTURES should put that theory to bed.**









**Not that I would object to seeing the pictures, mind you... :p

*For those folks who may still be under the mistaken impression that I am a man, I believe my NOT ASKING FOR PICTURES should put that theory to bed.**
**Not that I would object to seeing the pictures, mind you... :p

Ah, but that just requires us to ask for pictures...


...of you!

Ah, but that just requires us to ask for pictures...


...of you!

But I am not a naked, blonde goddess.













Wait for it...





















I am a redhead. :D

But I am not a naked, blonde goddess.

Wait for it...

I am a redhead. :D

Even better :D

Yay for you!!!!!* :D

But do you go outside and shout for her to appear? That seems to be the key here. You apparently have to go outside and shout 5 times, and if she doesn't appear in 15 minutes, you get hauled off to the loony bin and she doesn't exist.

Thus spake the gospel according to Edwinasia...


I umm have done that in the past with mixed results!:D

I am a christian but the Christian God is also the same god in Judaism and Islam
so there :p

http://www.gearsandwidgets.com/external/wherethisthreadgoing.jpg

I am a christian but the Christian God is also the same god in Judaism and Islam
so there :p

Would you consider the Christan God to be the same as ohh lets say Brahma?

This might surprise you, but there were no Belgians or Americans in Biblical times. And how would God kill fish with a flood exactly? And the Bible never even said the word genocide. It can't even be termed genocide because (as far as we know) homosexuality isn't based on a gene. Last time I checked, God killed "sinners."


Yes it is surprising me.

Some Julius Caesar said about us, Belgians:

'Horum omnium fortissimi sunt Belgae, propterea quod a cultu atque humanitate provinciae longissime absunt, minimeque ad eos mercatores saepe commeant atque ea quae ad effeminandos animos pertinent important, proximique sunt Germanis, qui trans Rhenum incolunt, quibuscum continenter bellum gerunt.'

We almost beat the Old Romans :)

And the Native Americans are also pretty old...

Both groups of people are older than the existence of the world as described in your bible.

Oh, if you kill sinners, it's ok?
Let's call it gayocide.

If you put a freshwater fish in salt water it will die. And vice versa.
Few species can live in both types of water.

So your god, killed most fishes. A real fishocide....

If we were doing anything other than ranting, I wouldn't say anything at all. It looks to me like this thread is less of a discussion and more of a "check out the enormous proportions of my enormously proportionate penis" contest (think Pon Farr, only played with sharp words instead of quasi-futuristic clubs, and the idle observers get to wager on winners with the currency of honor and shame.) Where some see mere games, I see the pent-up sexual frustration of an entire generation of young men being slowly crushed by (1) the feminist discovery that women don't really need men for anything at all, and (2) an unsavory soup made of one part social isolation and two parts boredom.

And really, there's not much point in proving you have a gianormous penis to an entire internet forum--unless, of course, your only prospects for attracting a mate involve presenting a bright, colorful and irrelevant argument. Personally, I think we'd all be better off if God (whichever one we settle on) had given all of the undersexed among us Peacock Tails to present, because badly-stated arguments about religion are just plain boring. Well, that, and the Peacock Tails (unlike badly-stated arguments about religion) are known to be quite effective for male peacocks when they need to persuade an unsuspecting pea-hen that he would make an effective mate, even though she has no other use for him in this modern world.

Anyways, coming back to the point--I see no difference between the type of argument that would destroy a person's theistic beliefs and one that would destroy a person's atheistic beliefs. That is, both arguments are of the same nature and type--they are both religious arguments. And it seems terribly inconsistent for an atheist to make religious arguments--just as much as it is terribly inconsistent for a religious person (that is, a person who appeals to a higher power) to wield social, political and/or economic powers to ensure they get their way in every day life.

Even better :D


Me (http://www.kodakgallery.com/PhotoView.jsp?UV=750960899388_219250935111&collid=285020535111.130340935111.1192724796786&photoid=920340935111&folderid=0&amp;view=1&amp;page=1&amp;sort_order=0&amp;albumsperpage=&amp;navfolderid=2007)

I also just realized that this picture doesn't really prove the redhead part... so you will have to take my word for it.

Me (http://www.kodakgallery.com/PhotoView.jsp?UV=750960899388_219250935111&collid=285020535111.130340935111.1192724796786&photoid=920340935111&folderid=0&amp;view=1&amp;page=1&amp;sort_order=0&amp;albumsperpage=&amp;navfolderid=2007)

I also just realized that this picture doesn't really prove the redhead part... so you will have to take my word for it.

Fair enough. :)

Fair enough. :)


Go rent a room, please :)

Me (http://www.kodakgallery.com/PhotoView.jsp?UV=750960899388_219250935111&collid=285020535111.130340935111.1192724796786&photoid=920340935111&folderid=0&amp;view=1&amp;page=1&amp;sort_order=0&amp;albumsperpage=&amp;navfolderid=2007)

I also just realized that this picture doesn't really prove the redhead part... so you will have to take my word for it.

Hehe although I did notice some red around the eyes!

• All mighty
• Faultless
• Pure goodness
• Love for people

Edwinasia: it seems to me that you view the logical process you've applied in starting this thread as perfectly embodying at least one of the above four qualities. If your logic is a faultless and almighty embodiment of pure goodness and love for people (or is merely faultless and/or almighty), does that mean your logical process has (in your view) a legitimate claim to be what the Christian God (in your view) fails to be?

If I've so far represented fairly how you've intended to come across, what's the difference between belief in your view and belief in the Christian Straw Man you've set up?

The Christian god doesn't exist

The concept of god in Christianity, which is derived from the bible in a selective approach, is containing stuff as:

• All mighty
• Faultless
• Pure goodness
• Love for people

With some investigation one can easily detect that this god, as described in the old and new testament, is no good at all, according the ethical standards of today.

That means that god is according our criteria unethical and that he isn’t answering the principle of being faultless. In spite of this, Christians still insist that god is perfect. So he doesn’t exist.

Some will say that he’s formatted according what the early Christians defined as being good. But then the same would be valid for Tezcatlipoca (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tezcatlipoca) of the Aztecs, the Shiva (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiva) from Vishnu and with even more reasons for Amithaba Buddha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amitabha). So why should one select Yahweh as premium choice?

Every attempt to immunise voices inside Christianity against rational critique will fail on the conclusion that these immunisation techniques are equal usable to defend the voices of other religions and sects, including the most absurd ones.

Or one has a definition to give the bible and Christianity a privileged statue but then one must be able to present that definition or one does not have that definition. In the last case, all religions and sects and their revelations have in the field of speaking the truth equal worth.

There is no god, but not because those who purport it through texts created by concensus have contradictions. There is no god because there is no rational evidence proving an existence of god or gods.

No religion is correct, therefore whatever one attributes to deity is their own business. What cranks me is theists believe everyone has to worship their own version of a god and they ridicule you if your version does not suit theirs. Why does an Atheist have to *worship* anything in the mind of these people. Atheism is a lack of religion, it is not a religion.

So basically one must dismiss ALL religion as fraud to be intellectually honest.

There is no god, but not because those who purport it through texts created by concensus have contradictions. There is no god because there is no rational evidence proving an existence of god or gods.

No religion is correct, therefore whatever one attributes to deity is their own business. What cranks me is theists believe everyone has to worship their own version of a god and they ridicule you if your version does not suit theirs. Why does an Atheist have to *worship* anything in the mind of these people. Atheism is a lack of religion, it is not a religion.

So basically one must dismiss ALL religion as fraud to be intellectually honest.

However in reality a tiny, wee, little, minority of all people are anything approaching intellectually honest.


Ohh and very cool nation name BTW.

• All mighty
• Faultless
• Pure goodness
• Love for people

Edwinasia: it seems to me that you view the logical process you've applied in starting this thread as perfectly embodying at least one of the above four qualities. If your logic is a faultless and almighty embodiment of pure goodness and love for people (or is merely faultless and/or almighty), does that mean your logical process has (in your view) a legitimate claim to be what the Christian God (in your view) fails to be?

If I've so far represented fairly how you've intended to come across, what's the difference between belief in your view and belief in the Christian Straw Man you've set up?

I don't belief in a god. There's too much choice. All of the 4000 religions say that the others or sitting in a worse restaurant.

I'm not faultless or almighty. That's more something for christians to claim about their invisible friend in the sky.

I don't belief in a god. There's too much choice. All of the 4000 religions say that the others or sitting in a worse restaurant.

I'm not faultless or almighty. That's more something for christians to claim about their invisible friend in the sky.

Well you do know that isn't entirely true. I know of one religion that explicitly teaches that all Gods are one God, and that all religions are valid as ways to reach God.

"One must dismiss ALL religion as fraud to be intellectually honest."

"What cranks me is theists believe everyone has to worship their own version of a god and they ridicule you if your version does not suit theirs."

Are you mocking theists, calling them intellectual frauds, not even a minute after you say that you do not like it when someone tells you to believe in their belief?

Pardon me, but what cranks me is atheists who believe everyone has to not worship their own version of a god and ridicule you if you do.

Well you do know that isn't entirely true. I know of one religion that explicitly teaches that all Gods are one God, and that all religions are valid as ways to reach God.

The religion of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Edwinasia--I didn't ask about you. I know you're not faultless or almighty. I asked about your argument--do you believe your argument is faultless and/or almighty? Do you believe that if everyone accepted the truth of your argument, it would further the amount of pure goodness and love for all people?

Yes it is surprising me.

Some Julius Caesar said about us, Belgians:

'Horum omnium fortissimi sunt Belgae, propterea quod a cultu atque humanitate provinciae longissime absunt, minimeque ad eos mercatores saepe commeant atque ea quae ad effeminandos animos pertinent important, proximique sunt Germanis, qui trans Rhenum incolunt, quibuscum continenter bellum gerunt.'
We almost beat the Old Romans :)

And the Native Americans are also pretty old...

Both groups of people are older than the existence of the world as described in your bible.

It should not surprise you. In fact, if the Flood were true, the people who lived before it would no longer exist at all, and the Belgians and Native Americans would have all been descendants of the children of Noah who survived the Flood. So God would not have committed genocide against them because they didn't come to exist until well after the Flood.

Oh, if you kill sinners, it's ok?
Let's call it gayocide.

No, it is not ok. What part of my earlier NO was unclear to you.

And who is doing all this killing of gays that you are claiming? Where is your proof?

And let's not call it 'gayocide', all right?

If you put a freshwater fish in salt water it will die. And vice versa.
Few species can live in both types of water.

So your god, killed most fishes. A real fishocide....

The waterways of our current world connect both salt and freshwater together. Freshwater fish live in the freshwater, saltwater fish live in the saltwater, and some species live in both. So what is your point? If it rains in a lake, the lake stays fresh. If it rains in the ocean, the ocean stays salty. If there is flooding, the area of brackish water between them expands as well, but the two bodies of water might well not become amalgamated. So no 'fishocide' either.

And (even though this is a silly question), how exactly would 'fishocide' prove that God doesn't exist?

Edwinasia--I didn't ask about you. I know you're not faultless or almighty. I asked about your argument--do you believe your argument is faultless and/or almighty?

Sorry, I'm tired :)

Of course not. It's not faultless. That would be arrogant.

Do you believe that if everyone accepted the truth of your argument, it would further the amount of pure goodness and love for all people?


I'm not sure. I think when everybody, I mean everybody, is having the same belief or the lack of any belief that it would reduce wars, fights, etc...

The waterways of our current world connect both salt and freshwater together. Freshwater fish live in the freshwater, saltwater fish live in the saltwater, and some species live in both. So what is your point? If it rains in a lake, the lake stays fresh. If it rains in the ocean, the ocean stays salty. If there is flooding, the area of brackish water between them expands as well, but the two bodies of water might well not become amalgamated. So no 'fishocide' either.

And (even though this is a silly question), how exactly would 'fishocide' prove that God doesn't exist?


erm....I know jumping into an argument rarely turns out well, but I think the poster was talking about the flood that apparently covered everything.


That pretty much would have killed off a great deal of fish in reality ya?

"Of course not. It's not faultless. That would be arrogant."

My goal here isn't at all to say that someone is right or someone is wrong or someone is arrogant...just that the way your argument is structured, even if it were faultless, it wouldn't mitigate the Christian God.

1. The Christian God is composed of four (or more) vague attributes.
2. Experience indicates that those four (or more) are not present.
CANNOT combine with
3. Belief in B brings into experience those four (or more) vague attributes.
WITHOUT
4. The Christian God becomes part of experience.

But that's not to be critical. It's just that the Christian God has a way of hiding Himself in some very strange/unexpected places, so that we might find even though we're not looking.

Go rent a room, please :)

Why?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Licentian View Post
I agree with you that God doesn't exist, but not for the same reasons. You state that because christians say God is something that he is not, God does not exist. This is equivalent to grass not existing because I say "Grass is blue". Your argument simply doesn't add up - just because there is ambiguity or disagreement about God's "character", that doesn't mean he does not exist. However, the scientific evidence does!
Simple said:

• Christians claim that god is perfect.
• According their own bible god isn't perfect according the ethical and moral codes of present time.
• So god is imperfect.
• If he's imperfect than it fights with their claim he's perfect
• So he doesn't exist

Just a quick Q: did you ever think that maybe some of these ethical and moral codes [source please] may be what is flawed? Your argument assumes too much to begin with... way too much.

erm....I know jumping into an argument rarely turns out well, but I think the poster was talking about the flood that apparently covered everything.


That pretty much would have killed off a great deal of fish in reality ya?

No. That was my point. It would take an incredibly long time for a salt water ocean to dilute all the way to the center of a continental sized ocean of fresh water (which, as the rain fell, the land would become). In reality, there are places where the ocean and rivers DO mix, but only for small stretches, and they are salt on one end and fresh on the other of the brackish water in between. In only 40 days, I think a good portion of the freshwater fish would have been just fine. Likewise, the saltwater ocean would not have diluted significantly in that time, so the saltwater fish would have been ok too.

The religion of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Naaaaa man, Sikhi!

And who is doing all this killing of gays that you are claiming? Where is your proof?

The biblical God done the killing, look to your bible and read about Sodom and Gomorrah.

No. That was my point. It would take an incredibly long time for a salt water ocean to dilute all the way to the center of a continental sized ocean of fresh water (which, as the rain fell, the land would become). In reality, there are places where the ocean and rivers DO mix, but only for small stretches, and they are salt on one end and fresh on the other of the brackish water in between. In only 40 days, I think a good portion of the freshwater fish would have been just fine. Likewise, the saltwater ocean would not have diluted significantly in that time, so the saltwater fish would have been ok too.


Sorry I have to disagree, and I have seen your pic and it pains me to disagree with a fine looking woman;) but do you know how quickly fish die when faced with a change in their climate? 40 days? Try 2-3 hours.

There is no god, but not because those who purport it through texts created by concensus have contradictions. There is no god because there is no rational evidence proving an existence of god or gods.

Atheism is a lack of religion, it is not a religion.

These two points. Thank you for stating it. I don't know why some people insist that Atheism is faith and/or religion.

The biblical God done the killing, look to your bible and read about Sodom and Gomorrah.

Sodom and Gomorrah was about people who were rude to company, not homosexual.

And Edwinasia indicated that mass killing of homosexuals by God was still going on, which is what I was seeking clarification about.

Sorry I have to disagree, and I have seen your pic and it pains me to disagree with a fine looking woman;) but do you know how quickly fish die when faced with a change in their climate? 40 days? Try 2-3 hours.

That would be fine, but their actual CLIMATE wouldn't change that fast. The freshwater lakes and rivers would expand to form a large freshwater ocean. The saltwater ocean would just rise. The brackish barrier between them would expand, but in only 40 days, I don't believe those two areas would mix enough to be a problem. Not to mention that if it rained for 40 days, it might well take the first 30 or more for the water to rise high enough for them even to start to mix. Temperature issues at the boundry between salt and fresh might even make it take longer for the mixing to really get underway (cold ocean water might well sink below warm fresh water). Then you get 10 days of mixing around the edges, then it drains away.

Never mind the fact that the whole idea is preposterous anyway.

And thanks for the compliment, but feel free to disagree all you like! :)

The Christian god doesn't exist

The concept of god in Christianity, which is derived...

Out of curiosity, what do you get out of this? What I mean is, is this just some sort of intellectual masturbation for you, or do you somehow honestly expect for some Christian websurfer to stumble upon this post and have some kind of epiphany and cast aside his or her religion in the face of a post as wonderful as you thin yours is?

I used to have daydreams like that too where I was a hockey hero.

Don't misunderstand... I'm not at all emotional or outraged by this... Just curious. Kinda like when a researcher watched a lab rat to try and determine its motivations for its behavior. I mean, surely you felt it was worth your time to type in your OP, and presumably to revisit the thread periodically to either post or just see how it was panning out... so I ask you... what's your gain from it?

These two points. Thank you for stating it. I don't know why some people insist that Atheism is faith and/or religion.

Well, technically, you can't prove whether God exists or not. Atheists believe that God does NOT exist. You might be thinking of agnostics or whatever they're called.

Theists: God exists. Always was. Always will.
Atheists: There is NO God. Never was. Never will.
Agnostics: There is no evidence either way. Since you can't prove or disprove the existance of God or Zues or a floating pasta thingy, we're going to not make any claims either way.

I'm a Theists but Atheism does take some faith to believe an idea that is also unproveable.

Out of curiosity, what do you get out of this? What I mean is, is this just some sort of intellectual masturbation for you, or do you somehow honestly expect for some Christian websurfer to stumble upon this post and have some kind of epiphany and cast aside his or her religion in the face of a post as wonderful as you thin yours is?

I used to have daydreams like that too where I was a hockey hero.

Don't misunderstand... I'm not at all emotional or outraged by this... Just curious. Kinda like when a researcher watched a lab rat to try and determine its motivations for its behavior. I mean, surely you felt it was worth your time to type in your OP, and presumably to revisit the thread periodically to either post or just see how it was panning out... so I ask you... what's your gain from it?

I think he feeds off the attention. Without said attention, he would surely starve to death. Let's ignore him.

Well, technically, you can't prove whether God exists or not. Atheists believe that God does NOT exist. You might be thinking of agnostics or whatever they're called.

Theists: God exists. Always was. Always will.
Atheists: There is NO God. Never was. Never will.
Agnostics: There is no evidence either way. Since you can't prove or disprove the existance of God or Zues or a floating pasta thingy, we're going to not make any claims either way.

I'm a Theists but Atheism does take some faith to believe an idea that is also unproveable.

Atheism doesn't take faith. It assumes the stance of: it hasn't been proven so it's not true. After all, even if it cannot be proven that it does or not exist, it doesn't change that there is no proof period.

I think he feeds off the attention. Without said attention, he would surely starve to death. Let's ignore him.

Roger that.

The biblical God done the killing, look to your bible and read about Sodom and Gomorrah.

It's already been established that God killed people. Lot's of people. What's not proven is that he selected specifically gay people specifically for their homosexuality.

Atheism doesn't take faith. It assumes the stance of: it hasn't been proven so it's not true. After all, even if it cannot be proven that it does or not exist, it doesn't change that there is no proof period.

It hasn't been proven so it MIGHT not be true. After all, evolution wasn't really proved until the nineteenth century. Doesn't mean that evolution only started then.

It hasn't been proven so it MIGHT not be true. After all, evolution wasn't really proved until the nineteenth century. Doesn't mean that evolution only started then.

Until it can be a proven positive, it doesn't require faith to be sceptical.

ie: Alien life forms may exist but we don't have proof so I will admit that they probably don't and will change my perception when there is a proven positive (or negative) on this matter.

EDIT - I was taking a look at your sig... you don't happen to do mods/hacks for TS2? If you don't know what I mean, don't worry.

Until it can be a proven positive, it doesn't require faith to be sceptical.

ie: Alien life forms may exist but we don't have proof so I will admit that they probably don't and will change my perception when there is a proven positive (or negative) on this matter.

It requires faith to believe an unproven stance, whether it be for or against something. I know my Theistic stance requires faith in a god of unproveable existance. Atheists have faith in the idea that God doesn't exist, an idea that is also unproveable. Agnostics are more skeptical of both stances.

Well, technically, you can't prove whether God exists or not. Atheists believe that God does NOT exist. You might be thinking of agnostics or whatever they're called.

Theists: God exists. Always was. Always will.
Atheists: There is NO God. Never was. Never will.
Agnostics: There is no evidence either way. Since you can't prove or disprove the existance of God or Zues or a floating pasta thingy, we're going to not make any claims either way.

I'm a Theists but Atheism does take some faith to believe an idea that is also unproveable.

1: Person A asserts that god is an artichoke.
2: Person B knows that Person A is full of shit.

1: Person A is utilizing faith.
2: Person B is utilizing common sense

Why? Because the impetus to prove an assertion is on the asserter. You do not need to prove a negative.

You need imperical evidence to prove a positive.

It requires faith to believe an unproven stance, whether it be for or against something. I know my Theistic stance requires faith in a god of unproveable existance. Atheists have faith in the idea that God doesn't exist, an idea that is also unproveable. Agnostics are more skeptical of both stances.

1: To believe in something. requires faith with lack of evidence
2: To not believe in something with lack of evidence, does not require faith

However in reality a tiny, wee, little, minority of all people are anything approaching intellectually honest.


Ohh and very cool nation name BTW.

Thank you

"One must dismiss ALL religion as fraud to be intellectually honest."

"What cranks me is theists believe everyone has to worship their own version of a god and they ridicule you if your version does not suit theirs."

Are you mocking theists, calling them intellectual frauds, not even a minute after you say that you do not like it when someone tells you to believe in their belief?

Pardon me, but what cranks me is atheists who believe everyone has to not worship their own version of a god and ridicule you if you do.

Well mocking theists is not really a sport. They can accomplish it themselves with very little effort.

************************ News Flash ***********************

Atheists do not worship any gods. Atheism is LACK OF religion. We leave the worshipping to the amateurs.

1: To believe in something. requires faith with lack of evidence
2: To not believe in something with lack of evidence, does not require faith

The problem is that this isn't so cut and dried. Just about everybody, and I mean on BOTH sides, claim to have drawn their conclusion based on some set of evidence that they claim to have evaluated objectively and come to a decision. The reality: Bull. Most people believe what they do because of either how they were raised, or as a result of some cumulative set of experiences leading them to believe what they do. Very few people ever have a moment of true objectivity even though everyone claims to have.

That's why Atheists use faith every bit as much as any religious person. It's because each arrived at their stated belief via the same process, albeit to different conclusions.

The reality is that the issue isn't provable to the world at large at our current level of understanding either way, and to assert that somehow Atheism is the default position is taking liberties with reason. Why should Atheism be the default position? There was a time not long ago when religion was the default, and in fact the vast majority of the people in the world (Link (http://www.zpub.com/un/pope/relig.html)) believe in some religion or another. It seems like if we truly MUST declare some kind of default then the onus should be on the dissenters to demonstrate why.

Let's face it. To stand up and proclaim one's own position to somehow be the logical default is arrogant considering the lack of evidence EITHER WAY. The justification seems to be that in a vacuum of evidence to the contrary, one must start with the non-existence of God, but that is hardly an all-encompassing line of reason. One couldn't prove the existence of Pluto prior to the invention of a large enough telescope but, I assure you, the planet did not spring into being at the moment the device was invented.

Does that mean that, prior to its discovery, one would be logically correct in asserting the existence of a 9th planet based on a lack of evidence to the contrary? Of course not, but the only correct and true answer would have been "It's possible, but we don't know yet."

And when it comes to the existence of God, in the absence of some kind of spiritual experience teaching otherwise, the only viable answer is "It's possible, we don't know yet."

Making an assertion either way requires faith.

The problem is that this isn't so cut and dried.Alas, it is.

The popularity of an opinion has no bearing on how sound it is. Whether there's no, 1 or 50gogool atheists, theism still remains a positive claim, and thus require evidence, or it should be dismissed.
Likewise, atheism is only a positive claim, in a world where divinity demonstrably exists, and only require evidence in such a world. This isn't such a world. Atheism requires no evidence.

You argument consists entirely of two logical fallacies; shifting the burden of proof, and appealing to popularity. There's a reason it's called "fallacies". Wikipedia can explain why. I don't think I'm enough of a pedagogue to do it politely.

I agree that the popularity of an opinion should have no bearing on whether it is considered true. However, from a scientific standpoint, which may or may not make any sense in a theological debate, you need evidence to assert either a positive claim (there is a God) or a negative claim (there is no God).

I agree that the popularity of an opinion should have no bearing on whether it is considered true. However, from a scientific standpoint, which may or may not make any sense in a theological debate, you need evidence to assert either a positive claim (there is a God) or a negative claim (there is no God).No you don't. The negative claim is no claim at all. You don't need to present hard evidence for nothing at all.

This isn't a "The Earth is Round" against "The Earth is Flat" thing. It's a "The Earth is Flat" against "...".

I agree that the popularity of an opinion should have no bearing on whether it is considered true. However, from a scientific standpoint, which may or may not make any sense in a theological debate, you need evidence to assert either a positive claim (there is a God) or a negative claim (there is no God).

Actually in the scientific world it is negative until proven otherwise. Likewise in science one has a theory and endeavors to prove the assertion, assuming the negative is true, until evidence proves otherwise.

Plain and simple for all of you


THERE IS NO GOD!!!