any reasons to be an atheist?

[Sheepdog]

oh yeah, i already know the answer to this one: No.

look, in order to be an atheist who is sound in rationality, i would have to be reasonably sure that no deity exists. however, in order to be be reasonably sure that no deity exists, i would have to possess exhaustive knowledge of all that exists. if i do not, it is possible that a given deity exists, and the evidence of him/her/it/they could exist outside of what i know.

obviously, no one person can have the knowledge of all that exists, and even if they did, how would they know that they their knowledge was truely exhaustive?

this leads me to the conclusion that at best, the most reasonable skeptic postition is "i don't know" (basic agnosticism). even "god is unknowable" agnosticism fails for the same reason atheism does.

then again, i have seen many philosophical arguments against the existance of deity, but so far every one of them had some error (typically, an assumption or suppressed premise was made a priori that needed to be established). i have also seen arguments against some religions (mostly directly against Christianity the variants of it). however, i have seen no skeptics atempt the task of refuting every single possible theism, nor do i think it is possible by a single person.

so, even if at one point i were to aposticise (which won't happen, as it would require me to ignore all that the Spirit has done for me, not to mention much of the evidence for Christ), i'd become an agnostic, and never an atheist.

the last line of defence for atheism has always been "well, which theism is right then? Christianity? Hinduism? Zoraster(ism?)?" but this presumes that all theologies are equal, and that the law of noncontradiction doesn't apply. to the former, as a person who mopped the floor with Mormons and J's Witnesses, i can tell you that some religions are just plain wrong. to the latter, well, since all religions contradict one another on at least one count (if they didn't they would be identical, and hence the same religion). no more than one can be true at any time. if this is the case, only one religion has to be shown true. it that religion is shown true, then all others are false by default. (edited to add...) furthermore, granted the existance of a deity, if He revealed Himself to us, rather than us trying to conjecture on Him, then this objection is irrelavent.

but, i am open for discusion. if anyone has anything meaningful to bring to the table, then let's do so. i've been wrong before...

[Lizard]

There are plenty of reasons to be an atheist.

[list=1]
Pride
Subborness
Desire to Sin
Refusal to acknowledge guilt
Desire to be in "controll" of own life.
"Anger" at God for some percieved evil.
[/list=1]

The list goes on and on.


:huh:
:duh:
:argh:
:idea:

Oh, you meant good reasons!

No
:no:

[Satori]

I also feel that atheism is impractical, and while certainly a lot more logical than theism I feel, it makes the same basic presumption about that which is essentially unknowable.

That's why I am a non-theist, I simply don't have a strongly held opinion about it one way or another. The reason theism doesn't sit well with me is because it rests upon what are fundamentally wild speculations, that is:

1) a god is necessary for the universe to exist (which is a self-defeating statement, if something as magnificient as a god can exist, then why not something as comparably insignificant as a universe?)

2) humans are one of the primary reasons for the universe existing (this follows from presumption #1 and is WAY too human-centric for me to take seriously, especially considering how late in the game we appeared, and how incredibly small and insignificant we are in the grand scheme of the universe).

3) god created humans with purpose of them worshipping it (this follows from presumption #2, which itself was dependent on presumption #1, and it's absurd because something as presumbably as powerful as this presumed human-like god would be above such petty desires to have its glutes kissed by us lowly humans. That would be like us desiring to be revered a by a bunch of insects. Why would we care? Why would god actually care? The only people who want to be "worshipped" on earth are egomaniacs and I have a hard time accepting that an all powerful entity like a god could have such an ego and actually get a kick out of us lowly primates bowing to it).

etc..

In short, the athiest makes one and only one presumption: there is no god. But the theist makes presumption after presumption with no end in sight, presumptions to explain/justify the initial presumptions until we end up with presumptions as whacky as: "homosexuality is immoral", and "god will punish you unless you can convince yourself of its existance".

Therefore, I ask, who is truly more presumptuous, the theists or the atheists? While I'm neither, I must admit, I think the answer is exceedingly evident (but it's not to any of you I'm sure).

My 2 cents..

Satori

[Satori]

Faramir:
There are plenty of reasons to be an atheist.

[list=1]
Pride
Subborness
Desire to Sin
Refusal to acknowledge guilt
Desire to be in "controll" of own life.
"Anger" at God for some percieved evil.
[/list=1]

The list goes on and on.


:huh:
:duh:
:argh:
:idea:

Oh, you meant good reasons!

No
:no:


You forgot one the most important one:

No good reasons to presume otherwise (considering how unreliable and self-contradictory the bible inherently is, and even if it weren't, we still have no evidence to jump to such a conclusion, and even if we did, we have no reason to presume the theory of christianty is any more or less accurate that the literally hundreds of religions in the world, most of which predate christianity).

Satori

[Lizard]

Satori:



You forgot one the most important one:

No good reasons to presume otherwise (considering how unreliable and self-contradictory the bible inherently is, and even if it weren't, we still have no evidence to jump to such a conclusion, and even if we did, we have no reason to presume the theory of christianty is any more or less accurate that the literally hundreds of religions in the world, most of which predate christianity).

Satori

:oops:

And it is still not a good reason. :tongue:

[Satori]

As I have said before, I regard this site and most of the people on it as little more than a quest to reassure themselves of a position which is not only presumptuous, but exceedingly absurd in light of our continued intellectual evolution.

Why do people do this? Pascal's wager. Faith is a trap, and belief about something which is essentially unknowable is as uninsightful as it is ridiculous. Besides, Christianity is repugant and offends many of the values and sensibilites we *should* hold dear to our hearts, with *unconditional* forgiveness and undying compassion topping the list.

As Thomas Paine said:

"Belief in a cruel god makes a cruel man." And history has indicated this too many times to count, and it's still going on.

Satori

[Satori]

Faramir:
:oops:

And it is still not a good reason. :tongue:

It's not? Then why not presume that there's a race of pink elephants living under the surface of the moon.

Here's the thing, if we have no solid reasons to presume a given theory is accurate, then why would we, by default, ASSUME it is accurate? Because that's what you were taught? Because that's what everyone else thinks? No. That's just not reasonable.

Satori

[Lizard]

As others have said before, and I say now, I regard atheist (and non-theist) who come to this site as little more than on a quest to reassure themselves of a position which is not only presumptuous, but exceedingly absurd in light of our continued intellectual evolution.

Why do people do this? Pide? Skepticism is a trap, and non belief about something which is essentially knowable is as uninsightful as it is ridiculous. Besides, atheism (and non-theism) is repugant and offends many of the values and sensibilites we *should* hold dear to our hearts, with *unconditional* forgiveness and undying compassion topping the list.

As I just now said:

"Belief in a Good God makes a good man." And history has indicated this too many times to count, and it's still going on.

[Lizard]

Satori:


It's not? Then why not presume that there's a race of pink elephants living under the surface of the moon.

Here's the thing, if we have no solid reasons to presume a given theory is accurate, then why would we, by default, ASSUME it is accurate? Because that's what you were taught? Because that's what everyone else thinks? No. That's just not reasonable.

Satori

I presume based on evidence. See my sig.

You presume there is probably not a God. I presume there is one.

I think it is very reasonable to presume that God exist based on the evidence. And if I had evidence to indicate that there was a race of Pink Elephants living on the moon, then that would be a safe presumption.

If all you are going to do is presume Christians are wrong, at least give some evidence.

[Sheepdog]

Satori:
As I have said before, I regard this site and most of the people on it as little more than a quest to reassure themselves of a position which is not only presumptuous, but exceedingly absurd in light of our continued intellectual evolution.

Why do people do this? Pascal's wager. Faith is a trap, and belief about something which is essentially unknowable is as uninsightful as it is ridiculous. Besides, Christianity is repugant and offends many of the values and sensibilites we *should* hold dear to our hearts, with *unconditional* forgiveness and undying compassion topping the list.

As Thomas Paine said:

"Belief in a cruel god makes a cruel man." And history has indicated this too many times to count, and it's still going on.

Satori

scuse me, but i can't seem to find anything of substance here? shall i assume there is none then :tongue:

a wise skeptics once told me, if you can't back up what you say, then don't say it. this is something i took to heart, and i think you should as well.

[Sheepdog]

Satori:



You forgot one the most important one:

No good reasons to presume otherwise (considering how unreliable and self-contradictory the bible inherently is, and even if it weren't, we still have no evidence to jump to such a conclusion, and even if we did, we have no reason to presume the theory of christianty is any more or less accurate that the literally hundreds of religions in the world, most of which predate christianity).

hee hee, two can play the parody game :brow: :

No good reasons to presume otherwise (considering how unreliable and self-contradictory the skeptics inherently are, and even if it weren't, we still have no evidence to jump to such a conclusion, and even if we did, we have no reason to presume the theory of atheism is any more or less accurate that the literally hundreds of religions in the world, most of which predate atheism).

[Satori]

Ahh, finally something worthy of deconstructing!

Faramir:
As others have said before, and I say now, I regard atheist (and non-theist) who come to this site as little more than on a quest to reassure themselves of a position which is not only presumptuous, but exceedingly absurd in light of our continued intellectual evolution.

You have made an error here. Non-theists do not make any presumptions, for us, it's an open question and will remain as such until proven otherwise.

Since I don't feel my presumed immortal presumed soul is at steak, I have no reason to convince myself one way or the other. I am here for 3 reasons:

-I was challanged to come here.
-I enjoy this sort of discussion very much.
-I honestly feel that theism is an abject state of mind that results in irrationality and more social problems than it solves because it ultimately serves to be yet one more division to segregate people and make them mistrustful of one another, to justify their hatreds and prejudices. It also leads to more and more presumptions, which can also be harmful. This is something history has shown us over and over and over again, and I'm amazed that so few have learned from the mistakes of our ancestors.


Why do people do this?

Reason, of course.

Pide?

Nope. Just reason, and no reason to think otherwise. If there were a god that wanted us to bow to it, one would think it wouldn't be so intent on hiding from us and allowing hundreds of religions to come about, many of which contradict one another and confuse people (and make them mistrustful of one another).

Skepticism is a trap,

No it's not. Skepticism is healthy and prevents us from being overly gullable against those who seek to mislead us for their own advantage (as politicians and religious officials historically do, and are still doing).

and non belief about something which is essentially knowable is as uninsightful as it is ridiculous.

That's why I'm a non-theist, of course, because I have no reason or proof one way or the other. So that doesn't apply to me personally, just athiests and theists.

Besides, atheism (and non-theism) is repugant and offends many of the values and sensibilites we *should* hold dear to our hearts, with *unconditional* forgiveness and undying compassion topping the list.

Nope, sorry. Athiesm isn't repugnant, and non-thiesm doesn't even touch the issue directly. It's non-judgemental. It doesn't use horrific stories and threats to propogate itself. It's not synonymous with irrationality and egocentricism and endless wars. No one every killed anyone else in the name of a god they were unsure existed, or thought didn't exist.

In case you haven't realized, your beloved presumed god is totally incapable of unconditional forgiveness, and (if you believe a fraction of what is written in the bible and interpret it as most people do), compassion isn't exactly his bag either (and I'm not just talking about hell, I'm talking about the circumstances under which we are placed by him/it).

As I just now said:

"Belief in a Good God makes a good man."

Your god is good (unconditional love/compassion)? So in your opinion there is no hell, and all that nonsense about god's jealousy, desire to be worshipped, and ability to enact great and cruel acts of vengeance on people for simply being who it created them to be is all wrong? If that's your position, then I praise you for it, because, while it's presumptuous and irrational at its foundations, at least it's not ethically repugnant like the most common interpretations of christianity.

And history has indicated this too many times to count, and it's still going on.

You cannot discount the bad here, and you have done just that. Secular types are capable of the exact same good AND bad as religious types, and in that way they are entirely EQUAL in terms of ethical standards.

Satori

[Satori]

Faramir:
I presume based on evidence. See my sig.

I assume you are joking. Surely you don't think that constitute "evidence".

You presume there is probably not a God. I presume there is one.

I feel that in the absense of supporting evidence, a fantastic claim such as christianity is likely not true.

I think it is very reasonable to presume that God exist based on the evidence.

What evidence? You have making quite logical leap without even realizing it (and I'm hoping you aren't referring to creationism because that would just be ridiculous).

And if I had evidence to indicate that there was a race of Pink Elephants living on the moon, then that would be a safe presumption.

You don't. So are you going to make that presumption? No, you aren't. What if there was an ancient book filled with implausible and unsubstantiated tales about this mythical race of pink elephants living in the moon, and what if a certain percertage of humans believed it. Would that then be "evidence" to you? Yes, it would.

If all you are going to do is presume Christians are wrong, at least give some evidence.

The burden of proof doesn't fall to me since I'm not the one making the fantastic claim. It would be like me asking you to prove that a race of pink elephants doesn't exist, it's absurd.

But since you asked, the bible is full of holes and self-contradictions, and most of the myths contained within, including but not limited to the creation myth and the noah myth, do not hold up under the least bit of scrutiny and, at best, are analogical in nature. Besides, the bible isn't the only holy book out there, so you have no reason to presume it is the correct one, and yet you are. Interesting, no?

Satori

[Satori]

Sheepdog:
scuse me, but i can't seem to find anything of substance here? shall i assume there is none then :tongue:

a wise skeptics once told me, if you can't back up what you say, then don't say it. this is something i took to heart, and i think you should as well.

Cop-out.

I've noticed that people will say anything to avoid *addressing* the issues on this site, and I think that both sad and hilarious at the same time.

Either poop or get off the potty.

Satori

[Satori]

This thread is, as I suspected from the start, ridiculous, and amounts to little more than theists trying to assure each other of their position because they are deeply afraid of the consequences of becoming faithless.

Typical, once again.

I take my leave from this thread now, there are better things for me to discuss. If you insist on me replying to any further inquiries, send me a private message and I will kindly do so. Have fun guys ;)

Satori

[Sheepdog]

Satori:
I also feel that atheism is impractical, and while certainly a lot more logical than theism I feel, it makes the same basic presumption about that which is essentially unknowable.

unless that which is "unknowable" intentionally and willingly revealed Himself to humans... which leads us to this discussion in the first place...

1) a god is necessary for the universe to exist (which is a self-defeating statement, if something as magnificient as a god can exist, then why not something as comparably insignificant as a universe?)

because we know that the universe conforms to basic physical laws. those physical laws work out in such a way that all that exists phyiscally has been caused to exist. but, the universe (all matter and energy, by definition) had a begining (i.e. Big Bang theory). Thus the universe is caused by some agent that exists independantly of the universe (by definition). this agent is said to be deity. futhermore, the Theory of Evolution is false (because evolution is based on gradual changes, but gradual changes can never account for irreducable complexity-- the principle that a certain biological function cannot exist without multiple systems wroking together... this is a proven fact about cells and multi-celled organisms), so the only way for life to exist is by some sort of design by this agent. unless you know of any other viable theories of the formation of life.

(of course that is only one half the argument for Christianity, as it doesn't define who this deity is).

2) humans are one of the primary reasons for the universe existing (this follows from presumption #1 and is WAY too human-centric for me to take seriously, especially considering how late in the game we appeared, and how incredibly small and insignificant we are in the grand scheme of the universe).

well, if the universe was prepared in advance for us, etc., then this is not so ludicrous, unless you have biases against theism. think about it, if you were a loving deity, wouldn't you want to make creations so you can love them and they love you back? even if we don't grant the deity is loving, creating humans would still be more interesting than twiddling your thumbs (figuratively) for eternity.

3) god created humans with purpose of them worshipping it (this follows from presumption #2, which itself was dependent on presumption #1, and it's absurd because something as presumbably as powerful as this presumed human-like god would be above such petty desires to have its glutes kissed by us lowly humans. That would be like us desiring to be revered a by a bunch of insects. Why would we care? Why would god actually care?

you implicitly accuse us applying our likeness to God, when you do the exact same thing (presume that God, like you, doesn't want to be worshipped). at least be consistent.

The only people who want to be "worshipped" on earth are egomaniacs and I have a hard time accepting that an all powerful entity like a god could have such an ego and actually get a kick out of us lowly primates bowing to it).

you are applying your own sense of morality onto a supreme being (since all non-theists and such i know are relativists or subjectivists, this is incredibly absurd). unless you can give me a good reason why a deity should bow down and kiss your booty, i'll consider the above pure rubbish.

In short, the athiest makes one and only one presumption: there is no god.

based on many absurd presumptions, like, "everything i know of about what exists is equivalent to all that exists," "if God exists he should bow humble Himself to my expectations" etc. etc. etc.

But the theist makes presumption after presumption with no end in sight, presumptions to explain/justify the initial presumptions until we end up with presumptions as whacky as: "homosexuality is immoral", and "god will punish you unless you can convince yourself of its existance".

basically a mass-ad hominem against theists. got anything to confirm the nonsense you are posting? or shall i presum that you are the most presumptious of them all? :cool:

Therefore, I ask, who is truly more presumptuous, the theists or the atheists? While I'm neither, I must admit, I think the answer is exceedingly evident (but it's not to any of you I'm sure).

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: OH! the irony is killing me

[Sheepdog]

Sheepdog:
scuse me, but i can't seem to find anything of substance here? shall i assume there is none then

a wise skeptics once told me, if you can't back up what you say, then don't say it. this is something i took to heart, and i think you should as well.


Satori:


Cop-out.

I've noticed that people will say anything to avoid *addressing* the issues on this site, and I think that both sad and hilarious at the same time.

Either poop or get off the potty.

cop-out? :bonk: ussually, when someone says another has failed to address an issue, that implies the issue had substance to it in the first place. quite frankly, i see no more reason to "address" your "issue" than to address the issue of pink leprechauns flying on pterodactals over Kuwait.

[The Laughing Man]

And so, Satori gives up without explaining any of his statements.

[Sheepdog]

doh! why did he flee so early? i had another fun response to his nonsense :bawl:

[The Laughing Man]

Here's why he left:

This thread is, as I suspected from the start, ridiculous, and amounts to little more than theists trying to assure each other of their position because they are deeply afraid of the consequences of becoming faithless.

Typical, once again.

Which is just a fancy way of saying that he has no meaningful arguments to make and is trying to assure himself that he's right and we're wrong.

"An open question" indeed!

[J. J. Ramsey]

Satori:
we have no reason to presume the theory of christianty is any more or less accurate that the literally hundreds of religions in the world, most of which predate christianity).


Are you trying to tell me that we have no reason to believe the Gospels, which have yet to be explained away with anything better than complicated speculation and ad hoc hypotheses? I have found that while it is easy to dismiss Christianity from a distance, it is hard to justify the dismissal when looking closer at first-century circumstances.

[Satori]

You guys are funny ;)

[The Laughing Man]

I have to honestly wonder, Satori, why are you even here? Let me remind you of your own words:

As I have said before, I regard this site and most of the people on it as little more than a quest to reassure themselves of a position which is not only presumptuous, but exceedingly absurd in light of our continued intellectual evolution.

Then why bother participating on this website? Are you proselytizing? Trying to (de)convert us? "Evangelizing" (after a fashion)?

[Blake Reas]

[QUOTE]Satori:
This thread is, as I suspected from the start, ridiculous, and amounts to little more than theists trying to assure each other of their position because they are deeply afraid of the consequences of becoming faithless.

Typical, once again.

Blakes Commentary: Let me see I think we will start out with some groundless assumptions namely Ad Hominem!

I take my leave from this thread now, there are better things for me to discuss. If you insist on me replying to any further inquiries, send me a private message and I will kindly do so. Have fun guys ;)

Blake's Commentary: Hmm...WHat he is really saying is I have no good arguments they are all groundless accusations that I am not backing up with evidence!

As I have said before, I regard this site and most of the people on it as little more than a quest to reassure themselves of a position which is not only presumptuous, but exceedingly absurd in light of our continued intellectual evolution.

Blake's COmmentary: Again no argument, this is pathetic I thought you where the super non-believer (please explain the difference between this and an Agnostic!)

Why do people do this? Pascal's wager. Faith is a trap, and belief about something which is essentially unknowable is as uninsightful as it is ridiculous. Besides, Christianity is repugant and offends many of the values and sensibilites we *should* hold dear to our hearts, with *unconditional* forgiveness and undying compassion topping the list.

Blake's Commentary: Unknowable hmmm the first Christians sure thought the resurrection was knowable, How is it repugnant by chance? Are you saying that the sinful men who have headed the Church are? I would agree. If you are saying the religion in and of itself I think you are wrong.

As Thomas Paine said:

"Belief in a cruel god makes a cruel man." And history has indicated this too many times to count, and it's still going on.

Blake's Commentary: Quotes the worst skeptic on the face of the planet, nice! Try Voltaire at least he was descent.


So as we can see Satori lays no arguments out he just throws out his assertions with out any argumentation what so ever. WHen some one like Sheepdog nails him for it he calls you ignorant and leaves the discussion. Good one!

In Christ,
Blake

[Satori]

Sheepdog:
unless that which is "unknowable" intentionally and willingly revealed Himself to humans... which leads us to this discussion in the first place...

Interesting you would mention that. This supposed god willingly revealed itself to many many many different sorts of people in many many many different ways. Are you presuming that your particular revelation is somehow more applicable than all the rest? Intriguing. On what do you base this lofty claim? Why don't you explain to a jew why you think jesus was the messiah (who was rejected by god's chosen people by the way, hehe), and while you're at it, explain to a muslim why you reject mohammad just the same way the jews rejected jesus as the real deal?

I see a lot of confusion here, 3 religions, none of them agree with each other, and you are presuming that your interpretion alone is absolutely correct and everyone else's is inherently wrong? Wow, talk about being wrapped up in the supposed validity of one's subjectivity. I don't know whether to laugh or cry, for you, and members of all the other religions who ALSO all feel they are the only ones who got it "right".

Too easy.

because we know that the universe conforms to basic physical laws. those physical laws work out in such a way that all that exists phyiscally has been caused to exist.

Swish. You are in way over your head here and revealing your supreme ignorance of such matters. Cause/effect doesn't even apply so directly on the quantum level in the here and now, and you are presuming it applies to the pre-universal state? Oh boy. Oh well, whatever you have to tell yourself to cling to your presumption is fine with me I suppose. I guess your presumptuous ignorance is all you need. Just the same, I suggest you make attempts to educate yourself in such matters, it will at least make it harder for you to cling to your presumptions.

Besides, as if this wasn't entirely obvious already, you are presuming that what somehow directly applies to the pre-universal state doesn't apply to your presumed god. This is such a tangled web of presumption and ignorance that I'm not going to bother untangling it for you, just pointing it out so that you may hopefully untangle it for yourself (which I doubt you'll make efforts to do because it's a cruth you are using to justify the rest of your presumptions).

but, the universe (all matter and energy, by definition) had a begining (i.e. Big Bang theory).

Yes that's the prevailing theory (on which you base your presumptions). Interesting...

Thus the universe is caused by some agent that exists independantly of the universe (by definition).

Another completely unsubstantiated presumption, which you obviously picked up from some ridiculous creationist nonsense.

this agent is said to be deity.'

Wow, yet another presumption. The web becomes more and more tangled.

futhermore, the Theory of Evolution is false (because evolution is based on gradual changes, but gradual changes can never account for irreducable complexity-- the principle that a certain biological function cannot exist without multiple systems wroking together...

More creationist bs, and hopefully sometime we'll get into exactly why that is, I'd be glad to do just that. Keep this in mind for the future please.

What's really funny here is that you have the audacity to make a series of wildly speculative metaphysical presumptions and then you presume that evolution is somehow an impossibility, oh boy. It would be funny if it were not so sad.

Here's the deal: you shouldn't presume *anything* is impossible (or absolute for that matter), you should only rate them on their likelyhood of occuring with regard to our best and most honest estimations/knowledge. Discounting *anything* completely, especially something as grounded and evidenced as evolution, is just ridiculous to the extreme.

this is a proven fact about cells and multi-celled organisms),

No it's not a "proven fact", any more than it's a "proven fact" that the universe was caused to exist by a "deity". You have just fallen victim to the creationist propaganda and haven't bothered reading anything which refutes this lofty claim (and I stongly suggest you do just that).

so the only way for life to exist is by some sort of design by this agent. unless you know of any other viable theories of the formation of life.

yes, in fact, I do, and it doesn't relie on anywhere NEAR as many presumption and references to supernatural feats of magic that yours does.

(of course that is only one half the argument for Christianity, as it doesn't define who this deity is).

Nor does it even give us any reasons to conclude that such a "deity" actually exists, as much as you'd love to believe otherwise.

well, if the universe was prepared in advance for us, etc., then this is not so ludicrous, unless you have biases against theism.

Prepared in advance? Another baseless presumption.

I have biases against jumping to wildly speculative and lofty presumption as you are doing, of course.

think about it, if you were a loving deity,

So you jumped from presuming that such a deity exists, to presuming it is "loving". Oh boy.

wouldn't you want to make creations so you can love them and they love you back?

No, I wouldn't necessarily. Suprised? You shouldn't be.

even if we don't grant the deity is loving, creating humans would still be more interesting than twiddling your thumbs (figuratively) for eternity.

Yet another presumption built on a series of presumptions which are all completely unsubstantiated. Interesting.

you implicitly accuse us applying our likeness to God,

Yes, your world view is so weighted in human-centricism and your own presumed lofty self-importance in the grand scheme of things that I cannot take it seriously.

when you do the exact same thing (presume that God, like you, doesn't want to be worshipped). at least be consistent.

Oh boy, it just get's whackier and whackier by the minute. I didn't presume that a "god" doesn't want to have its glutes kissed, I was merely pointing out that your presumption is JUST A PRESUMPTION. You need to pay closer attention dude, this is shameful.

you are applying your own sense of morality onto a supreme being (since all non-theists and such i know are relativists or subjectivists, this is incredibly absurd).

Yet, that is exactly what you do. You presume your god is human-like and I was just pointing out the absurdity of that, and running with YOUR presumption to reveal its futility and purely speculative nature.

unless you can give me a good reason why a deity should bow down and kiss your booty, i'll consider the above pure rubbish.

What deity? Where? And why do you think I want ANYONE, much less some presumed "deity", to "bow down and kiss" my booty. What a tangled web of conjecture we weave.

based on many absurd presumptions, like, "everything i know of about what exists is equivalent to all that exists," "if God exists he should bow humble Himself to my expectations" etc. etc. etc.

More presumptions, wow. Amazing.

basically a mass-ad hominem against theists. got anything to confirm the nonsense you are posting?

"Confirm"? You are knee deep in a tangle of presumptions and you are asking me to "confirm"? How's this for starters: everything you've said is based on your intial presumption of "there is a god who is loving and cares about me" and flows directly from that presumption. You even tried to use metaphysics and your innane notions of causation to substantiated a few of your presumptions (though most are unsubstantiated by anything you have said, which I find just absurd).


or shall i presum that you are the most presumptious of them all? :cool:

Nope, as you can see, your presumptions outnumber mine by a factor that I cannot even begin to concieve.

good luck,

Satori



:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: OH! the irony is killing me [/QUOTE]

[Satori]

Jinx72:
And so, Satori gives up without explaining any of his statements.


You felt they weren't explained already? Then, please, by all means, point them out, and I will explain for you.

Satori

[Satori]

Sheepdog:
doh! why did he flee so early? i had another fun response to his nonsense :bawl:

Another landry list of presumptions to support your wild theories, I assume.

Satori

[Satori]

Jinx72:
Here's why he left:

Umm.. sure. Whatever you have to tell yourself dude.

Which is just a fancy way of saying that he has no meaningful arguments to make and is trying to assure himself that he's right and we're wrong.

;)

I didn't say you were "wrong", just that you have no reasons to presume that you are "right". Try paying closer attention next time.

Satori

[Satori]

Blake: wrap yourself in a blanket of your own presumptions and try to convince yourself of their absolute validity. Oh wait, you have already done that, my mistake, hehe ;)

Satori

[Captain Ochre]

Satori:



You felt they weren't explained already? Then, please, by all means, point them out, and I will explain for you.

Satori

Earlier you dropped some hints that your conception of omnipotence forces the omnipotent being to be directly culpable for any and all occurrences subsequent to a creative act (let's use creating the universe as the starting point).

Did I misunderstand the Satorian view? If I am correct, would you explain the causal relationship between creator & created, addressing the apparent impossibility of an omnipotent being creating beings with free will?

I look forward to your response, if any.

[HeDied4all]

The only reason there is to be an atheist that I can see is you can take the 1st of April off because of the religious holliday!!!:thumb: :thumb:

[Satori]

I'm gone for the night. I'll do my best to answer everyone's questions when I get some more free time, hopefully tommorow afternoon.

take care,

Satori

[AgnosticAtheist]

On the outside chance that the original intent of this thread was to ask atheists why they are atheists instead of asking xtians why atheists are atheists, I offer this simple quote from Mark Twain. "Stripping away the irrational, the illogical, and the impossible, I am left with atheism. I can live with that." No reason to over-analyze. For me, it's simply the default position.

[Captain Ochre]

AgnosticAtheist:
On the outside chance that the original intent of this thread was to ask atheists why they are atheists instead of asking xtians why atheists are atheists, I offer this simple quote from Mark Twain. "Stripping away the irrational, the illogical, and the impossible, I am left with atheism. I can live with that." No reason to over-analyze. For me, it's simply the default position.

What's the source of that quotation, please?

When and if you find out, let these folks know, as I'm certain they'd be interested.
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/twain.htm

[Blake Reas]

Satori:
Blake: wrap yourself in a blanket of your own presumptions and try to convince yourself of their absolute validity. Oh wait, you have already done that, my mistake, hehe ;)

Satori

How did I know this was the best you could produce. I have an Idea for you Satori why don't you join the fundamentalist skeptics associtation they are always looking for people like you.
I would have you know I was quite agnostic at one time! It is you who believe what you believe blindly all the fluff and hot air you put in your post has not amounted to one good argument, wait you have not given any.
The only thing you ever do is say what YOU would do if you where God or that God shouldn't do this or that. I am glad you have opinions but persobally I don't care what you would do if you where God. When someone shows the ignorance of your argument all you can do is say something like "this conversation is stupid"! Why don't you give us a good argument then maybe these post won't spiral into absurdity because we have to poke through your ignorance of Christian Theology, Philosophy and History to see if there are any arguments.

In Christ,
Blake

[Ishmael]

Satori:
I also feel that atheism is impractical, and while certainly a lot more logical than theism I feel, it makes the same basic presumption about that which is essentially unknowable.


And I feel that theism is more logical than atheism. And I feel that a human person can know of God.

Here is al link to my thread on this very philosophical question:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=887

The bottom line answer is called "sensus divinatus." Your use of the word "presumption" which will likely follow this argument to the classical Christian and Philosophical view of how a person "knows" of God is a "cop-out."


That's why I am a non-theist, I simply don't have a strongly held opinion about it one way or another. The reason theism doesn't sit well with me is because it rests upon what are fundamentally wild speculations, that is:
1) a god is necessary for the universe to exist (which is a self-defeating statement, if something as magnificient [sic] as a god can exist, then why not something as comparably insignificant as a universe?)


God is absolutely necessary for the existence of anything. This is a basic philosophical argument 'a priori.' And, as you know oh wise one, Ontological arguments have traditionally used excruciatingly precise logical formulae.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=326


2) humans are one of the primary reasons for the universe existing (this follows from presumption #1 and is WAY too human-centric for me to take seriously, especially considering how late in the game we appeared, and how incredibly small and insignificant we are in the grand scheme of the universe).


Why bother arguing about all this then? We don't matter...


3) god created humans with purpose of them worshipping it (this follows from presumption #2, which itself was dependent on presumption #1, and it's absurd because something as presumbably [sic] as powerful as this presumed human-like god would be above such petty desires to have its glutes [sic] kissed by us lowly humans. That would be like us desiring to be revered a by a bunch of insects. Why would we care? Why would god actually care? The only people who want to be "worshipped" on earth are egomaniacs and I have a hard time accepting that an all powerful entity like a god could have such an ego and actually get a kick out of us lowly primates bowing to it).


I don't know which Christian religion you have been studying but a basic Reformed Catechism may give you a little insight into what Christians actually believe about God and anthropology.


etc..
In short, the athiest [sic] makes one and only one presumption: there is no god. But the theist makes presumption after presumption with no end in sight, presumptions to explain/justify the initial presumptions until we end up with presumptions as whacky as: "homosexuality is immoral", and "god will punish you unless you can convince yourself of its existance".


What presumptions do we Theists make? I have answered two of your wild assertions above with respected philosophical arguments.


Therefore, I ask, who is truly more presumptuous, the theists or the atheists? While I'm neither, I must admit, I think the answer is exceedingly evident (but it's not to any of you I'm sure).

My 2 cents..

Satori

I feel your two-cents is Mexican money.

[J. J. Ramsey]

Calvinist:


quote:Satori:
I also feel that atheism is impractical, and while certainly a lot more logical than theism I feel, it makes the same basic presumption about that which is essentially unknowable.


And I feel that theism is more logical than atheism. And I feel that a human person can know of God.

Here is al link to my thread on this very philosophical question:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=887

The bottom line answer is called "sensus divinatus." Your use of the word "presumption" which will likely follow this argument to the classical Christian and Philosophical view of how a person "knows" of God is a "cop-out."


While I would not call "sensus divinatus" a cop-out, I can never really say that have felt it very strongly, if at all.

[Ishmael]

J. J. Ramsey:


And I feel that theism is more logical than atheism. And I feel that a human person can know of God.

Here is al link to my thread on this very philosophical question:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=887

The bottom line answer is called "sensus divinatus." Your use of the word "presumption" which will likely follow this argument to the classical Christian and Philosophical view of how a person "knows" of God is a "cop-out."



While I would not call "sensus divinatus" a cop-out, I can never really say that have felt it very strongly, if at all.

Well, there are some other philosophical arguments to "knowing God" but this is the classical Calvinist view. Check out my thread on the subject.. not much there yet... could use a little more.

[Sheepdog]

HeDied4all:
The only reason there is to be an atheist that I can see is you can take the 1st of April off because of the religious holliday!!!:thumb: :thumb:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[The Laughing Man]

Captain Ochre: What's the source of that quotation, please?

Hmm... Seems to be either from a bumper sticker (didn't know they made those in Twain's time) or from the same place that Barbra Streisand's fake Shakespeare quote ("beating the drums of war" - you'd be amazed how many people still use that phrase) came from.

:rofl:

[AgnosticAtheist]

Captain Ochre:


What's the source of that quotation, please?

When and if you find out, let these folks know, as I'm certain they'd be interested.
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/twain.htm

OK. If I ever come across it again, I'll try to remember to let them know. Why?

[Captain Ochre]

AgnosticAtheist:


OK. If I ever come across it again, I'll try to remember to let them know. Why?

Because my research failed to verify that Twain had said anything of the kind. I figured that if you named your source, then I could finish the job more quickly.
The fact that I failed to find it even on sites dedicated to pulling quotable "freethinker-friendly" (my term--not quoting you) statements from certain individuals suggests to me that the quotation may be fraudulent. I'd like to get to the bottom of the matter.

Is cool?

[Jin-Roh]

On the outside chance that the original intent of this thread was to ask atheists why they are atheists instead of asking xtians why atheists are atheists, I offer this simple quote from Mark Twain. "Stripping away the irrational, the illogical, and the impossible, I am left with atheism. I can live with that." No reason to over-analyze. For me, it's simply the default position.

Hmm. Another man once said "A little philosophy inclineth a man's mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion."

Futhermore, I'll restate my origan soapbox from the other forum. Primary source this time.
Then I turned my thoughts to consider wisdom, and also madness and folly. What more can the king's successor do than what has already been done?
I saw that wisdom is better than folly, just as light is better than darkness.
The wise man has eyes in his head, while the fool walks in darkness;
but I came to realize that the same fate overtakes them both.
Then I thought in my heart,
"The fate of the fool will overtake me also. What then do I gain by being wise?"
I said in my heart, "This too is meaningless."
For the wise man, like the fool, will not be long remembered; in days to come both will be forgotten.
LIke the fool, the wise man too must die!

Ecclesiastes 2:12-16, NIV


What is the point of being wise if we still live only a temporal existance? Sure, we quoted Mark Twain now, but his body was still eaten by worms ages ago. So big deal for him.

Eternally speaking, what makes atheism/agnostism a cause worth fighting for?

[Jin-Roh]

"Stripping away the irrational, the illogical, and the impossible, I am left with atheism."

By the way I'm not sure if this statement in itself is logical. Mr. Twain says that God is impossible right? So god can't exist correct?

The problem is that its illogical to assert as fact a universal negative, because universal negatives cannot be proven.

But Sheep said that at the begining right?
:argh:

[Sheepdog]

Satori:


Interesting you would mention that. This supposed god willingly revealed itself to many many many different sorts of people in many many many different ways. Are you presuming that your particular revelation is somehow more applicable than all the rest? Intriguing. On what do you base this lofty claim? Why don't you explain to a jew why you think jesus was the messiah (who was rejected by god's chosen people by the way, hehe), and while you're at it, explain to a muslim why you reject mohammad just the same way the jews rejected jesus as the real deal?

I see a lot of confusion here, 3 religions, none of them agree with each other, and you are presuming that your interpretion alone is absolutely correct and everyone else's is inherently wrong? Wow, talk about being wrapped up in the supposed validity of one's subjectivity. I don't know whether to laugh or cry, for you, and members of all the other religions who ALSO all feel they are the only ones who got it "right".

the fact you can compare the three indicates that you haven't studied the merit of any of them (BTW, modern Judaism is not the same as OT Judaism). i have. i have looked at the evidence for and against Jesus, and for and against Mohammad. i found the evidence for Jesus satisifying, while the evidence against him and for Mo fall short. also the evidence against Jesus is nothing more than hogwash when put under scrutiny. i can't go into detail here due to post length limits, but needless to say, my presumptions are based on reasoning, logic, and evidence. your seem to be based on hot air.

Swish.

ah the sound of a skeptics argument going down the toilet :smile:

You are in way over your head here and revealing your supreme ignorance of such matters. Cause/effect doesn't even apply so directly on the quantum level in the here and now, and you are presuming it applies to the pre-universal state?

you better relearn your quantum theory. cause and effect still applies, but randomness in merely added to the mix (also read of on random causality). if you are refering to the particals that "poof" into existence, that is a myth: those particals are caused by fluctuations in the energy in a quantum vaccuum. (Barrow, J. and Tipler, F.J. (1986), The Cosmological Anthropic Principle. p. 440. Oxford: Clarendon Press.)

furthermore, there is no "pre-universe" state, as that presumes there is time before the begining of the universe. but, without matter, there is no time, by definition. since it is a common scientific assumption that known physical laws universally apply, it is right and fair to presume that causality is the same today as it was that first infinitesimal fraction of time when the universe began.

Oh boy. Oh well, whatever you have to tell yourself to cling to your presumption is fine with me I suppose. I guess your presumptuous ignorance is all you need. Just the same, I suggest you make attempts to educate yourself in such matters, it will at least make it harder for you to cling to your presumptions.

what i "tell myself" to cling to my "presumption" are establlished facts. you know, those things that people use to form theories, philosophies, design bridges with? next time you drive over a bridge consider this: what did the civil engineerstell themselves to cling to the presumption that the bridge will not fail? feel safe yet?

Besides, as if this wasn't entirely obvious already, you are presuming that what somehow directly applies to the pre-universal state doesn't apply to your presumed god. This is such a tangled web of presumption and ignorance that I'm not going to bother untangling it for you, just pointing it out so that you may hopefully untangle it for yourself (which I doubt you'll make efforts to do because it's a cruth you are using to justify the rest of your presumptions).

and they probably don't, as my presumptions are based on known facts on the physical universe. i clearly defined that it is logically necessary that the First Cause to exist independant from the universe. why isn't it fair to presume such principles may not necessarily apply to Him?

Yes that's the prevailing theory (on which you base your presumptions). Interesting...

...and unless you got a better one, why can't i use it?

Thus the universe is caused by some agent that exists independantly of the universe (by definition).

Another completely unsubstantiated presumption, which you obviously picked up from some ridiculous creationist nonsense.

you presume too much. tell me, how can something create itself? this is logically impossible (for, it requires that entity to exists and non-exist at the same time). i don't base my statement on some "creationist nonsense," but on logical necessity. if the First Cause was a part of the universe, it would have created itself in the process of creating the universe. this is logically impossible. hence, we are left with the only option, that the First Cause has some existance independant of the universe.

this agent is said to be deity.

Wow, yet another presumption. The web becomes more and more tangled.

umm, this is not a presumption but an identity. deity is, by definition, "the 'creator' of the universe."

futhermore, the Theory of Evolution is false (because evolution is based on gradual changes, but gradual changes can never account for irreducable complexity-- the principle that a certain biological function cannot exist without multiple systems wroking together...

More creationist bs, and hopefully sometime we'll get into exactly why that is, I'd be glad to do just that. Keep this in mind for the future please.

riiiight. :hrm: i'll keep it in mind if and only if there was any reason to presume that it is "creationist bs." (which it is clearly false, as IDists are not Creationists, yet they also have refuted the presumption of the Theory of Evolution. heck the Theory of Evolution is only a theory, {unknown} knows we can't have people running around believing these crazy theories as though they are fact, isnt that right, Satori? {see above})

What's really funny here is that you have the audacity to make a series of wildly speculative metaphysical presumptions and then you presume that evolution is somehow an impossibility, oh boy. It would be funny if it were not so sad.

What's really funny here is that you have the audacity to make a series of wildly speculative naturalisticl presumptions and then you presume that evolution is somehow not an impossibility, oh boy. It would be funny if it were not so sad.

Here's the deal: you shouldn't presume *anything* is impossible (or absolute for that matter), you should only rate them on their likelyhood of occuring with regard to our best and most honest estimations/knowledge. Discounting *anything* completely, especially something as grounded and evidenced as evolution, is just ridiculous to the extreme.

first off, i have rated evolution on its likelyhood, and found that it is so extraordinarily implausible, it is a practical impossibility. and, saying that the Theory of Evolution (please tell me we are talking about the same thing) is well grounded and evidenced itself shows your ignorance on the issue. it is about as well grounded as geocentrism was, and intelligent design scientists are the new Galileos, so to speak.

i know we can't go into detail here, but i encourage you to browse around this website: http://www.origins.org/

this is a proven fact about cells and multi-celled organisms),

No it's not a "proven fact", any more than it's a "proven fact" that the universe was caused to exist by a "deity". You have just fallen victim to the creationist propaganda and haven't bothered reading anything which refutes this lofty claim (and I stongly suggest you do just that).

i have. and i have read rebutals of the supposed refutations, by IDists. even evolutionists recognize, to your ignorance apparently, that the vast majority of organism systems are irreducably complex at their most basic level-- and have tried to conjecture around them.

more to come...

[Sheepdog]

continued...

so the only way for life to exist is by some sort of design by this agent. unless you know of any other viable theories of the formation of life.

yes, in fact, I do, and it doesn't relie on anywhere NEAR as many presumption and references to supernatural feats of magic that yours does.

granted that all i have said is based on well grounded information. the fact that other "theories" have less points make them more likely because? (i.e. "Elvis Presley poofed the universe into existance" has far fewer presumptions, yet is not more viable than the Big Bang because the Big Bang is grounded on real evidence)

(of course that is only one half the argument for Christianity, as it doesn't define who this deity is).

Nor does it even give us any reasons to conclude that such a "deity" actually exists, as much as you'd love to believe otherwise.

so in other words, you just plugged your ears and yelled "LALALALALALALA"?

well, if the universe was prepared in advance for us, etc., then this is not so ludicrous, unless you have biases against theism.

Prepared in advance? Another baseless presumption.

I have biases against jumping to wildly speculative and lofty presumption as you are doing, of course.

plugging your ears and shrieking "LALALALALALA" won't make it go away. you may have failed to notice, that the quote above assumes that the rest of my argument up until that time has been established. if theism is true, than "the universe was prepared in advance for us" is highly resonable. hiding behind 'is that so" kind of rhetoric, as you have doen this entire time, does not invalidate anything i have argued.

think about it, if you were a loving deity,

So you jumped from presuming that such a deity exists, to presuming it is "loving". Oh boy.

woah, you jumped the gun, big boy. i accounted for both possibilities: that the deity is loving vs. not. notice that wrod at the start of the sentence, "if"? words mean things you know! :no:

Yes, your world view is so weighted in human-centricism and your own presumed lofty self-importance in the grand scheme of things that I cannot take it seriously.

i beg your pardon? you need to relearn what Christianity teaches, because kindegarden-level Sunday School presumptions are not going to cut it! the whole teaching of Christianity is not man-centeredness, but "God-centricism." "Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has become his adviser? Who has given him something only to have him pay it back?" Romans 11:34, 35 (see also Phil. 2:3-8). Christianity is its essential form never raises man up, but instead calls man to humble himself to the Lord. you may want to go bakc into early retirment, before you embarrass yourself any further.

Oh boy, it just get's whackier and whackier by the minute. I didn't presume that a "god" doesn't want to have its glutes kissed, I was merely pointing out that your presumption is JUST A PRESUMPTION. You need to pay closer attention dude, this is shameful.

indeed it gets whackier and whackier, that you contradict yourself... from earlier:

god created humans with purpose of them worshipping it (this follows from presumption #2, which itself was dependent on presumption #1, and it's absurd because something as presumbably as powerful as this presumed human-like god would be above such petty desires to have its glutes kissed by us lowly humans.

no? but indeed, you did presume that it is absurd that an all powerful God would desire worship. you contradict yourself, clear as day, and it seems you are now trying to cover your tracks by shaming me for it. but, all you have done is undermined your position. give up yet?

you are applying your own sense of morality onto a supreme being (since all non-theists and such i know are relativists or subjectivists, this is incredibly absurd).

Yet, that is exactly what you do. You presume your god is human-like and I was just pointing out the absurdity of that, and running with YOUR presumption to reveal its futility and purely speculative nature.

so in other words, you are trying to teach me by making the same mistake you suppose i am making? riiiighhhht, whatever you say. by the way, i never presumed God was human-like. it is YOU who PRESUMED that I make such a presumption. there are some traits that are common, if granted the truth of the Bible. however, the Bible does not say that God is humanlike, but instead, " My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," declares the LORD. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts. " Isaiah 55:8, 9.

unless you can give me a good reason why a deity should bow down and kiss your booty, i'll consider the above pure rubbish.

What deity? Where? ...

it appears that landfill workers are going to have to work overtime to manage the rubbish! you need to learn to think in more than one dimension. the phrasing, "any deity" should have tipped you off. i don't want to strain your mind, but maybe, i was granting existance of a deity for the sake of the argument? oh no, that is too dynamic for some rigid minds!

And why do you think I want ANYONE, much less some presumed "deity", to "bow down and kiss" my booty. What a tangled web of conjecture we weave

have you never heard of hyperbole? no, not the geometric shape, but an intentional exageration to make a point. obviously what i said wasn't intended to be literal, i figure most people are smart enough to understand that. essentially i was responding to your rhetoric that has God conforming to your specifications, which you almost slickly suppressed it by reapplying it to me. almost.

More presumptions, wow. Amazing.

wow, more evasion. amazing. :ahem:

"Confirm"? You are knee deep in a tangle of presumptions and you are asking me to "confirm"? How's this for starters: everything you've said is based on your intial presumption of "there is a god who is loving and cares about me" and flows directly from that presumption. You even tried to use metaphysics and your innane notions of causation to substantiated a few of your presumptions (though most are unsubstantiated by anything you have said, which I find just absurd).

this quote itself is entangled in evasions by reducing my arguments to presumption base on innane{sic} notions... blah blah blah. face it you cannot respond to them without commiting circumstantial ad hominem fallacies, so you try to built a rampart out of fluff in hopes that no Christian here would be wise enough to see how easily your nonsense is demolished.


Nope, as you can see, your presumptions outnumber mine by a factor that I cannot even begin to concieve.

check your inbox, bro. you will find that i outlined each presumptuous quote i found in your posts. (i would have posted here, but you indicated you were no longer participating in this thread). need less to say there were plenty-- probably a good 95% of what you said up to my earlier response.

the problem isn't having presumptions, but claiming that you don't on the topic when indeed you do (indeed you had a LOT). i make no claim that i don't have presumptions-- no one would be producive if no one had any sort of presumptions of life.

thus, we shouldn't be concerned about the amount of presumptiveness, but whether those presumptions conform best to reality. for example, your presumptions about Christianity gives me the impression that you don't really know what you are arguing against, but are so personally offended by it, that you don't care how ridiculous you sound, so long as you convince yourself Christianity is true.

[AgnosticAtheist]

Captain Ochre:


Because my research failed to verify that Twain had said anything of the kind. I figured that if you named your source, then I could finish the job more quickly.
The fact that I failed to find it even on sites dedicated to pulling quotable "freethinker-friendly" (my term--not quoting you) statements from certain individuals suggests to me that the quotation may be fraudulent. I'd like to get to the bottom of the matter.

Is cool?

Yeah, that's fine with me. I read it several years ago and it struck me as an expression of my personal view said much more eloquently than I could ever say it so it stuck. I only identified the speaker as Twain because that is how I remember it and I didn't want to take credit for somebody else's words. However, whether it was Mark Twain or Jerry Lewis wasn't the point of my post. (Though I see others in this thread have zeroed in on the source rather than the substance, too.) As I said before, for me atheism is the default position. None of the thousands of religions in the history of mankind (at least the few I have encountered) are convincing to me. And, so, since I do not believe in the existence of gods, I am an atheist. It's not a 'world view' or a 'philosophy' to me. It's only an absence of belief in the existence of gods.

[Robyn Banks]

Sheepdog:
in order to be an atheist who is sound in rationality, i would have to be reasonably sure that no deity exists.
There seems to be a lack of atheists answering these posts, so I thought I'd note something basic and definitional. If any atheists are reading this, feel free to explain further.

'Atheism' includes two different beliefs:
1. The belief that there is no god, and
2. No belief in god.

In the former belief, called 'strong atheism', the atheist positively believes there is no god. This is supported by various proofs. The deductive proofs, like theistic deductive proofs, are either invalid or based on disputable assumptions. This leaves us with inductive proofs, which are of course never 'conclusive'.

The latter belief, called 'weak atheism' is simply an absence of belief in a god. The 'weak atheist' simply does not believe in god, but need no have reasons for this lack of belief. An example is a friend of mine who grew up in a family that did not have any religious involvement. Talking with her at age 17, she had never even contemplated the 'need' to imagine there was a god. Another type of 'weak atheist' is the person who is aware of arguments for and against theism, has not decided which viewpoint is true, so just defaults to atheism.


Sheepdog:
however, in order to be be reasonably sure that no deity exists, i would have to possess exhaustive knowledge of all that exists.
If you possessed "exhaustive knowledge of all that exists", you would not be "reasonably sure" of a theistic god. You would be absolutely sure.

Sheepdog:
if i do not, it is possible that a given deity exists, and the evidence of him/her/it/they could exist outside of what i know.
Quite true.

As all deductive arguments for and against a god are either invalid or on disputable grounds, all we are left with are inductive arguments. And all inductive arguments deal only with 'possibility' - maybe some more plausible than not - but none of them 'absolutely sure'.


Sheepdog:
obviously, no one person can have the knowledge of all that exists, and even if they did, how would they know that they their knowledge was truely exhaustive?
I think this is a safe assumption, Sheepdog.

Sheepdog:
this leads me to the conclusion that at best, the most reasonable skeptic postition is "i don't know" (basic agnosticism).
Agnosticism concerns only epistemology. It says nothing about ontology. Theism and atheism concern ontology. You are confusing the issue.

Sheepdog:
even "god is unknowable" agnosticism fails for the same reason atheism does.
Agnosticism cannot "fail for the same reason atheism does", because it deals with epistemology, not ontology.

Sheepdog:
then again, i have seen many philosophical arguments against the existance of deity, but so far every one of them had some error (typically, an assumption or suppressed premise was made a priori that needed to be established).
Correct. There is no argument yet made in favour of either atheism or theism, which is both valid and is on indisputable presuppositions.

I'd say that it can't be done, but I might be over-reaching myself. :)

Sheepdog:
i have also seen arguments against some religions (mostly directly against Christianity the variants of it). however, i have seen no skeptics atempt the task of refuting every single possible theism, nor do i think it is possible by a single person.
Can't be done. "Can't" is my exaggeration, though. Hasn't been done.


Sheepdog:
so, even if at one point i were to aposticise (which won't happen, as it would require me to ignore all that the Spirit has done for me, not to mention much of the evidence for Christ), i'd become an agnostic, and never an atheist.
You haven't really provided a reason for not becoming an atheist. All that supports the theism v atheism question are inductive arguments. It is therefore a matter of choosing which seems more reasonable. And this is only ever a logically possible position - not a sure-fire one!

Sheepdog:
the last line of defence for atheism has always been "well, which theism is right then?
Atheism has no 'last line of defence'. It is, in the absence of a positive choice for atheism or theism, the default position.

I choose theism.

Sheepdog:
as a person who mopped the floor with Mormons and J's Witnesses, i can tell you that some religions are just plain wrong.
:rofl: How unusual for a follower of one religion to think that other religions are "just plain wrong". Mark that one up as a first.

Could it be the case that all religions are "just plain wrong? A logical possibility, do you think? :)

Sheepdog:
since all religions contradict one another on at least one count (if they didn't they would be identical, and hence the same religion). no more than one can be true at any time. if this is the case, only one religion has to be shown true. it that religion is shown true, then all others are false by default.
Good logic! A bit more difficult on the practicalities, however... :rofl:

Sheepdog:
but, i am open for discusion. if anyone has anything meaningful to bring to the table, then let's do so. i've been wrong before...
Hmmmmm. All you have stated is that atheism is 'possibly wrong'. Well - there's a revelation (and it might actually be a revelation to some of the dogmatic atheists out there). But the arguments able to be made in support of atheism or theism are only ever inductive and 'possible'. This means that you either choose one (strong atheist or theist?) or you put the whole question on hold (weak atheist).

Hope that helps.

Robyn

[Ishmael]

I am no fan of Robyn, but he is a welcome break from Satori, A.K.A. Profundus Maximus. Thanks for posting Robyn... :smile:

[Captain Ochre]

AgnosticAtheist:


Yeah, that's fine with me. I read it several years ago and it struck me as an expression of my personal view said much more eloquently than I could ever say it so it stuck. I only identified the speaker as Twain because that is how I remember it and I didn't want to take credit for somebody else's words. However, whether it was Mark Twain or Jerry Lewis wasn't the point of my post.


I realize that. Attacking the idea of atheism as a default position wasn't the point of my post. :wink:


(Though I see others in this thread have zeroed in on the source rather than the substance, too.) As I said before, for me atheism is the default position. None of the thousands of religions in the history of mankind (at least the few I have encountered) are convincing to me. And, so, since I do not believe in the existence of gods, I am an atheist. It's not a 'world view' or a 'philosophy' to me. It's only an absence of belief in the existence of gods.

Quite agreed that atheism per se is not a worldview. As an atheist, you're going to have a worldview, however (usually along the lines of materialist/physicalist, existentialist, nihilist). If you can't find a worldview that is internally consistent, then you should consider a change (in my humble opinion, of course).

[Satori]

Captain Ochre:
Earlier you dropped some hints that your conception of omnipotence forces the omnipotent being to be directly culpable for any and all occurrences subsequent to a creative act (let's use creating the universe as the starting point).

Yes. But I object to your use of the word "culpable", because it implies that it is deserving of blame for a misdeed. That is based on a presumption that a misdeed is anything more than an interpretation, and I don't think that it is. Therefore, I will state it like this: god is *responsible* for all the things which occur because it *caused* all things to occur, therefore, it has no one to hold responsible for the outcome of its creation than itself.

I realize that christian theology goes to great lengths, and fails miserably, to paint god as "innocent" in all of this, as if it actually has the right to blame and enact hateful vengeance on its creation for being exactly what it created it to be.

Did I misunderstand the Satorian view?

Nope, you just skewed it a little with the word culpable.

If I am correct, would you explain the causal relationship between creator & created, addressing the apparent impossibility of an omnipotent being creating beings with free will?

Free will? Why does that matter? God presumbably gave people the free will, and he gave them the capacity, desire, and instincts, to "sin" (which is just another interpretation of course, sin is a subjective construct, something which makes this whol conversation simply ridiculous, but I'm trying my best to entertain it and take it seriously).

I'll try to break this down for you with an analogy so that you don't get so confused by your theolgy and you can see it for what it is: Suppose I went into the future and brought back technology which allowed me to assemble zygotes and grow them in a test tube into intelligent free-willed creatures, and I had *complete* knowledge of what I was doing, I implanted in these creatures all sorts of desires, instincts, and conflicting emotions and stuff, etc. Then I fashion a planet somehow and place an army of these creatures on there, under less than ideal conditions, making life difficult for them, setting them up to suffer physically and psychologically. Eventually, some of them, using their Satori-given desires for self-propagation, end up taking part in anti-social behaviour.

I'll ask you, who is to blame? The creatures? How so? Did they ASK to be born? Did they ASK to be placed on that planet with one another under less than ideal circumstances? Did they ASK to be what they ARE? No, they did not. As if that wasn't enough, I fashioned these creatures and this planet with FULL KNOWLEDGE of what could potentially result. So when thing go down the toilet, why would I blame THEM?

It's gets even more ridiculous. I demand of these creatures that the worship me and only me, and yet, even before I tell them that I exist, in a less than convincing manner mind mind (and the notion of my coming to them is even rejected by the ones who I chose to be the conduit of my knowledge (ie. the jews)), tonnes of other gods have already popped up (as creations of their minds of course) and are currently being worshipped by these creatures. I expect them to drop all these other gods, and yet I don't give them a very good reason to do that, and they are already scared out of their freaking minds of the other gods, so they aren't so willing to turn their back on them anyway. Then I play a cosmic game of hide and seek with them, and expect them to believe that I exist even though I have gone to lengths to put my own existance into question. If they use their Satori-given reason to come to the conclusion that I don't exist, do I have the ethical right to torture them for it? Absurd.

Christianity is so incredibly mindless, at its core, that I have a hard time accepting anyone could fall for this nonsense. I assume that the vast majority of you were simply fed this nonsense before you were old enough to know better and realize you were being mislead with intellectually childish (and somewhat terrorizing/damaging) rhetoric, and as a result of this, it has become a part of the topography of your consciousness, it makes sense to you and seems valid even though it is ultimately absurd and insulting to one's intellect.

I look forward to your response, if any.

I look forward to yours as well cap'n.

Satori

[Satori]

AgnosticAtheist:
On the outside chance that the original intent of this thread was to ask atheists why they are atheists instead of asking xtians why atheists are atheists, I offer this simple quote from Mark Twain. "Stripping away the irrational, the illogical, and the impossible, I am left with atheism. I can live with that." No reason to over-analyze. For me, it's simply the default position.

I agree, it IS the default position. Just as it is the default position to not presume there is a race of pink elephants living under the moon's crust.

The thing is, this means nothing to theists because for them reason and logic aren't worth anything, for them it's all about faith and the protection of their beloved egos from the wrath of their viscious and unresonable monster of a god.

Satori

[Ishmael]

Satori:


I agree, it IS the default position. Just as it is the default position to not presume there is a race of pink elephants living under the moon's crust.

The thing is, this means nothing to theists because for them reason and logic aren't worth anything, for them it's all about faith and the protection of their beloved egos from the wrath of their viscious and unresonable monster of a god.

Satori

Why don't you try and prove some of these wild statement about "theists"? You just keep making wild assertions and then follow that up with wild assertions.

1. I am a Theists and I am not trying to "protect my ego." BTW: I am fully aware of what "ego" techinically means in Fruedian thought. So please don't inflate your head again by stating something like, "All theists cannot possibly imagine what I mean by the word, 'ego.'"
2. I do not believe in God the way you have defined him (over and over and over again...).

If you would care to support you wild claims about Theism, I am listening. All you seem to do is :rant: .

[Satori]

Blake Reas:
How did I know this was the best you could produce.

You misunderstand. My opinion isn't the one in question here, yours is since you are the one making the fantastic presumption.

Besides, it is not the "best" I "could produce", I merely find this thread absurd and I felt you were wrapping yourself in your own subjectivism and presuming that your mental map is an entirely accurate representation of the territory. That is the source of your confusion.

I have an Idea for you Satori why don't you join the fundamentalist skeptics associtation they are always looking for people like you.

I have an idea for you too: why don't you wake up to the fact that your thoughts are inherently subjective and therefore skewed by your hopes, fears, desires, and limited human conceptualization?

I would have you know I was quite agnostic at one time!

Were you raised being fed this insulting nonsense? Or are you from a primarily non-thiest household/society? This is highly relavant.

It is you who believe what you believe blindly all the fluff and hot air you put in your post has not amounted to one good argument, wait you have not given any. [/UOTE]

Again, trying to turn the tide away from your own presumptuous ignorance I see. Nice try, but that's not going to fly. As I said, I'm a non-thiest, I have no solid "belief", I only have loosely held opinions which I am open to change at anytime, with good reason, unlike yourself who clings to irrational constructs probably out of selfish regard for the preservation of your beloved ego.

[QUOTE] The only thing you ever do is say what YOU would do if you where God or that God shouldn't do this or that. [/UOTE]

Wrong again. I say that you are inherently presumptuous. Perhaps you need to read a little more closely.

[QUOTE] I am glad you have opinions but persobally I don't care what you would do if you where God.

You say that like it actually matters in the context of this discussion, when in fact, you are just avoiding addressing the points I have made, and I invite you to do so.

When someone shows the ignorance of your argument all you can do is say something like "this conversation is stupid"! Why don't you give us a good argument then maybe these post won't spiral into absurdity because we have to poke through your ignorance of Christian Theology, Philosophy and History to see if there are any arguments.[/UOTE]

I have made MANY statements in this thread thus far, you have just chosen to neglect them and instead fall back on what I now consider the cop-out methodolgoy of this forum, making excuses for not addressing anything I've said. Typical. Perhaps you should team up with dawnghost and cal and work on a huge list of excuses for not replying, that why, you wouldn't have to put any effort into avoiding addressing any issues, you could just pick from the list.

[QUOTE]In Christ,
Blake

In reason,

Satori

[Captain Ochre]

Satori:


Yes. But I object to your use of the word "culpable", because it implies that it is deserving of blame for a misdeed.


Below, you suggest that there is "no one" to hold responsible for the outcome apart from the creator. If you were consistent, you would say that responsibility is irrelevant, no?


That is based on a presumption that a misdeed is anything more than an interpretation, and I don't think that it is. Therefore, I will state it like this: god is *responsible* for all the things which occur because it *caused* all things to occur, therefore, it has no one to hold responsible for the outcome of its creation than itself.


Okay, so you've stated your position in greater detail (confirming, afaics, that you actually advocate what I thought you advocated).


I realize that christian theology goes to great lengths, and fails miserably, to paint god as "innocent" in all of this, as if it actually has the right to blame and enact hateful vengeance on its creation for being exactly what it created it to be.


Well, you're off my topic, afaics. I was wondering if you would make clear why it is you don't think that an omnipotent being can create being who have free will (and would thus be responsible for their own actions, including misdeeds if misdeeds exist)



Nope, you just skewed it a little with the word culpable.


Well if I did, there's nothing wrong with that, if I am to believe you.:wink:


Free will? Why does that matter? God presumbably gave people the free will, and he gave them the capacity, desire, and instincts, to "sin" (which is just another interpretation of course, sin is a subjective construct, something which makes this whol conversation simply ridiculous, but I'm trying my best to entertain it and take it seriously).


So, you do believe that an omnipotent being could create beings with free will?
If you could unequivocally confirm or disconfirm the above, the issue would approach resolution at an accelerated rate.


I'll try to break this down for you with an analogy so that you don't get so confused by your theolgy and you can see it for what it is: Suppose I went into the future and brought back technology which allowed me to assemble zygotes and grow them in a test tube into intelligent free-willed creatures, and I had *complete* knowledge of what I was doing, I implanted in these creatures all sorts of desires, instincts, and conflicting emotions and stuff, etc. Then I fashion a planet somehow and place an army of these creatures on there, under less than ideal conditions, making life difficult for them, setting them up to suffer physically and psychologically. Eventually, some of them, using their Satori-given desires for self-propagation, end up taking part in anti-social behaviour.


Why did you stipulate less-than ideal conditions in your scenario, when the theological view conflicts with that point (see; Garden of Eden), and on what basis do you rule out a free-willed being's ability to choose its own desires?


I'll ask you, who is to blame? The creatures? How so?


Satori would be responsible for the overall scenario, and the free-willed creatures would be responsible for acts that they embarked upon based on the power of their will.
This is true by definition, more or less.


Did they ASK to be born? Did they ASK to be placed on that planet with one another under less than ideal circumstances? Did they ASK to be what they ARE? No, they did not.
As if that wasn't enough, I fashioned these creatures and this planet with FULL KNOWLEDGE of what could potentially result. So when thing go down the toilet, why would I blame THEM?


That's easy, Satori. Because if they really had free will, then they are the ones who determined, through their free choices, the outcome.
If I give a prisoner a key to his cell, and he slashes his wrist with it and dies, did I kill him?


It's gets even more ridiculous. I demand of these creatures that the worship me and only me, and yet, even before I tell them that I exist, in a less than convincing manner mind, tonnes of other gods have already popped up (as creations of their minds of course) and are currently being worshipped by these creatures.


Humph. At least YHWH was willing to make a convenant and do something on people's behalf. Satori would be a sucky god.

<increasingly off-topic delvings deleted--but I'll respond to them separately, should Satori express that wish in writing>

[Satori]

Calvinist:
Why don't you try and prove some of these wild statement about &quot;theists&quot;? You just keep making wild assertions and then follow that up with wild assertions.

Cop-out. Please point out ANY wild assertion I have made, and I will substantiate it.

1. I am a Theists and I am not trying to &quot;protect my ego.&quot;

Are you suggesting that your decision to buy into this nonsense and NOTHING to do with the supposed preservation and protection of your presumed "immoratal soul"? Please.

BTW: I am fully aware of what &quot;ego&quot; techinically means in Fruedian thought.

In *philosophy* in means sense of self, and that's how I intended it.

So please don't inflate your head again by stating something like, &quot;All theists cannot possibly imagine what I mean by the word, 'ego.'&quot;

I don't think you can, and here's why: you feel your ego is something which is living inside your head, is *not* a function of your brain but instead some sort of ethereal entity of some kind. You can't even stop and think for a second that your ego is a manifestation of your physically based consciousness, and it is intrinsically tied to and is an expression of the function of your physical brain. You think you are living inside your head, instead of realizing that you ARE your brain, and that is, by all accounts, by all anaysis, what you truly are. You feel divided from the universe which spawned you into existance, and instead of feeling connected to the universe, or your own physicality for that matter, you feel you are eternally divided, never stopping to think for a second that all of this is just an interpretation you are making.

And you were saying that you truly know what "ego" means in a philosophical context? Even if you did, I doubt you'd be able to truly grasp the largely illusory nature of your own perception. The map is NOT the territory (and I can show this).

2. I do not believe in God the way you have defined him (over and over and over again...).

Then, by all means, define "him" (and I guess, since it's so powerful and since it's actually a "him" (another presumption) it must have one hell of a set of pearls eh?) hehe. Even when you try to sound practical you let your presumptions skew your reason.

If you would care to support you wild claims about Theism, I am listening. All you seem to do is :rant: .

Again, another cop-out. If you would care to (and actually have the nads to) *challenge* my claims about theism, I would gladly support them. But you seem unable to do that, in your meta-conversational anaysis cop-out, which is characteristic of your debating style I see.

Here's something new for you to try: RESPOND to something I have said for ONCE, instead of just heckling from the sidelines. That is, if you have the guts, and I really don't think you do.

Got a problem with something I say. Address it. Poop or get off the potty, you are wasting bandwidth.

hhehe,

Satori

[Ishmael]

Satori:
Cop-out. Please point out ANY wild assertion I have made, and I will substantiate it.


Okay.. I will quote it again:


Satori:
I agree, it IS the default position. Just as it is the default position to not presume there is a race of pink elephants living under the moon's crust.

The thing is, this means nothing to theists because for them reason and logic aren't worth anything, for them it's all about faith and the protection of their beloved egos from the wrath of their viscious [sic] and unreasonable [sic] monster of a god.



Are you suggesting that your decision to buy into this nonsense and NOTHING to do with the supposed preservation and protection of your presumed &quot;immoratal soul&quot;? Please.


Yes.


In *philosophy* in means sense of self, and that's how I intended it.


My Anthropology is well thought out and rests in the Reformed and classical understanding of Christianity.


I don't think you can, and here's why: you feel your ego is something which is living inside your head, is *not* a function of your brain but instead some sort of ethereal entity of some kind. You can't even stop and think for a second that your ego is a manifestation of your physically based consciousness, and it is intrinsically tied to and is an expression of the function of your physical brain. You think you are living inside your head, instead of realizing that you ARE your brain, and that is, by all accounts, by all anaysis, [sic] what you truly are. You feel divided from the universe which spawned you into existance, [sic] and instead of feeling connected to the universe, or your own physicality for that matter, you feel you are eternally divided, never stopping to think for a second that all of this is just an interpretation you are making.


Who cares what you "think"? I reject this flat-out. You have never met, don’t know me, and can’t possibly know any of this about me and certainly are in no position to psychoanalyze the entire population of Theists.


And you were saying that you truly know what &quot;ego&quot; means in a philosophical context? Even if you did, I doubt you'd be able to truly grasp the largely illusory nature of your own perception. The map is NOT the territory (and I can show this).


Are you God? You don't even know me.

Being a soldier, I am fully aware that the map is not the territory. You are the one who seems to be claiming that the territory is the only reality. When I "know" by experience that the map is likely going to be an accurate description of the territory.


Then, by all means, define &quot;him&quot; (and I guess, since it's so powerful and since it's actually a &quot;him&quot; (another presumption) it must have one hell of a set of pearls eh?) hehe. Even when you try to sound practical you let your presumptions skew your reason.


"Him" is the traditional way to speak of God and not intended to describe Him as male. God is neither male nor female.


Again, another cop-out. If you would care to (and actually have the nads to) *challenge* my claims about theism, I would gladly support them. But you seem unable to do that, in your meta-conversational anaysis [sic] cop-out, which is characteristic of your debating style I see.


You certainly like the word "cop-out." What would it take to not be a "cop-out"?

I refer to your claims which originally prompted this post.
Scroll above or note here again:


Satori:
I agree, it IS the default position. Just as it is the default position to not presume there is a race of pink elephants living under the moon's crust.

The thing is, this means nothing to theists because for them reason and logic aren't worth anything, for them it's all about faith and the protection of their beloved egos from the wrath of their viscious [sic] and unreasonable [sic] monster of a god.


First of all, Atheism is not the default position. All of mankind is born with “sensus dinvinitas.” …..I feel this is true and can support it with raw logic if you don’t agree because your ego is so clouded by your presumptions about reality…. LOL

I reject flat-out that Theist’s view "reason and logic" as worthless. This is completely false. The onus is upon you to substantiate this wild and wide sweeping claim about Theism.


Here's something new for you to try: RESPOND to something I have said for ONCE, instead of just heckling from the sidelines. That is, if you have the guts, and I really don't think you do.

Got a problem with something I say. Address it. Poop or get off the potty, you are wasting bandwidth.

hhehe,

Satori

I have "pooped" on you over and over again. I seriously am beginning to think you have a mental disorder.

[Socrates]

Satori to Calvinist:
I don't think you can, and here's why: you feel your ego is something which is living inside your head, is *not* a function of your brain but instead some sort of ethereal entity of some kind. You can't even stop and think for a second that your ego is a manifestation of your physically based consciousness, and it is intrinsically tied to and is an expression of the function of your physical brain. You think you are living inside your head, instead of realizing that you ARE your brain, and that is, by all accounts, by all anaysis, what you truly are. You feel divided from the universe which spawned you into existance, and instead of feeling connected to the universe, or your own physicality for that matter, you feel you are eternally divided, never stopping to think for a second that all of this is just an interpretation you are making. If your mind is just brain chemistry, on what grounds do you claim that the chemistry in your brain is right and that in Calvinist's brain is wrong? After all, the laws of chemistry apply in both brains. In fact, why should you even trust that your thoughts are true? If your brain is the result of an accident, why should that particular accident be able to give a correct account of itself and all other "accidents"?

[Satori]

Captain Ochre:
Below, you suggest that there is &quot;no one&quot; to hold responsible for the outcome apart from the creator. If you were consistent, you would say that responsibility is irrelevant, no?

I'm assuming the tenants fo your theology here, of course. I happen to think it's all just too ridiculous to take seriously.

I was wondering if you would make clear why it is you don't think that an omnipotent being can create being who have free will (and would thus be responsible for their own actions, including misdeeds if misdeeds exist)

Because the creator set them up for their misdeeds, implanted in them, by design, the capacity and desire for misdeeds, and allowed (and this is truly funny) "satan" to roam around and "tempt" and confuse them. They didn't ask to be put in such a situation, they didn't ask to be born, they didn't ask for ANY of it, and since this presumed god created all of this with full knowledge of what could potentially result, it has no one to hold responsible but itself.

I feel that you, like christianity, is trying to weasel out of god's direct hand in the results of its creation, and I think that's just absurd. Imagine, you have created something, and then all in a huff because the creation you created wasn't "good enough". Ridiculous. And you wonder why it's an insult to one's intellect to actually take this seriously?

So, you do believe that an omnipotent being could create beings with free will?

Yes, just bear in mind that this is only a presumption, it's not absolutely valid, as I feel you are suggesting.

If you could unequivocally confirm or disconfirm the above, the issue would approach resolution at an accelerated rate.

Just as the Satori character in my story created creatures with free will.

Why did you stipulate less-than ideal conditions in your scenario,

Because that's what this world IS, of course.

when the theological view conflicts with that point (see; Garden of Eden),

I wasn't giving an analogy for the garden of eden, it was for THIS world, the one we know exists, not some silly myth.

But, just the same, I could do it for eden as well. God created adam and eve with the capacity and desire to sin. It even gave them the oppotunity to sin. It even allowed satan to roam around and tempt them. What did this god expect? They are only human, they aren't "perfect" because this god didn't MAKE them to be perfect. Absurd. This god of yours did all of with full knowledge of what could result. If it didn't *want* that result then it could've changed the conditions ever so slightly, but it chose not to, it set it all up and allowed it to happen, and then blamed adam and eve for the inperfections that IT instilled in them. Nice god eh? Adam and eve were set up for failure by means of their god-given desires/imperfections/temptations, and besides, the whole premise is just ridiculous and intellectually childish to begin with, as if some all-powerful god thing would actually get its jollies from such ridiculous head games.

and on what basis do you rule out a free-willed being's ability to choose its own desires?

The free will and desires were god-given, and given with full knowledge of what would potentially result. That's why god isn't so innocent.

Satori would be responsible for the overall scenario, and the free-willed creatures would be responsible for acts that they embarked upon based on the power of their will.

I would take responsibilty for their actions as well, since I GAVE them the capacity and desire for such action. They didn't ask to be born like that, imperfect and tempted by evil, I set them up for potential failure by the means of where I placed them and the characteristic I implanted into them.

Try as you will to get around that, you cannot. A creator that assumes NO responsiblity for the outcome of its creation for being *exactly* as it created it to be is a creator that is avoiding responsibilty for its own actions. And then this sadistic freak of a god of yours actually thinks it has the right to blame and torture these poor creatures for simply being what they were made to be? Ridiculous, and perverse.

That's easy, Satori. Because if they really had free will, then they are the ones who determined, through their free choices, the outcome.

Who created them? Who gave them their free will? Who gave them the capacity and desire for "sin". Who unleashed satan into the world to tempt and confuse them? Who allowed hundreds of other false religions to pop up to mislead them? Who is TRULY responsible for the outcome of its creation?

If I give a prisoner a key to his cell, and he slashes his wrist with it and dies, did I kill him?

I'll restate this as a fair analogy: You biologically create a prisoner with suicidal tendencies, you gave him those tendencies, he didn't ask for them. You have full knowledge of what could potentially result if you give him a means of suicide. So you go ahead and give him a sharp object and he kills himself. Are you saying that you aren't the least bit responsible? Please.

Humph. At least YHWH was willing to make a convenant and do something on people's behalf. Satori would be a sucky god.

I thought I implied that in my story, it was offered as an exact analogy of christianity and this world.

YHWH wasn't the only god who made a convenant, and it didn't even do a very good job of it. Even the chose people, Jesus' OWN people, didn't believe Jesus was the messiah. Why? Because they had no reason to.

I get the feeling that you are lacking in knowledge of biblical history from the jewish perspective. I get the feeling you think Jesus was the creator of christianity, when in fact, the Jews attribute this honour to Paul, who didn't even know Jesus, who had these supposed "visions" and birthed christianity.

You probably also don't know that the chruch of Jesus, of which James (Jesus' brother) was a part, persisted long after Jesus' disgusting torture/exectution, and was later triumphed over by Paul's whacky version of the story, the one you are adhering to.

You should really learn about how the bible was written. I took a course on this in university, trust me, there's lots you don't realize, cuz if you did, you wouldn't be so willing to cling to this nonsense and believe it's actually valid.

&lt;increasingly off-topic delvings deleted--but I'll respond to them separately, should Satori express that wish in writing&gt;

As long as you address the points I make I will reply in kind. Unlike certain people here.

Satori

[Ishmael]

Satori:
You should really learn about how the bible was written. I took a course on this in university, trust me, there's lots you don't realize, cuz if you did, you wouldn't be so willing to cling to this nonsense and believe it's actually valid.


He took "a" course at University and knows all about how the Bible was written....
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Satori]

Socrates:
If your mind is just brain chemistry,

And by all accounts, it is, of course. The mind cannot be separated from the physical brain.

on what grounds do you claim that the chemistry in your brain is right and that in Calvinist's brain is wrong?

Again, getting caught up in notions of absolutes I see.

I don't claim that either view is right or wrong, only that one view is more logical and more evidenced than the other, of course.

After all, the laws of chemistry apply in both brains. In fact, why should you even trust that your thoughts are true?

I don't. That's your error, not mine. I don't cling to my subjectivism and assume it's absolutely valid. I don't mistake the map for the terrority. I don't even use egocentric motivations of self-preservation to come to my loosely held opinions. I merely look out at the world and take everything into account, not just one theory, not just one religion, and then I decide on what I feel is most valid and most weighted.

If your brain is the result of an accident,

Your inherent subjectivism of mistaking the map for the territory again reveals itself. I don't think my brain is the result of an "accident". "Accident" is a human-made concept, a feature of the map, not the territory. As I said, I'm a non-theist, I hold no such "beliefs". I simply see it, as do most intelligent people who aren't misguided with theistic motivations, that I am an expression of this reality, and as such, I am connected to it, a part of it. This is the root of my mysticism and my spirituality, and if you think that believing in a egocentric god gives you spirtual insight and fulfillness, you should trying feeling ONE with reality (or god, if you prefer) and one with everything else in the universe, including your fellow humans. That is also the route my undying love and compassion for all living things, including you Socrates, I draw not such lines of absolute distinction between them and myself, just as I draw no lines between my ego and my physical brain. It's all and expression of a single underlying reality, it's all the same engergy, and I think that's extremely evident, dispite the differences we perceive.

why should that particular accident be able to give a correct account of itself and all other &quot;accidents&quot;?

It shouldn't be able to, of course, which is why I don't "believe" anything, I merely see some things as more likely to be valid than others.

Why is this such a hard concept for theists to grasp? Could it be that they are self-absorbed and they think the whole point of their existance is to convince themselves that certain theories are absolutely valid and all others are absolutely invalid? Seem so to me.

But anyway, your statement above clearly demonstrates the self-defeating and self-deluding nature of "faith" quite nicely.

I'll say this again, and I can back it up if you like:

The map is NOT the territory.

Satori

[Robyn Banks]

Calvinist:
I am no fan of Robyn, but he is a welcome break from Satori, A.K.A. Profundus Maximus. Thanks for posting Robyn... :smile:
Ta. :smile:

[Robyn Banks]

AgnosticAtheist:
On the outside chance that the original intent of this thread was to ask atheists why they are atheists instead of asking xtians why atheists are atheists, I offer this simple quote from Mark Twain. "Stripping away the irrational, the illogical, and the impossible, I am left with atheism. I can live with that." No reason to over-analyze. For me, it's simply the default position.
Satori:
I agree, it IS the default position. Just as it is the default position to not presume there is a race of pink elephants living under the moon's crust.
'Mark Twain' is correct in saying that atheism is the "default position". However, this default position is 'weak atheism' - no belief in God. It is not the belief that there is no God. The positive belief that there is a God (theism) and the positive belief that there is no God (atheism) are positive beliefs in a certain ontology (or lack of it).

Atheism as a whole is not the 'default position'.

Hope that helps.

Robyn

[Captain Ochre]

Satori:


I'm assuming the tenants fo your theology here, of course. I happen to think it's all just too ridiculous to take seriously.


Since when is it a teaching of (Christian) theology that nobody is responsible or that humans are not responsible for their actions? Aren't you mixing your own opinion in with the opinion of (Christian) theology?
You're not addressing the issue, btw.


Because the creator set them up for their misdeeds, implanted in them, by design, the capacity and desire for misdeeds, and allowed (and this is truly funny) &quot;satan&quot; to roam around and &quot;tempt&quot; and confuse them.


If the above is anything greater than the claim that God gave mankind freedom to choose among a set of options, then please clarify the distinction.

Yes, God gave mankind (and maybe others) free will. Is that wrong? Does it make God responsible (you can have your choice of causally or morally--or both) for particular actions which result from the exercise of that will?


They didn't ask to be put in such a situation, they didn't ask to be born, they didn't ask for ANY of it, and since this presumed god created all of this with full knowledge of what could potentially result, it has no one to hold responsible but itself.


No one to hold responsible for what? You've claimed to be working from a theological perspective--or trying to, anyway. Assuming that there is such a thing as sin, and we'll define that under the divine command theory if you like, why aren't free-willed creatures responsible for their sins?


I feel that you, like christianity, is trying to weasel out of god's direct hand in the results of its creation, and I think that's just absurd.


Opinion noted. Do you have any logical support for your opinion? The very definition of free will makes the creature responsible for its actions. Don't you agree? So, if this is true (not trying to railroad you--I'm not certain that you won't object to the preceding point), then don't you have to show that God's nature won't permit Him to create free-willed beings?


Imagine, you have created something, and then all in a huff because the creation you created wasn't &quot;good enough&quot;. Ridiculous.


Yes, your straw man is ridiculous.
The creation was pronounced good: That's the creatures themselves, along with their capacity for free will. The exercise of that free will may have results that are not good (via the definition of moral freedom).
The creation is good, and the actions of the created are not always good, and the actions of the creation resulted in the corruption of the creation, leaving it in need of repair to re-achieve "good" status.
This is fairly basic Christian theology, and you seem to have the habit of misrepresenting it through careless analogies at nearly every turn.


And you wonder why it's an insult to one's intellect to actually take this seriously?


No. Assuming somebody had the same misconceptions regarding Christian theology that you appear to hold, I don't think that it would be surprising that you would rebel against it intellectually.


Yes, just bear in mind that this is only a presumption, it's not absolutely valid, as I feel you are suggesting.

Just as the Satori character in my story created creatures with free will.


Okay, thanks. You haven't provided any reason apart from personal incredulity as to why the creatures shouldn't be accountable for those of their actions which reflect exercise of free will.
You were asked to describe the causal relationship between the created and the creator (particularly with regard to the actions of the created). If you grant that free-willed beings are the efficient cause of certain of their own actions, then on what grounds would you find responsibility for those actions resting on the being who gave them free will?

(I had asked Satori why the illustration which included Satori creating a "less than perfect" creation populated with free-willed beings, when Christian theology starts with a perfect creation corrupted by the creatures).


Because that's what this world IS, of course.
I wasn't giving an analogy for the garden of eden, it was for THIS world, the one we know exists, not some silly myth.


I don't see how calling the GoE "some silly myth" absolves you of the responsibility of presenting the Christian theological position accurately via analogy, unfortunately. Maybe you could explain that to me in a future post. Instead of getting distracted by question of whether right and wrong are coherent concepts, just focus on the fact that misrepesenting the position of your opponent is the foundation for the straw man fallacy.


But, just the same, I could do it for eden as well. God created adam and eve with the capacity and desire to sin.


Sorry, Satori, but you haven't justified your notion that free-willed beings don't determine their own desires. Whatever follows from that point of your argument hinges on this portion that you haven't justified.
I'll agree to this: God created A&E (not Arts and Entertainment) with the capacity to desire to sin and the capacity to sin.


It even gave them the oppotunity to sin.


That's not news. Giving A&E free will is the same as free *moral* will which is implicitly gives the opportunity to sin--unless A&E weren't actually free. Restating obvious premisses of the argument as if they mean something more than they do won't further your argument--at least not logically (maybe rhetorically, if the audience buys it!).
Otherwise, God would be saying: "You can choose between good and evil; only I won't let you choose evil."
Tell me all about silliness.


It even allowed satan to roam around and tempt them. What did this god expect? They are only human, they aren't &quot;perfect&quot; because this god didn't MAKE them to be perfect.


What's imperfect about the capacity to choose evil? Would we be more perfect if we weren't free? Explain.


Absurd. This god of yours did all of with full knowledge of what could result. If it didn't *want* that result then it could've changed the conditions ever so slightly, but it chose not to, it set it all up and allowed it to happen, and then blamed adam and eve for the inperfections that IT instilled in them.


Uh, pardon my ignorance, but assuming that granting free will was part of the plan, what does "chang[ing] the conditions ever so slightly" accomplish?


The free will and desires were god-given, and given with full knowledge of what would potentially result. That's why god isn't so innocent.


I left out some other needless repetitions of things that you typed in earlier posts (I assure you that I read & understood them the first time).
You've got hidden assumptions in your argument. The main one that you reiterate above is that the sin acts of Adam and Eve were somehow caused by God, which would make God culpable for sin--unless you just mean that God is responsible for the entire scenario, which doesn't explain why God is responsible for the individual free actions of the creatures.
So far, iow, you've got an argument by assertion, which is logically irrelevant.


I would take responsibilty for their actions as well, since I GAVE them the capacity and desire for such action.


Really? How, exactly, would you take responsibility for their actions? Say that you caused the actions in the first place? Wouldn't that make you a liar (they didn't have free will in the first place if you caused the action. If you didn't cause the action, then you're not responsible for it)?


They didn't ask to be born like that, imperfect and tempted by evil, I set them up for potential failure by the means of where I placed them and the characteristic I implanted into them.


What characteristic did you implant in them, apart from the ability to choose their own courses of action?
You made it so that they could enjoy doing the wrong thing? Is that it? Of course! God should have made the exercise of free will for evil an unpleasant thing: "I command thee not to walk through this sandspur patch in your bare feet." Oops--suddenly the creation isn't perfect, since God created sandspurs.
Satori, your objections are ill-considered and betray either an ignorance of Christian theology or a marvelous ability to distort the teachings of Christian theology.


Try as you will to get around that, you cannot.


Rather, you'll have a deuce of a time getting around the fact that you're trying to illicitly insinuate the implantation of a desire for sin in the form of a coercion on the will.
The coerced will is not free. Check dictionary-dot-com. Your objection is incoherent. Essentially you are arguing that free willed beings aren't responsible for their actions because they aren't free-willed beings.
The mere fact that doing evil has some enjoyable consequences does not mean that we are not free to refrain from evil.
I'm coming up against the character limit. I expect that you mostly repeated stuff that you've already stated, below, but I'll deal with it at a later time, none-the-less.

[Satori]

Calvinist:
He took &quot;a&quot; course at University and knows all about how the Bible was written....
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Let me guess, you didn't, and you don't, and you probably also feel that the childish use of condescending smilies doesn't make you look silly. Just a hunch.

You owe to yourself to investigate alternate points of view, and one you should consider is the jewish version of these very same events, Jesus' own people, his own brother. But instead you simply disregard everything that doesn't agree with your limited point of view, and that is source of you blindness and confusion about such matters.

It never ceases to amuse me that most members of a given religion all presume they are absolutley correct and that everyone else is wrong. Wow, talk about egocentric.

Satori

[Satori]

Robyn Banks:
'Mark Twain' is correct in saying that atheism is the &quot;default position&quot;. However, this default position is 'weak atheism' - no belief in God. It is not the belief that there is no God. The positive belief that there is a God (theism) and the positive belief that there is no God (atheism) are positive beliefs in a certain ontology (or lack of it).

Atheism as a whole is not the 'default position'.

Hope that helps.

Robyn

I couldn't agree more. That's why I'm a non-theist, I do not cling to any constructs because I recognize the inherent limitations of human interpretation (and I can show this).

Satori

[J. J. Ramsey]

Satori:
It never ceases to amuse me that most members of a given religion all presume they are absolutley correct and that everyone else is wrong. Wow, talk about egocentric.


Let's see. Someone believes a position, that if true, makes other related positions false. This makes one egocentric? Let's try this out:

Satori in a parallel universe:
It never ceases to amuse me that most people who believe Brussels is the capital of Belgium all presume they are absolutley correct and that everyone else is wrong. Wow, talk about egocentric.


Funny, the above statement looks absolutely foolish.

[Satori]

Captain Ochre:
Since when is it a teaching of (Christian) theology that nobody is responsible or that humans are not responsible for their actions? Aren't you mixing your own opinion in with the opinion of (Christian) theology?
You're not addressing the issue, btw.

Surely you don't think I'm so lacking in intellect that I do not see what you are trying to accomplish here.

It is you who is not addressing the issue.

I said that a creator is responsible for the outcome of its creation because the creations is exactly how it intended it to be. I didn't say that humans aren't responsible, I said that god is also responsible, and I feel, god is more responsible than the humans it is blaming for the imperfections it intentionally instilled in them by design. God is not an innocent bystander, god deserves some/most of the responsibility. Your attempts to show otherwise have been unsuccessful because what I'm saying is so terribly obvious.

If the above is anything greater than the claim that God gave mankind freedom to choose among a set of options, then please clarify the distinction.

God set all the variables with full knowledge of what could potentially result. I feel you are trying to skew my point.

Yes, God gave mankind (and maybe others) free will. Is that wrong?

Is that wrong? What does that have do with this discussion? What does my or your subjectivism relating to the rightness or wrongness of the creative act have to do with anything? We are talking about who is responsible here. Again, trying to skew.

Does it make God responsible (you can have your choice of causally or morally--or both) for particular actions which result from the exercise of that will?

Yes, because god GAVE them the capacity to make bad choices, the instincts, the desires, the confusion, the fear, all of it. All the "imperfections" which lead to sin were placed there by god.

No one to hold responsible for what?

For what results from the creation. God assumes no responsibility for its OWN creation and feels it has the moral right to torture people for eternitiy for being merely what it CREATED them to be. I'm interested to see how you are going to try to skew that to avoid addressing it directly.

You've claimed to be working from a theological perspective--or trying to, anyway. Assuming that there is such a thing as sin, [and I (satori) don't have any reason to make that assumption] and we'll define that under the divine command theory if you like, why aren't free-willed creatures responsible for their sins?

They are. Just as god is as well because IT created THEM to be who they are.

Opinion noted. Do you have any logical support for your opinion? The very definition of free will makes the creature responsible for its actions. Don't you agree?

Yes, but it doesn't lend itself to god weaseling out of its responsibility as well. All of this seems just absurd to me, it's just a bunch of intellectually childish conjecture.

So, if this is true (not trying to railroad you--I'm not certain that you won't object to the preceding point), then don't you have to show that God's nature won't permit Him to create free-willed beings?

No, you are skewing once again. God created people to be exactly who they are, and set the conditions leading them to "sin". Therefore, god is not without responsibility for what results.

Yes, your straw man is ridiculous.

Your attempt to skew and conquer is weak.

The creation was pronounced good: That's the creatures themselves, along with their capacity for free will.

Nosense. In them was the capacity for evil, by design, the creation was not all "good", not by a long shot, not even to mention our good mythical buddy "satan" roaming around confusing these poor people, something else god "willed" by allowing it to happen.

God is not without responsibility in the result of its creation.

The exercise of that free will may have results that are not good (via the definition of moral freedom).

Precisely. Also, there are many things in humans which aren't "good" that were put there by "god". Rampant desires, fear, hate, violence, etc. etc. All aspects of free will as well, all not "good". God created people to be imperfect and then blames them for their imperfections? Absurd.

The creation is good, and the actions of the created are not always good, and the actions of the creation resulted in the corruption of the creation, leaving it in need of repair to re-achieve &quot;good&quot; status.

Oh yes, god is good, but he created humans with tendencies to be bad. God is totally innocent. Let's damn them all for their god-given imperfections! Ridiculous.

This is fairly basic Christian theology, and you seem to have the habit of misrepresenting it through careless analogies at nearly every turn.

You are trying weasel again, trying to show how god is not responsible for the results of its own creative act, even though god gave these poor people their imperfections and desire for sin, and so far you have not done that in any regard. I invite you to try again.

No. Assuming somebody had the same misconceptions regarding Christian theology that you appear to hold, I don't think that it would be surprising that you would rebel against it intellectually.

Many people who aren't all wrapped up and confused by the insulting notions of god's innocence, "sin", and absolutism, find the whole thing intellectually insulting, and they are simply too reasonable, too intelligent, and in some cases, too moral to buy into it (according to your view, as a result of their god-given intellect). It would seem that "god" has set us up to reject its own story by creating humans with logical minds and expecting us to believe such half-baked assertions which don't hold up under the least bit of scrutiny.

Okay, thanks. You haven't provided any reason apart from personal incredulity as to why the creatures shouldn't be accountable for those of their actions which reflect exercise of free will.

Never said they weren't. What I said is that they aren't solely responsible. The creator is responsible for its creation since the creation is *exactly* how it *intended* it to be, of course, and all the rhetoric you can think of will not get around this basic point.

You were asked to describe the causal relationship between the created and the creator (particularly with regard to the actions of the created). If you grant that free-willed beings are the efficient cause of certain of their own actions, then on what grounds would you find responsibility for those actions resting on the being who gave them free will?

God didn't just give them free will, it gave them the desire for sin, strong hormones and instincts which lead to sin, intellectual and mental issues which lead to sin, and even unleashed satan on them, as well as hundreds of other fictional gods, to confuse them into sin. And you are saying god is in no way responsible? Please, too easy.

(I had asked Satori why the illustration which included Satori creating a &quot;less than perfect&quot; creation populated with free-willed beings, when Christian theology starts with a perfect creation corrupted by the creatures).

Which is why I gave you another analogy for the garden of eden.

I don't see how calling the GoE &quot;some silly myth&quot; absolves you of the responsibility of presenting the Christian theological position accurately via analogy, unfortunately.

Skew and conquer yet again I see. Your statement is in error. I gave you the statement you asked for with regard to GoE, and I wasn't "suggesting" it "absolves" me of the responsibility of presenting the position as whatever.. blah blah.

Maybe you could explain that to me in a future post.

I already did.

Instead of getting distracted by question of whether right and wrong are coherent concepts, just focus on the fact that misrepesenting the position of your opponent is the foundation for the straw man fallacy.

Funny you would say that, considering you just did that yourself when you said: "I don't see how calling the GoE &quot;some silly myth&quot; absolves you of the responsibility of presenting the Christian theological position accurately via analogy, unfortunately."

If you think I have misrepresented anything you have said, you are free to correct me on it, and if you are right, I will apologize, correct my mistake, and move on.

continued...

[Captain Ochre]

Satori:


Surely you don't think I'm so lacking in intellect that I do not see what you are trying to accomplish here.


Good, then you see that I am trying to get you to be so specific about God's supposed responsibility for creation that equivocation on your part will be impossible.
Cooperate, won't you?


It is you who is not addressing the issue.

I said that a creator is responsible for the outcome of its creation because the creations is exactly how it intended it to be.


Exactly, leaving tremendous room for equivocation. Did God create the initial state of free will? Sure--you have my full agreement, there. Did God create the decisions of free-willed beings, which cause (along with the decisions of others, including God) the eventual outcome of the creation? No, afaics.
Do you agree that free-willed beings are responsible for their own actions (though not responsible for either their own existence nor for their ability to choose per se)? Answer unequivocally.


I didn't say that humans aren't responsible, I said that god is also responsible, and I feel, god is more responsible than the humans it is blaming for the imperfections it intentionally instilled in them by design.


What imperfection was instilled by design? Be specific. Is the perception that sin could be fun a flaw (even if it's true for the short term)? Is desire to have fun wrong, per se? Where's the imperfection, Satori?


God is not an innocent bystander, god deserves some/most of the responsibility.


Most of the responsibility for what? My free-will decisions?


Your attempts to show otherwise have been unsuccessful because what I'm saying is so terribly obvious.


What you're saying is terribly ambiguous, rather.
Just to make sure, let's try this again:
Assuming that God can create free-willed beings, will those beings be responsible for their own decisions?


God set all the variables with full knowledge of what could potentially result. I feel you are trying to skew my point.


Yes, I'd love to skew your point out of the realm of ambiguity and into the realm of clarity.
Your assistance would be greatly appreciated.


Is that wrong? What does that have do with this discussion?


Your answer, had you elected to give one, might clarify your fuzzy position.


What does my or your subjectivism relating to the rightness or wrongness of the creative act have to do with anything? We are talking about who is responsible here. Again, trying to skew.


Uh, yeah, I'm trying to skew what you say by trying to get you to make your own statements (by asking questions).
That makes sense.


Yes, because god GAVE them the capacity to make bad choices, the instincts, the desires, the confusion, the fear, all of it. All the &quot;imperfections&quot; which lead to sin were placed there by god.


Instincts? What do instincts have to do with free will?
Desires? If I have a desire to do X, does that mean that I must do X?
You'll get around to justifying your assumption that we don't choose our own desires, I trust.


For what results from the creation. God assumes no responsibility for its OWN creation and feels it has the moral right to torture people for eternitiy for being merely what it CREATED them to be. I'm interested to see how you are going to try to skew that to avoid addressing it directly.


Did you just learn the word "skew" or what?
Torturing people for eternity would appear to be a manifestation of taking responsibility for one's own creation, afaics--unless you're suggesting contrary to logic that God is responsible for the free-willed decisions of his creatures.

More later.

[Satori]

Sorry, Satori, but you haven't justified your notion that free-willed beings don't determine their own desires.

Straw man again. I never said any such thing, and at this point I'm beginning to seriously question your ability to comprehend or your honesty.

Skew and conquer will not work with me.

Whatever follows from that point of your argument hinges on this portion that you haven't justified.

It doesn't have to because I haven't make that statement which you are putting into my mouth. I only said that their desires were god-given, and therefore god deserves some of the responsiblity (and I think most).

I'll agree to this: God created A&amp;E (not Arts and Entertainment) with the capacity to desire to sin and the capacity to sin.

Yep. And it did so in full knowledge of what could potentially result.

If I had a child, would I give them an intense craving for chocolate, place them in a room with a box of chocolates, and them get pissed at them for eating a few and assume no responsibility on my part whatsoever? Ridiculous.

That's not news. Giving A&amp;E free will is the same as free *moral* will which is implicitly gives the opportunity to sin--unless A&amp;E weren't actually free. Restating obvious premisses of the argument as if they mean something more than they do won't further your argument--at least not logically (maybe rhetorically, if the audience buys it!).
Otherwise, God would be saying: &quot;You can choose between good and evil; only I won't let you choose evil.&quot;
Tell me all about silliness.

Here's silliness for you. God intentionally creates people with the instincts and desire for sin, in some cases, like sex, the instinct is so strong that it impairs their better judgement and makes them virtually crazed, and then god blames them for giving into their god-given desires. That's silly. And that's why christian theology is so very mindless.

What's imperfect about the capacity to choose evil? Would we be more perfect if we weren't free? Explain.

Irrelavant rhetorical nonsense intended to get away from the single issue: god's responsibility for its creation being *exactly* as it intended it to be.

I'll bite though. Yes, what IS imperfect about the capacity to choose evil? After all, god CREATED evil, god gave people the desire to choose evil, god even gave them hormones and intense desires to make that choice, god even unleash satan on them, as well as allowed hundreds of other religions to pop up and confuse them. So what's so "imperfect" about that choice? And while you are explaining that, don't forget to mention how god is in no way responsible for the outcome of its creation, even though it's exactly the way god intended it to be.

Uh, pardon my ignorance, but assuming that granting free will was part of the plan, what does &quot;chang[ing] the conditions ever so slightly&quot; accomplish?

Whatever, I don't care, I retract whatever statement I made which lead you to that conclusion (to lazy and uninterested to see what it was). It doesn't matter. Address the issue directly. How is god in no way responsible? The creation is exactly as it intended it to be.

I left out some other needless repetitions of things that you typed in earlier posts (I assure you that I read &amp; understood them the first time).

You seem to be avoiding them, or skewing and conquering, and that won't fly.

You've got hidden assumptions in your argument.

You make that statement as if you aren't guilty of the same thing, as if you whole theory isn't built on a series of ridiculous and completely unsubstantiated presumptions. Do you think I even take this nonsense seriously? I truly cannot, sorry.

The main one that you reiterate above is that the sin acts of Adam and Eve were somehow caused by God, which would make God culpable for sin--unless you just mean that God is responsible for the entire scenario, which doesn't explain why God is responsible for the individual free actions of the creatures.

Trying to get around it again I see. Yes, the rhetoric you are used to probably works for you, but not for the rest of us. God IS responsible for the entire scenario, and god is responsible for the free actions of the creatures simply because of the wills and desires for sin which it implanted into them. Try as you will to get around this, you will find that you cannot god. God is not an innocent bystander, god is responsible for the outcome of a creation which is exactly how it intended it to be.

So far, iow, you've got an argument by assertion, which is logically irrelevant.

So far you haven't shown that god is absolutely innocent by setting up people for failure and then damning them for giving into their god-given temptations or coming to the conclusion that christianity a pile of intellectually insulting rhetoric created to politically dominate and rule people via their own fears and desires. Also, as if that was absurd enough, everything you've said so far, all the theology, is all unsubstantiated, and we have no reason to presume it's actually true, much less intellectually valid.

Really? How, exactly, would you take responsibility for their actions?

By not torturing them for eternity and forgiving them no matter what for starters (not that I would feel the need to forgive for being exactly who and what I created them to be).

Say that you caused the actions in the first place? Wouldn't that make you a liar (they didn't have free will in the first place if you caused the action. If you didn't cause the action, then you're not responsible for it)?

More silly rhetoric to get around the real issue. I created them, I gave them those desires, I gave them hormones and unstable minds, I created them all unequally, I put them in those conditions, I tempted them, I allowed them to be confused by other religions, satan, and their own reason. I didn't *cause* their actions directly, I caused them indirectly (and I set the conditions to make it all happen). For example:

If you left a loaded gun on your doorstep in a neighborhood full of little boys who LOVE guns and a child finds the gun and kills himself, are you not responsible? According to the law, you would be, of course.

What characteristic did you implant in them, apart from the ability to choose their own courses of action?

The DESIRE for sin, the hunger for self-gradifition, irrational and unstable minds, the capacity for violence and selfishness, etc. etc. I implanted in them EVERY characteristic they have.

You made it so that they could enjoy doing the wrong thing? Is that it? Of course!

Yes, they do enjoy doing the wrong thing. I don't know about you, but having an orgy sounds pretty fun to me, and the desire for that was put into me by your god, according to your theory, and yet somehow god is not responsible for the result of implanting that desire. Ridiculous.

God should have made the exercise of free will for evil an unpleasant thing: &quot;I command thee not to walk through this sandspur patch in your bare feet.&quot; Oops--suddenly the creation isn't perfect, since God created sandspurs.

Nonsense, and I think you know that. Your analogy doesn't represent the situation at all. Not all sin is unpleasant, and our god-given desires lead us to "sin", and in the case of sex, the desires are so strong that they completely overpower our reason, making us supplicants to our god-given hormones.

Satori, your objections are ill-considered and betray either an ignorance of Christian theology or a marvelous ability to distort the teachings of Christian theology.

I disagree. And you have still not shown how god is not responsible for its creation even though it's precisely how it intended it to be.

Rather, you'll have a deuce of a time getting around the fact that you're trying to illicitly insinuate the implantation of a desire for sin in the form of a coercion on the will.

This is too funny. Are you now suggesting that our desire to sin DIDN'T come from "god"? Absurd to the extreme. Where did it come from then? The devil? Zeus? No, according to your theory, it came from god, as did everything in existence. And yet you claim is not responsible? Whacky.

The coerced will is not free.

I didn't ASK to have hormones which make me want to copulate with everything in sight, and I cannot deny the effect these hormones have upon swaying my better judgement. Nor can you.

Check dictionary-dot-com. Your objection is incoherent. Essentially you are arguing that free willed beings aren't responsible for their actions because they aren't free-willed beings.

Nope, not even close (skew and conquer again I see). I'm saying that their free will is coerced by their god-given desires which lead to "sin". Skew again and I'll correct again.

The mere fact that doing evil has some enjoyable consequences does not mean that we are not free to refrain from evil.

The desire to commit evil is god-given. The hormones, confusions, mental instability that tempt us to sin are god-given. You know this.

I'm coming up against the character limit. I expect that you mostly repeated stuff that you've already stated, below, but I'll deal with it at a later time, none-the-less.

I hope you will attempt to give me real reasons, rather than confusing and intellectually insulting theological rhetoric, to show that god is not responsible for its creation, even though the creation is EXACTLY how "god" intended it to be. So far, you have failed to show that in any regard.

take care, and keep the faith, sounds like you need it for some reason (pascal's wager perhaps?), hehe

Satori

[Satori]

Captain, stop semantically pussy-footing around the issue and address it directly. Give me a step by step account to show how god is in no way the least bit responsible for the result of the creation it intended with full knowledge of the potential outcome.

I'm already aware of all the theology, and I think it's simply insulting to anyone with common sense (I guess your god didn't count on that either eh? It's a shame it didn't create a theology that wasn't more grounded in basic logic so that more people would be able to buy into it).

While your at it, perhaps you like to explain how torturing people for being exactly what god created them to be isn't ethically repugant, since this is the result which I take most offense to.

I'll be waiting..

Satori

[Satori]

J. J. Ramsey:
Let's see. Someone believes a position, that if true, makes other related positions false. This makes one egocentric?

Yes, bound by their own subjectivity, mistaking the map for the territory, which is what I'm sure you do without realizing it, considering the uninsightfulness of you post, as I will demonstrate:

Let's try this out:

Satori in a parallel universe:
It never ceases to amuse me that most people who believe Brussels is the capital of Belgium all presume they are absolutley correct and that everyone else is wrong. Wow, talk about egocentric.

Your analogy is laughable. The idea that Brussels is the captial of Belgium ISN'T in question, and most of the world don't have hundreds of different names (all of which are as equally unsubstantiated as your own) for the captital of Belguim. Nice try, but you'll have to try harder in the future if you want me to take you seriously.

Funny, the above statement looks absolutely foolish.

As do you for making it and presuming it to be a fair analogy.

Just pointing out the obvious...

Satori

[Captain Ochre]

9picking up where we left off, God is responsible for . . .)

Satori:
For what results from the creation.


What, even (against logic) the specific decisions of free-willed beings that God created?


God assumes no responsibility for its OWN creation and feels it has the moral right to torture people for eternitiy for being merely what it CREATED them to be. I'm interested to see how you are going to try to skew that to avoid addressing it directly.


Okay, so I overlapped my answer a bit.
God assumes reponsibility for creation. Review the book of Job.



They are. Just as god is as well because IT created THEM to be who they are.


Excellent! So--what is your complaint? Does God execute judgment on people for having free will? Not afaics. You?

God judges people base on their own decisions and you just agree that people are (assuming freedom of the will) justly responsible for those decisions.

Now, relative to God's judgement, of what relevance is it that God is responsible for the existence of free willed beings, along with their specific ability for making free decisions?


Yes, but it doesn't lend itself to god weaseling out of its responsibility as well. All of this seems just absurd to me, it's just a bunch of intellectually childish conjecture.


What specific responsibility is "god weaseling out of" iyo?

I think that the core issue has been identified at this point, so I won't respond to the rest unless Satori request it, or if I happen to feel like it once I read what he wrote.:smile:

[Captain Ochre]

Satori:
Captain, stop semantically pussy-footing around the issue and address it directly. Give me a step by step account to show how god is in no way the least bit responsible for the result of the creation it intended with full knowledge of the potential outcome.


Why should I do that? I completely agree that God is jointly responsible along with free-willed creatures for the results of creation, and I have specifically stated that agreement. Did you miss it?
Apparently you've got a problem with God judging the actions of free-willed creatures even though you have admitted that the creatures are responsible for those decisions.
That's where the explanation is required. Begin whenever you're ready.


I'm already aware of all the theology, and I think it's simply insulting to anyone with common sense (I guess your god didn't count on that either eh? It's a shame it didn't create a theology that wasn't more grounded in basic logic so that more people would be able to buy into it).


Your statement above can be nothing more than powerful irony given your lack of logical justification for questioning God's judgement of the decisions of free-willed beings, afaics.


While your at it, perhaps you like to explain how torturing people for being exactly what god created them to be isn't ethically repugant, since this is the result which I take most offense to.


That's a straw man. God doesn't punish people for having free will. God punishes people for the (morally) wrong decisions that they make, and you have admitted that the people themselves are responsible for those decisions.
Your position contains critical tension, if not outright contradiction.

I don't think that you can explain it away without indulging in logical fallacy, but I'll be delighted to review your attempt.

[J. J. Ramsey]

Satori:


J. J. Ramsey:
Let's see. Someone believes a position, that if true, makes other related positions false. This makes one egocentric?


Yes, . . .


That makes no sense, Satori. Said someone mentioned above may be dead wrong, but could not be reasonably labeled egocentric simply for being wrong.


JJR:
Let's try this out:


Satori in a parallel universe:

It never ceases to amuse me that most people who believe Brussels is the capital of Belgium all presume they are absolutley correct and that everyone else is wrong. Wow, talk about egocentric.


Satori:
Your analogy is laughable.


Only if you don't see what I'm getting at. My point was that it is invalid to call someone egocentric for taking a position that by its nature makes others false. Said someone may be wrong, or egocentric for other reasons. But to reason that exclusive position = egocentrism is simply error.


The idea that Brussels is the captial of Belgium ISN'T in question, and most of the world don't have hundreds of different names (all of which are as equally unsubstantiated as your own) for the captital of Belguim.


The only true part of that statement is that "[t]he idea that Brussels is the captial of Belgium ISN'T in question." The rest is junk. You assume without proof that all religions are "equally unsubstantiated."


Nice try, but you'll have to try harder in the future if you want me to take you seriously.


I can't say that you have given me any great reason to take you seriously either. :no:

[Satori]

Captain Ochre:
9picking up where we left off, God is responsible for . . .)

The outcomes of its own creation.

What, even (against logic) the specific decisions of free-willed beings that God created?

Yes. God gave them the desire for sin, and even hormones which coerce them into sin (and it does that A LOT).

As if that wasn't ridiculous enough, god even creates everyone unequally. It's a lot easier for you to obey "god's laws" because you actually believe in that load of nonsense. It's not so easy for me because no matter how hard I try, I find it insulting to my intelligence. And that is to saying nothing of people who were born into and brainwashed by other religions, for them, they never were given a chance to "accept" jesus or whatever, and they go about their lives worshipping their false god and making your god jealous, through absolutely no fault of their. Ridiculous. I understand you selfish ego-preservation motivations to cling to these silly constructs, and you probably cannot admit how deeply absurd and intellectually insulting it is, but I think you should at least be able to admit that you see the inherent reason in the point of view you do not agree with. It's not as if your god will get pissed at you for that, will it? If it does then it's even more of an unreasonable idiot than even I think.

Okay, so I overlapped my answer a bit.
God assumes reponsibility for creation. Review the book of Job.

Interesting. Then why does it disassume responsibility when people give into god-given temptation and desire/hormones to sin? Why does it feel it is justified in being a sadistic freak to these people?

I realize the people may "need" something to believe in and all, but of all the metaphysical myths in the world, I think you could've picked one that's a little more loving and much more logically grounded.

You'll defend you god with your dying breath, but if a human were to act and be like your god, just like the rest of us, you'd be absolutely horrified. I see a double standard here. God is somehow not expected to hold up to its own ethical standards, which makes your god a hypocrite (not to mention the biggest sadist ever conceived).

Excellent! So--what is your complaint? Does God execute judgment on people for having free will? Not afaics. You?

My complaint is that your theology is cruel, barbaric, and uncompromising, and also that god punishes people for being who IT made them to BE.

God judges people base on their own decisions and you just agree that people are (assuming freedom of the will) justly responsible for those decisions.

They are tempted by god, by design, their biology, their minds, and by our good cartoon-like buddy "satan".

Here's yet another analogy. You are a cop who wants to bust people for doing/buying drugs. Do you pack and few ounces of coke and you go around trying to talk the neighborhood kids into buy/selling coke, and when they take your bait you arrest them. Is that rational, or even remotely fair?

Fortunately, this sort of entrapment (setting people up to break the law, encouraging them to break the law), is illegal, and with good reason. And yet, when god does the exact same thing, just to a FAR greater extent, then we are supposed to be ok with that? Absurd.

Now, relative to God's judgement, of what relevance is it that God is responsible for the existence of free willed beings, along with their specific ability for making free decisions?

The relevance pertains to god's seeming unending vengeance which it unleashes on these poor beautiful people, people who I dearly love with all my being, for simply being who god created them to be.

What specific responsibility is &quot;god weaseling out of&quot; iyo?

As you already know, the responsibility for the role IT played in THEIR decision. Entrapment. God is guilty of entrapment, god tempts, god sets us up for failure and makes it very difficult to not fail. God also created a theological story, one among hundreds, that a great many people regard as an insult to our intelligence, and yet, god expects us to put that intelligence aside and buy into its whacky story, and if we can't because of our god-given intellect and capacity for reason (not to mention the inherent evil and corruption of god's covenant), then god sees fit to blame US for that? Ridiculous. Christian theology is some of the most mindless theology in fashion, and I have demonstrated why in no uncertain terms.

I think that the core issue has been identified at this point, so I won't respond to the rest unless Satori request it, or if I happen to feel like it once I read what he wrote.:smile:

The core issue was identified a long time ago, and you are failing to address it, preferring instead to do your semantic dance around it with all this "free will" bull plop, disregarding the fact that god entraps people by setting them up for failure, and in many case, making it completely impossible for them to NOT fail. A "just" god? A compassionate god? A reasonable god? A forgiving god? Please. I have more compassion and forgiveness in my big toe that god has in its whole being.

I wonder what your god thinks of the muslim suicide bombers, those who give their own life in his honour so that they make kill a few innocent people (or thousands, as is the case with 911). Are they currently burning in hell right now for the atrocity they commited? Even though they were MISLEAD (according to your absolutist viewpoint) by another jewish spin-off religion and honestly thought they were doing the right thing? Ridiculous.

Satori

[Satori]

Captain Ochre:
Why should I do that? [give me a step by step account of how god is justified in weaseling out of responsibility to for the results of its creation]

Because I asked you to, of course. Because I'm tried of the semantics dance you are doing, which I feel is just an attempt to avoid addressing the issue directly. So I want to deconstruct your logic to reveal the errors you are obviously making, and I'm entirely confident I can do that with ease.

I completely agree that God is jointly responsible along with free-willed creatures for the results of creation, and I have specifically stated that agreement. Did you miss it?

Then why are still arguing in favour of god irresponsibility? Why do you still cling to your "god is the best" notion if you realize that god is torturing people for things which are in part (and I think mostly) the result of its own twisted entrapment?

Apparently you've got a problem with God judging the actions of free-willed creatures even though you have admitted that the creatures are responsible for those decisions.

Skew and conquer once again. No, that's not the case. Now I'm sure you are just trying to weasel out of addressing the issue directly, because you already know my position, I've stated it many times in many different ways, even using analogies to put it in different perspectives.

I have a problem with your presumed god unleashing its twisted sadism on people for that what IT helped cause by entrapment.

I'll state this simply: If the creation isn't "perfect" enough for god, then god has no one to blame but itself because the creation is exactly how it intended it to be.

That's where the explanation is required. Begin whenever you're ready.'

I've explained it more times than I can count, and you are weaseling because you have found yourself backed into a corner. That's not going to fly with me. Address the issue directly, or I will keep pointing out how your trying to back down from addressing it directly. That's a promise my friend.

Your statement above can be nothing more than powerful irony given your lack of logical justification for questioning God's judgement of the decisions of free-willed beings, afaics.

Meaningless conjecture from a person who is out of ideas and ways to avoid addressing the real issue.

God sets them up for failure, and in many cases, makes it impossible for them not to fail (as is the case with those brainwashed taliban muslims who are killing each other in the name of their presumed god).

That's a straw man. God doesn't punish people for having free will.

Skew and conquer. Not going to work.

God punishes people for the (morally) wrong decisions that they make, and you have admitted that the people themselves are responsible for those decisions.

Once again, skew and conquer. I have admitted that the people bear some responsibility for their actions, but not all, because they were set up for failure by god. How many more times must I say this, and how many more times are you going to dance around the issue to avoid addressing it directly? With all the mindless theological rhetoric at your disposal, you are unable to create and argument that I haven't deconstructed and shown to be simply silly and illogical.

Your position contains critical tension, if not outright contradiction.

Nonsense, but if you think otherwise, then I'm sure you can't easily point it out. I invite you to do just that.

I don't think that you can explain it away without indulging in logical fallacy, but I'll be delighted to review your attempt.

I've already explained it countless times in very specific terms, and you pretending not to realize that, and, in my humble and most honest view (with all due love and respect for you), this is your half-hearted attempt to not address the issue directly (yet again). You have made enough misrepresentions of my position already, I've re-explained it to you in more ways that I can even remember, you KNOW what I mean because I can see that you aren't so lacking in intellect as to not understand the very rudimentary idea I've presented.

I suggest you address the issue. This is getting ridiculous.

How is it justified that a god can torture poor humans for their actions even though god set them up for failure? How? How is that just? How is that NOT ethically and morally repugnant? How can you think god is so great when your conception of it is so sickeningly perverse and unreasonable?

Perhaps you'd like to explain how such entrapment is justified. Perhaps you'd like to explain to me why illegal entrapment by police *should* be legal?

Best of luck, I'll be waiting...

Satori

[Satori]

J. J. Ramsey:
That makes no sense, Satori. Said someone mentioned above may be dead wrong, but could not be reasonably labeled egocentric simply for being wrong.

Unlike you, I do not cling to constructs irrationally. I realize that my opinions are only my opinions. But somehow, *your* opinions are absolute truths, and you and your christian buddies, of all the religions in the world, of all the opposing viewpoints in the world, are the ONLY ones who got it "right". Egocentricism.


By the way, your analogy WAS laughable, I and clearly indicated why. It was NOT a fair representation of the issue by any stretch, it was horribly skewed, and I explained exactly why.

Only if you don't see what I'm getting at. My point was that it is invalid to call someone egocentric for taking a position that by its nature makes others false.

You have skewed what I said. Here is what I intended and explained:

Holding on to a highly speculative viewpoint, one that is completely in the realm of interpretation/conjecture, one that most of the planet disagrees with, is egocentric and short-sighted. That's the extent of christian arrogance and egocentricism. You think you are the only ones in the whole world who got it right, and as if that wasn't funny enough in itself, within the broad umbrella of christainty there are many sub-sects, all of which think all the other sects are wrong and they are right. Ridiculous. You don't even realize, much less admit, that what you hold is only a theory, one among countless others, one that isn't even supported by the evidence, one that is essentially invalidated by its own twisted conjecture and self-contradiction, and yet you cling to it with all your might, just as the muslims cling to their version. It's absurd.

You cannot step outside of yourself long enough to accept that perhaps you aren't totally correct. That's what faith gets you, adherance to specific dogmas at the expense of rejecting ALL others, supported by hard evidence or not it doesn't matter to you.

You can see that a Scientogist is misguided. Heck, you can probably even see that muslim is misguided. But you? Oh no, you are not misguided, you and you alone are correct. Oh boy. If that's not egocentric, then I truly don't know what is.

Said someone may be wrong, or egocentric for other reasons. But to reason that exclusive position = egocentrism is simply error.

Exclusive opinion about something so highly speculative IS egocentric. That would be like a biologist clinging to the idea that life orginated from outter space and landed here, even though he only has fragmented/interpretive evidence to go on. That would be like this biologist clinging to his notion as an "absolute truth", and claiming that everyone else is absolutely wrong, even though they have evidence which contradicts his own which he (like creationists) rejects, misinterprets, and skews for the purpose of lending weight to his own highly speculative/interpretative position. Do you know what such a person would be called? A nut. And yet, when you do the same thing with your favourite religion, you expect to be taken seriously? No.

The only true part of that statement is that &quot;[t]he idea that Brussels is the captial of Belgium ISN'T in question.&quot; The rest is junk. You assume without proof that all religions are &quot;equally unsubstantiated.&quot;

You are obviously bound by your subjectivity and can't think outside the box. Every other person of every other religion all thinks they have just as much "proof" (cough, cough) as you do. And yet you and you alone are correct, and everyone else is wrong. Ridiculous.

I can't say that you have given me any great reason to take you seriously either. :no:

I have, you are just clinging much too tightly to your own subjective and highly speculative opinion to even entertain the notion that you may be wrong.

But I suspect as much, from you and everyone else here, considering what's at steak for you. After all, you are metaphysically obligated to cling to your incredibly weak position at all costs, or else face punishment from your god for the horrible act of simply being reasonable, open minded, and humble enough to admit to the subjective/speculative nature of your own constructs. Faith is the only way for you, and silly me for trying to reason with a person who values "faith" more than logic and who will desparately cling to that faith NO MATTER WHAT.

Satori

[Ishmael]

I took one class in Art History in college, does that make me an expert in Art History?

Satori:
Let me guess, you didn't, and you don't, and you probably also feel that the childish use of condescending smilies doesn't make you look silly. Just a hunch.


Well, that's where you are wrong. I took a few courses on textual criticism and the history of the Bible. Not that it makes any difference to a buffoon like you.


You owe to yourself to investigate alternate points of view, and one you should consider is the jewish version of these very same events, Jesus' own people, his own brother. But instead you simply disregard everything that doesn't agree with your limited point of view, and that is source of you blindness and confusion about such matters.


Why do you assume I haven't? Does that make your "presupostitional worldview which you cling to for fear of seeing the truth" easier to maintain?

BTW: I have numerous times asked you to prove your wild claims like this one:


Satori:
I agree, it IS the default position. Just as it is the default position to not presume there is a race of pink elephants living under the moon's crust.

The thing is, this means nothing to theists because for them reason and logic aren't worth anything, for them it's all about faith and the protection of their beloved egos from the wrath of their viscious and unresonable monster of a god.

Satori


AND, you never responded to my last post... are you a "cop-out" or are you just an opinionated dope?


It never ceases to amuse me that most members of a given religion all presume they are absolutley correct and that everyone else is wrong. Wow, talk about egocentric.

Satori

Nobody thinks that but you. If you would but prove that statement above I would concede the point. You can't prove it because it's just pure nonsense.

[J. J. Ramsey]

Satori:
I realize that my opinions are only my opinions. But somehow, *your* opinions are absolute truths,


So is the opinion of yours expressed above the truth, or only an opinion?


You have skewed what I said. Here is what I intended and explained:

Holding on to a highly speculative viewpoint, one that is completely in the realm of interpretation/conjecture, one that most of the planet disagrees with, is egocentric and short-sighted. . . .

Exclusive opinion about something so highly speculative IS egocentric.


Any way you slice it, Satori, you are wrong. Exclusive opinion about something highly speculative may be foolish, unwise, thoughtless, and so on, but not egocentric.

Take Mother Teresa as an example. Let's say, for the sake of argument that Christianity is, as you put it, "highly speculative viewpoint, one that is completely in the realm of interpretation/conjecture." Mother Teresa obviously believed this viewpoint. Now I'm sure that you believe that she was mistaken in her beliefs. But would you honestly consider her egocentric because she believed what she did?


Every other person of every other religion all thinks they have just as much &quot;proof&quot; (cough, cough) as you do.


Satori, do you realize what a broad sweeping statement that is? Christianity is unusual in that it is one of the few religions that can be shattered if enough archaeologists "get lucky." Realistically, that is unlikely to happen, but the risk, however small, is there. Most religions do not make the kind of bold -- and potentially falsifiable -- historical claims that Christianity does, and thus the question of proof is a non-issue.

Have you actually tried an evidentiary disproof of Christianity? If so, why haven't you presented it here instead of going round and round with the questionable philosophical arguments you have presented so far?

[Socrates]

:bonk::bonk::bonk:
:bonk:Satori:bonk: rants: :rant:



As you already know, the responsibility for the role IT played in THEIR decision. Entrapment. God is guilty of entrapment, god tempts, god sets us up for failure and makes it very difficult to not fail.Satori clearly knows naught of what he speaks. Since it's most unlikely that Satori is open-minded enough to research the topic himself, I've copy/pasted from http://www.tektonics.org/hierotheelephant.html

A critic argued very much like Satori:


If your god did not want Adam and Eve to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, why did he put the tree in the garden of Eden (and at the center, no less)? Was it for shade? If so, why use something so dangerous as a shade tree? If the purpose of the tree was to tempt Adam and Eve, explain why it's OK for your god to engage in a practice that our modern-day courts of law refer to as "entrapment."J.P. Holding demolished this as follows:


I had a lot of fun with this one, because normally, where I just show that people are out of touch of the Bible, with this one, I get to show that someone is out of touch on some other subject: Here, the law. Our "modern-day courts of law" have some pretty detailed descriptions of what constitutes "entrapment", and this doesn't fit it, even if the purpose of the Tree was to test/tempt the obedience of the First Couple.

Entrapment as a defense first was brought up in the case of Sorrells vs. United States in the late 1870s. Since then, there has been quite a bit of discussion and definition about it, but it is fully agreed that "entrapment" only occurs when an official intends by actions or words to encourage someone to commit a crime, exercising direct influence upon them in some fashion. To quote the definition from that case: "Entrapment is the conception and planning of an offense by an officer, and his procurement of its commission by one who would not have perpetrated it except for the trickery, persuasion, or fraud of the officer." Let's illustrate with some practical examples:
[list=1]
A police officer who leaves a bale of marijuana in the street and orders people who see him do it not to touch it or smoke it is not engaged in entrapment.
A police officer who leaves a bale of marijuana in the street and says nothing to anyone about it, but instead waits around to see if anyone picks it up or smokes it, may be engaged in entrapment. This is where the courts have had a lot of discussion, but entrapment is more likely to stick as a defense if the person who ends up committing the crime is not inclined to commit such crimes in the first place or has no record of committing the crime, and yet the officer does something to actively encourage the crime. (I.e., "Hey, wanna smoke some dope?" -- repeated even after refusals!)
On the other hand, "If the accused is found to be predisposed, the defense of entrapment may not prevail." Thus, "sting" operations are not considered to be entrapment.[/list=1]So which of these fits the Garden situation? The first one does, but of course we would never see any police officer do such a thing anyway! Sam and Co. might see the second as what actually happened, but they would have a hard time justifying that, unless they could prove that God made the Tree of Knowledge thoroughly irresistible, or Himself encouraged them to disobey His command, and we have no indication that that is the case. In fact, if ANYONE is guilty of entrapment in the story, it's the serpent! Sorry, Sam, but the lawyers would laugh this entrapment defense right out of court!

[Socrates]

---------------------------------------------------------------
Socrates:
On what grounds do you claim that the chemistry in your brain is right and that in Calvinist's brain is wrong?
---------------------------------------------------------------
:bonk: Satori :bonk: rants in reply :rant:
:bonk: :bonk: :bonk:
Again, getting caught up in notions of absolutes I see.
And are you absolutely sure there are no absolutes?! You certainly argue most stridently that creation is absolutely wrong, or that's how it seems to most of us here.

I don't claim that either view is right or wrong, only that one view is more logical and more evidenced than the other, of course.Then I'll rephrase the above: "Nn what grounds do you claim that the chemistry in your brain is more logical than that in in my brain?

[Jin-Roh]

You know Satori, I've skimmed through a lot of your reponces. Your principle arguement seems to be "God doesn't exists, but he sucks and I rule."

Seriously, you keep clinging to this "God's unfair", "God's egocentric" ad nausem. If any of that was true (and its not) it does not negate God's existance.

Futhermore, you still using the absurd reasoning type thing in which you decide that what is moral and just and God has to listen to you. Thats right, Satori's got it all figured out, and he needs to correct God.

Can you maybe stop for a minute and ask youself how reasonalbe that position is? Can you explain how this negates God existing? And if he does exist, how you presume to tell everybody where he's wrong?

BTW, when somebody is being tempted, nobody should say "God is tempting me" because God cannot tempt people. That's scripture. Now do you reject scripture, I'm pretty sure you do. But until you can give us good reason to take what you say over scripture its just your oponion against what it says.

I'll thown down the same guantlet Socrates did. Challenge Christianity with hard evidence as opposed to your ->:rant: <- philosophy.

[Queen]

Maybe a late reaction, but I discovered this thread just minutes ago. The question caught my eye. I am sort of an atheits. Let me explain. I do not believe in a God, an allmighty spirit outside my body. I believe there is divine in every living creature. I call it DNA.....sounds ridiculous?? Hmm....okay I have more explaining to do.

DNA contains all info about life, wheter the DNA is in a bacteria or in an eliphant. DNA is the basis of all life on earth and beyond....in the universe (I believe there is more life out there). For me there lies it all. One day we will discover that. I can not quite explain it, it is just a feeling I have.

I was in doubt, I prayed searched for the answer if there was a God every where. I've read the bible to find comfort or when I was in pain. I could not find peace in my heart. I searched the bible to have an answer on the question why I was born with a disability (I have a congential heart disorder). I prayed for friends, I prayed for people I loved. I searched deep in my heart and soul....but it was not there. How hard I tried to believe, it was just not there. In my search I bumped onto different religions and I found some truth in all of them, but the tales about God(s) sounded like fairytales, and for me there was no good ending in the story. So I found my peace and comfort somewhere else. In science. I 've been reading so much and when I bumped onto DNA I knew I had found the answers for my life and for every other life on this world. To me this was the answer. I tried really hard to fit it in a religion, but that is hard. So, now I don't believe in God(s).....I believe in life and that there is a good reason why I have been through so much in my life. I found peace with the scientific expalination. I could not find it in God and the bible.

yes, I believe Jesus excisted, why not.....but to me he is on the same level as Mahatma Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, Mother Theresa and Jane Goodall......People I have the highest respect for. No good reason to be an "atheist"? I think I have a very good reason.....I found peace in science

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen :love:

[Mahler]

oh yeah, i already know the answer to this one: No.

look, in order to be an atheist who is sound in rationality, i would have to be reasonably sure that no deity exists. however, in order to be be reasonably sure that no deity exists, i would have to possess exhaustive knowledge of all that exists...obviously, no one person can have the knowledge of all that exists...
An atheist could turn your reasoning around and direct it to you. To have a rational theistic belief you would need to possess exhastive knowledge of all that exists, and since such would amount to a gross absurdity, then theism amounts to a gross absurdity (I'm playing the Devil's advocate).

[Xavier]

An atheist could turn your reasoning around and direct it to you. To have a rational theistic belief you would need to possess exhastive knowledge of all that exists, and since such would amount to a gross absurdity, then theism amounts to a gross absurdity (I'm playing the Devil's advocate).
Sheepdog is refering to asserting a negative in the absolute which is logically impossible as he explained...

However, theism, on the other hand, is a logically defenceable issue. It doesn't mean that it is logically true, just that its proveable. Atheism on the other hand is not.

Yours,
Xavier

[LGM]

Sheepdog is refering to asserting a negative in the absolute which is logically impossible as he explained...

However, theism, on the other hand, is a logically defenceable issue. It doesn't mean that it is logically true, just that its proveable. Atheism on the other hand is not.


...errr, not so fast Xav...
Perhaps you and Sheepdog need to go read the agnostic/atheist definition thread.
Atheists are not asserting an absolute negative. They simply lack a belief in the god claims of theists. Thus if you "claim" your sacred scriptures are the inerrant word of the creator of the universe, I will point out that they were actually written and redacted by a wide variety of human authors, many whose identities are unknown or certainly in dispute, and they are full of contradictions and errors.

Its the difference between saying there are no Pink Elephants anywhere in the universe, verse saying there are no Pink Elephants under my bed right now.

LGM
...you may now commence with the usual "proofs" of theism or Christianity...take your best shot...

[Xavier]

LGM--

I was using "atheism" in the sense that Sheepdog originally used it in the open post, but he also made it clear what he was getting at anyway...

Yes, the term "atheist" as is used in the Faith tags around here would be the "Hard Agnostism"....

Sorry for not being clear.

Yours,
Xavier
...you may now commence with the usual "dis-proofs" of atheism or Strong Agnostism...take your best shot...

PS: Who dug this one up anyway?

[Seasanctuary]

Besides, atheism (and non-theism) is repugant and offends many of the values and sensibilites we *should* hold dear to our hearts, with *unconditional* forgiveness and undying compassion topping the list.
Oddly, this is one of the greatest indictments against Christianity.

[Seasanctuary]

look, in order to be an atheist who is sound in rationality, i would have to be reasonably sure that no deity exists. however, in order to be be reasonably sure that no deity exists, i would have to possess exhaustive knowledge of all that exists. if i do not, it is possible that a given deity exists, and the evidence of him/her/it/they could exist outside of what i know.

obviously, no one person can have the knowledge of all that exists, and even if they did, how would they know that they their knowledge was truely exhaustive? I think you're confusing Atheism with Apotism. You see, Apotism is the belief that there is no potted panarx plant anywhere in the universe. As everyone knows, the potted panarx plant is (together with its pot) about 15 inches tall and ten inches across. It could survive in empty space or on any planet with a rocky surface.

Apostists are obviously going on a lot of faith. Since they haven't made a physical sweep of every 15 by 10 inch cylindrical spaces in the void or on planet surfaces, they really don't have any business declaring that there are no potted panarx plants anywhere in the whole universe.

Unless your God is rather more like a potted panarx plant than all all-present being with a special interest in Earth events and a long record of interfering with history directly and through prophets and via prayer and spiritual messages to this day...unless God is definitely more toward the potted plant in the void variety, your statement directed at Atheists was obviously meant for the Apotist society.

[Seasanctuary]

God is absolutely necessary for the existence of anything. This is a basic philosophical argument 'a priori.' And, as you know oh wise one, Ontological arguments have traditionally used excruciatingly precise logical formulae.
Are you kidding? Anselm's argument (hey, you said "traditionally") is FAR from "excruciatingly precise" in its logical formulation.

[Seasanctuary]

The problem is that its illogical to assert as fact a universal negative, because universal negatives cannot be proven.
No where in the universe does the Tiger Who Sleeps All Day In My Closet exist. I checked my closet this afternoon.

The Infrangible God Who Constantly Breaks does not exist.

The God Who Wrote the Christian Bible In Klingon does not exist.

The asteroid that destroyed Earth last Tuesday does not exist.

Ready to retract yet?

[Seasanctuary]

I agree, it IS the default position. Just as it is the default position to not presume there is a race of pink elephants living under the moon's crust.
What if most people in history had some sort of vague story about large animals living underground who love peanuts? Maybe it would be the default position then...huh? :wink:

[Seasanctuary]

Maybe a late reaction, but I discovered this thread just minutes ago. The question caught my eye. I am sort of an atheits. Let me explain. I do not believe in a God, an allmighty spirit outside my body. I believe there is divine in every living creature. I call it DNA.....sounds ridiculous?? Hmm....okay I have more explaining to do.
Queen, know anything about mitochondriae? They're the little energy producing bodies inside our cells. The neatest thing about them is that they have their own DNA. They're symbiotic non-human creatures that keep us alive and we keep fed. Isn't that neat? Does that figure into your religious concepts?

[Xavier]

Sea, I should warn you that the posts in this thread are excessively old, and that positions may have been refined since their previous posting.

Yours,
Xavier

[EvoUK]

dang- this is an old thread- and a remarkably silly one also... look at all those mistakes starting right from page one!

[Amazing Rando]

Maybe a late reaction, but I discovered this thread just minutes ago. The question caught my eye. I am sort of an atheits. Let me explain. I do not believe in a God, an allmighty spirit outside my body. I believe there is divine in every living creature. I call it DNA.....sounds ridiculous?? Hmm....okay I have more explaining to do.

DNA contains all info about life, wheter the DNA is in a bacteria or in an eliphant. DNA is the basis of all life on earth and beyond....in the universe (I believe there is more life out there). For me there lies it all. One day we will discover that. I can not quite explain it, it is just a feeling I have.

I was in doubt, I prayed searched for the answer if there was a God every where. I've read the bible to find comfort or when I was in pain. I could not find peace in my heart. I searched the bible to have an answer on the question why I was born with a disability (I have a congential heart disorder). I prayed for friends, I prayed for people I loved. I searched deep in my heart and soul....but it was not there. How hard I tried to believe, it was just not there. In my search I bumped onto different religions and I found some truth in all of them, but the tales about God(s) sounded like fairytales, and for me there was no good ending in the story. So I found my peace and comfort somewhere else. In science. I 've been reading so much and when I bumped onto DNA I knew I had found the answers for my life and for every other life on this world. To me this was the answer. I tried really hard to fit it in a religion, but that is hard. So, now I don't believe in God(s).....I believe in life and that there is a good reason why I have been through so much in my life. I found peace with the scientific expalination. I could not find it in God and the bible.

yes, I believe Jesus excisted, why not.....but to me he is on the same level as Mahatma Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, Mother Theresa and Jane Goodall......People I have the highest respect for. No good reason to be an "atheist"? I think I have a very good reason.....I found peace in science

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen :love:

:joy: Oh wow Queen! Look how far you've come in just 4 months! :teeth:

You posted this in October.

[Ben Franklin]

look, in order to be an atheist who is sound in rationality, i would have to be reasonably sure that no deity exists. however, in order to be be reasonably sure that no deity exists, i would have to possess exhaustive knowledge of all that exists. if i do not, it is possible that a given deity exists, and the evidence of him/her/it/they could exist outside of what i know.



Ummm... doesn't that argument work both ways ? In this case, how could someone assert that God exists unless he also had exhaustive knowledge ?

[Xavier]

Circles, Circles, We're traveling in Circles....

:doh:

[Seasanctuary]

Sea, I should warn you that the posts in this thread are excessively old, and that positions may have been refined since their previous posting.
Thanks, Xavier. I didn't know this was a resurrected thread.

[Xavier]

Thanks, Xavier. I didn't know this was a resurrected thread.
No prob....

:whistle: :digger:

[kendal]

You forgot one the most important one:

No good reasons to presume otherwise (considering how unreliable and self-contradictory the bible inherently is, and even if it weren't, we still have no evidence to jump to such a conclusion, and even if we did, we have no reason to presume the theory of christianty is any more or less accurate that the literally hundreds of religions in the world, most of which predate christianity).

Satori
:ahem: First of all,you can learn alot from a dummy! I am not calling you a dummy,but what does the bible say about it?
of all,the bible tells us that the fool says in his/her heart there is no God.
2nd
,only those who have not thouroughly learned all the entire bible think it contradicts itself. There are no contradictions to bible scholars or those who are dedicated to learning it and understanding it,but God will send strong delusions to those who have no love for the truth. Not everyone will be allowed to understand it.
Atheists won't win,there won't be any atheists pretty soon because the one world religion will be evolution mixed with secular christianity,while there won't be many real christians left,there also won't be any atheists.
If there were going to be atheists in the future,why will they all worship the AC? No atheists will be allowed,and I don't know of many atheists willing to die for what they say they believe in,if so,they will when AC gets here. AC will one day demand worship,so it only seems logical that there won't be an atheist around at that time.
Prophecy is happening everyday,the bible is right,and just because you don't believe in a god at this time,I know you will soon. I pray you will choose to worship the real one,the true God of the holy bible. Either way,you won't be an atheist before to long.They say the pope believes in evolution too.
So,the one world religion is taking shape now and apostasy is here. false religion is where you are headed,or salvation,take you pick!
You don't have to be a fortune teller or a prophet to get that one.
May your heart be saved,blessed and changed in the tender mercies of The Lord Almighty,in Jesus,amen.

[kendal]

Ummm... doesn't that argument work both ways ? In this case, how could someone assert that God exists unless he also had exhaustive knowledge ?:teeth: aren't you forgetting something precious? We have miracles and we have evidence in our own lives.We may not be able to show it to you,but we know it's very real,and it's evidence to us.

[kendal]

:joy: Oh wow Queen! Look how far you've come in just 4 months! :teeth:

You posted this in October.


I love DNA,I think it's so very interesting,but I call it DNA= design not accidental!:teeth:

[EvoUK]

:lol:

of all,the bible tells us that the fool says in his/her heart there is no God.

Ah, nothing like assuming a book is correct to use it in an argument to prove something which is in question...

Not to mention what a silly statement it is to start with...

only those who have not thouroughly learned all the entire bible think it contradicts itself.

You might find it's better stated all those who believe in the bible then read it through with the good-old faith goggles find no contradictions (oddly enough)... :ahem:

Atheists won't win,there won't be any atheists pretty soon because the one world religion will be evolution mixed with secular christianity,while there won't be many real christians left,there also won't be any atheists.

I would love to see your sources for this one.

But then again- as our religion proves itself less and less relevent, it will sometime "evolve" into something else. It, itself is the result of an evolving idea years ago- I don't see why it can't happen again... Won't happen for quite a while though- not in my lifetime anyways.

If there were going to be atheists in the future,why will they all worship the AC?

AC? Athiests as a group don't worship anthing- all that they have in common in a group is that they don't believe in gods.

No atheists will be allowed,and I don't know of many atheists willing to die for what they say they believe in,if so,they will when AC gets here.

Are you going for a record of silly statements made in one post? No atheists die for what they believe in? Even theists here can give examples of atheists dying for something they believed in!

Prophecy is happening everyday,the bible is right,and just because you don't believe in a god at this time,I know you will soon.

:rofl:

I pray you will choose to worship the real one,the true God of the holy bible. Either way,you won't be an atheist before to long.They say the pope believes in evolution too.

Of course he accepts evolution (with some spiritual additions), he's ahead of the more backward YECs etc.

May your heart be saved,blessed and changed in the tender mercies of The Lord Almighty,in Jesus,amen.

Thanks fo the belly laugh- but you don't really expect to be taken seriously when that's the best you can come up with do you?

This is the kind of crap that annoys me from theists: coming into a forum or entering your life for 10 seconds in one day, declaring the "truth" to you, without proof, or reason, or evidence, or logic, and indeed a complete refusal to listen to such, and then announce "well you've been told now, I've done my part, I truly hope you listen because God loves you...If you don't listen God will kill you and it's your own fault."

Enjoy the forums- there's plenty of you around- you'll fit right in.

[kendal]

Ummm... doesn't that argument work both ways ? In this case, how could someone assert that God exists unless he also had exhaustive knowledge ?

you forget,we have miracles and evidence in our lives,you do not have these
things or evidence.We do. Just because we may not be able to show them to an unbelieving group of individuals,doesn't mean we are lying about it. Why would we lie when we believe God knowing we will face punishment for it?
We want to know the truth,and God gives it to us,amen.

[kendal]

:lol:



Ah, nothing like assuming a book is correct to use it in an argument to prove something which is in question...

Not to mention what a silly statement it is to start with...



You might find it's better stated all those who believe in the bible then read it through with the good-old faith goggles find no contradictions (oddly enough)... :ahem:



I would love to see your sources for this one.

But then again- as our religion proves itself less and less relevent, it will sometime "evolve" into something else. It, itself is the result of an evolving idea years ago- I don't see why it can't happen again... Won't happen for quite a while though- not in my lifetime anyways.



AC? Athiests as a group don't worship anthing- all that they have in common in a group is that they don't believe in gods.



Are you going for a record of silly statements made in one post? No atheists die for what they believe in? Even theists here can give examples of atheists dying for something they believed in!



:rofl:



Of course he accepts evolution (with some spiritual additions), he's ahead of the more backward YECs etc.



Thanks fo the belly laugh- but you don't really expect to be taken seriously when that's the best you can come up with do you?

This is the kind of crap that annoys me from theists: coming into a forum or entering your life for 10 seconds in one day, declaring the "truth" to you, without proof, or reason, or evidence, or logic, and indeed a complete refusal to listen to such, and then announce "well you've been told now, I've done my part, I truly hope you listen because God loves you...If you don't listen God will kill you and it's your own fault."

Enjoy the forums- there's plenty of you around- you'll fit right in.
Listen up for a minute,God is not the one who sentences you first of all,you do it to yourself! You send yourself to the fire,all by yourself. If God is who he says he is,a Holy God,doesn't he have that right,or does he need permission from his creation? If God is holy,he cannot allow rebellious people in his Kingdom. God has taken all sorts of insults and has been very merciful and patient,but the nerve of some people to say that God should not have the right to punish those who reject him!!!
God has done everything to save all people,now the rest is up to them.
I truly hope the best out come for you,I really do,but you have no right to
dare try to put God down to your level. Besides,most worldly people are not really very afraid of going to the lake of fire,because if they truly believed it,why would they not care? Of course there will be those that after finding out that God exists who will still not repent and actually have the nerve to blame God for their suffering,not at all acknowledging that their sins got them into the trouble they are in.
If you have ever been around a very spoiled rotten child who hits and cuses at their parents,you might get a little glimps at what the devil is about. God knows all about spoiled rotten bratts,and his heart was the first to ever break! Even though he loves us all very much,he won't stop you from making the choice to want him in your life based on your own free will.You have the choice,God doesn't want robots,he wants to be loved.
You were made for much greater things,even if you don't know it yet,and God gave you gifts,but if you cannot see that,it's not anyone else's fault,because once you become an adult,you are on your own.
Yes,I'd love for you to be saved,is that a crime?
well,they are trying to make it that way,but if they do,how will satan get to have a chance to be worshiped? satan will do anything for it,but God won't,God wants us to love him on our own.Those who don't believe in him don't worry about the lake of fire,or at least they act as though they don't.
You are worth more than you know! You are a precious soul! If only you truly knew what that meant.

[kendal]

An atheist could turn your reasoning around and direct it to you. To have a rational theistic belief you would need to possess exhastive knowledge of all that exists, and since such would amount to a gross absurdity, then theism amounts to a gross absurdity (I'm playing the Devil's advocate).

I thought you didn't believe in the devil either?:ahem:

[kendal]

What I find is so shocking is that many atheists say they don't want to be forced to worship God,yet they are asking God to worship them!!!
God doesn't force worship on anyone.If they don't want God in their lives,or serve God,I suppose they believe that God should betray himself by the hands of his enemies and allow them to live on what is rightfully his world,right?
They claim God is mean and cruel if he exists,yet believe they should have the right to live on his property,and that God should stomach it,and keep footing the bill for his enemies. Would an atheist have a roommate that kept trashing their place and backstabbed them all the time?
If God doesn't fit their idea of what they think love is,then they cannot accept him it seems.If God doesn't fit the notion of what they think a God should be,then he's out of their lives to them.Wow,the very same thing they don't want God to do,they do;hmmmm.................................
sounds very one sided and extremely self-centered.
God=creator man=created being who has more rights here?

[Ben Franklin]

If God doesn't fit the notion of what they think a God should be,then he's out of their lives to them.



Not so strange, though. When you realize that God and every other deity is a figment of man's myths, then why not shop around ? It's all based on the culture the myth springs from anyway: if you've ever read "Ten Pillars of Wisdom" by Capt. Lawrence, you'll realize the harsh, cruel, avenging Allah fits in nicely with the nomad's world-view. There's really no great surprise as to why atheists (and others) reject the Christian God: He's not their bag of tea.

[ilkhani'tus]

What I find is so shocking is that many atheists say they don't want to be forced to worship God,yet they are asking God to worship them!!!Huh? Say what?


God doesn't force worship on anyone.I suppose the "Lake of Fire" is just coincidental, eh?

If they don't want God in their lives,or serve God,I suppose they believe that God should betray himself by the hands of his enemies and allow them to live on what is rightfully his world,right?If that was the case, assuming we all believed in YOUR god, assuming that he's the correct god in the first place, what's wrong with just sending those people out to "limbo" or somewhere as opposed to "eternal torment" if you don't worship him? What kind of a "friend" is that?

They claim God is mean and cruel if he exists,yet believe they should have the right to live on his property,and that God should stomach it,and keep footing the bill for his enemies. Would an atheist have a roommate that kept trashing their place and backstabbed them all the time?Would an atheist have the guy just evicted or thrown into a furnace, like you god does? Also, see my paragraph above.

Another point, if that presumably the guy's roomate would at some point be able to see his roomate, as opposed to us not being able to see this "god" that you insist exists.
If God doesn't fit their idea of what they think love is,then they cannot accept him it seems.If God doesn't fit the notion of what they think a God should be,then he's out of their lives to them.Ah, no. It's just measuring god by his own standards. He expects us to be like him, but he doesn't follow his own damned rules.
Wow,the very same thing they don't want God to do,they do;hmmmm.................................Do some more thinking...because you've gotten this all messed up.

sounds very one sided and extremely self-centered."Worship me or burn in torment forever. Yep. You've gotten that right.

God=creator man=created being who has more rights here?So much for child abuse laws then, by your logic.


All we'd ask, as some evidence that your god exists is that he actually WAS "just" and "holy" as "his" book says he is.

All the OT looks like to us, is just a bunch of excuses to wipe people out for their territory, and a bunch of rules and threats put down by the priests so's no one abuses their power.

It's not that "god doesn't live up to our expectations so we reject him"...it's more like if he doesn't match the description of himself given supposedly by himself, then maybe no "infallible, consitent" god wrote it at all.

[Bob the Builder]

But then again- as our religion proves itself less and less relevent, it will sometime "evolve" into something else. It, itself is the result of an evolving idea years ago- I don't see why it can't happen again... Won't happen for quite a while though- not in my lifetime anyways.


Oh, it's already started mate. Many local churches have already evolved into shopping centres or pubs

[EvoUK]

Many local churches have already evolved into shopping centres or pubs

Can't think of a better use for them... lol

[garthoverman]

Listen up for a minute,God is not the one who sentences you first of all,you do it to yourself!
Oh really. So all that stuff in the Bible about God as final Judge, separating the sheep from the goats, and casting depraved souls into the lake of fire where there is weeping an gnashing of teeth... that stuff isn't true? It sure sounds like God's doing the sentencing to me. I mean who created Hell in the first place?

You send yourself to the fire,all by yourself.
Now why in the world would I do something like that? That's like saying I chose to get cancer "all by myself."

Listen, you really need to start thinking your statements through a little more thorgouhly because I'm having a hard time taking you seriously already.

If God is who he says he is,a Holy God,doesn't he have that right,or does he need permission from his creation? If God is holy,he cannot allow rebellious people in his Kingdom. God has taken all sorts of insults and has been very merciful and patient,but the nerve of some people to say that God should not have the right to punish those who reject him!!!
Didn't you just get done saying that God didn't have anything to do with it? You said that I went to the lake of fire "all by myself," and "all by myself" doesn't really leave much room for anyone else. So which is it?



God has done everything to save all people,
Well, everything except taking Hell out of existence...

...and except making his existence unambiguously known...

...and except saving everyone regardless of their beliefs...

...and... ?

<snip>

If you have ever been around a very spoiled rotten child who hits and cuses at their parents,you might get a little glimps at what the devil is about.
How would you know? Ever considered the possibility that Satan is really the good guy, but God is more powerful and a deceiver that has created the convincing illusion that Heaven is the place you want to be when you die? If this were the case, how would you know?

<snip rhetoric>

Yours,
Garth

[kendal]

Not so strange, though. When you realize that God and every other deity is a figment of man's myths, then why not shop around ? It's all based on the culture the myth springs from anyway: if you've ever read "Ten Pillars of Wisdom" by Capt. Lawrence, you'll realize the harsh, cruel, avenging Allah fits in nicely with the nomad's world-view. There's really no great surprise as to why atheists (and others) reject the Christian God: He's not their bag of tea.
That may be your take on it,but remember,some of us were also worldly once,and we know why people don't want to believe in God!
You can stick your head in the sand all you want to,or make others believe you are totally unaware of what you are doing,but I believe you know the truth behind why you cannot accept God,and fairytales are just a cover up for the truth.
Don't try to sell us on Harry Potter next.
Atheist is not much different than (a theist) many so called atheists are not truly atheists,they know God exists,but they hate God,and don't want to do what he says,they want to be their own ruler,their own god,but evidence shows us that man cannot take care of himself very good by himself.
America was founded as a Godly nation,and if it wants to stay free,it better stay this way,amen. It's no secret that God helped America be The land of the free,and America needs to wake up and stop all those that hate God from stealing our freedoms from us. When we said The Land of The Free,we didn't mean free to fornicate and live like the devil and live as if there is no God.to claim to be an American,yet denie God is wrong!!! America needs to wake up,and claim our rights back again!
God knows that all Americans know what 911 means when we have an emergency,and I believe thats why when 9/11 happened,God was warning us,and wanting us to wake up and fight for our nation and for the right to be christian as we once did,amen.
I am telling you now,soon there won't be any atheists. I have proof in my own life that God is alive and well.I don't have to prove it to those who have a beef towards God,or who willingly choose to rebel against him.
If you won't listen to God,you won't listen to me.
:serenade: If you don't accept the truth about God soon,you are in great danger of being fooled by the Antichrist who is coming very soon.
If you even listen to the news at all,you know all the signs are now here in our generation. Just stop expecting God to put you first,and grow up,then maybe you'll learn that being humble is a good thing,and that loving God is not strange or unusual at all,and in fact,learning to love God each day brings you joy,and it will last if you really mean it.

[Bob the Builder]

That may be your take on it,but remember,some of us were also worldly once,and we know why people don't want to believe in God!

Nonsense - all you know is why you didn't want to believe in God.

[Ben Franklin]

... we know why people don't want to believe in God!...



Ooookay... So please tell me why people don't wanna believe in God, and just who "we" are, and just how it is that "we" have this knowledge that people don't wanna believe in God (excluding "yourselves", of course)... it maybe comes from God...? Am I right...? :huh:

[TheOneAndOnly]

many so called atheists are not truly atheists,they know God exists,but they hate God,and don't want to do what he says

What's wrong with that?

It's no secret that God helped America be The land of the free

In what way did he help? Which battles was he at? Did he sign the DoI?

I believe thats why when 9/11 happened,God was warning us,and wanting us to wake up and fight for our nation and for the right to be christian as we once did,amen.

If that's true then God must be a moron. If he controlled the actions of the hijackers then he's evil not them.

I am telling you now,soon there won't be any atheists.

Is this guy for real?

If you don't accept the truth about God soon,you are in great danger of being fooled by the Antichrist who is coming very soon.

!!!

[kendal]

:blush: atheists really appear to hate listening to good and sound advise.
The truth is foolishness to them,and they seem unaware that they are blind by the enemy. satan hates them too simply because God loves them,and created them. They could possibly be saved.
Until their motives change,they cannot ever understand the holy bible.
If I were proven wrong and God didn't exist,what have I lost?
(That cannot happen because God must exist and he's alive and well,amen.)

But,if I were wrong,it is still a far greater way to live. Being civilized people with morals and clean behavior that cannot cause or spread V.D. or hurt another person with diseases that destroy.
We would still gain by living the way the holy bible teaches and society would be much greater and healthier.
Romans 1:20-25 they are without an excuse that don't believe in God!

Israel became a nation again in one day just as the bible said it would.It happened May 14,1948. They have trees,plants,cattle, & many other animals,water,ect.... It is no longer a dry desert land.
It cannot be a coincidence that an ark like object has been found near Mount Ararat.
Those that cannot accept the truth of The Holy Bible simply cannot accept discipline for sins,and they cannot accept the fact that God lives because they don't want to be punished for what they do all the while believing they have the right to do as they please,but I know that if man were to be the judge of man,it would be cruel judgment far worse that the judgment of our Holy Father. Those that love sin do not want to give it up,and they don't know what the word humble is. I honestly believe that all or most self proclaimed atheists are really a theist at heart,they just hate to give up sin and they just don't want to be good. I am sure that many of them think this lie they tell helps them get more loose sex too because think about it for a second,if they can convince the weak (the weaker) that there is no God,they can also convince them that there is no sin,right?
God exists and every intelligent person in the world knows it,amen.

[Search'n Urchin]

My opinion is that if Stephen Hawking said we came from monkeys and he has no problems with the proposed "loopholes" of evolution, I'm pretty darn toot'n sure we came from monkeys.:teeth: I kid. I kid. I would never simply take anybody's word for fact. However, I am currently studying biology and genetics from an unbiased viewpoint, and while I am not yet convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that evolution occured, I will not deny it simply because it doesn't fit to what I want to believe. As far as any particular religion, IMO, no all-loving, all-knowledgeable god would expect his limited creation to be able to unlock the ultimate truth of the universe, or if he did, his book would be a whole lot more sound than that which any religion offers today. If anyone would like to know why this is my belief, read my post My Ten Sons (shoulda been labeled children, since I named one Sally:teeth: ) As of right now, I would "label" myself an agnostic theist or universalist, and I believe that if their was an all-loving god that did create this world with a purpose to be fulfilled, we are only going to do so by shedding the barbaric wargods of our ancestors. IMO

[Bob the Builder]

God exists and every intelligent person in the world knows it,amen.
:lmbo: :rofl:

[HRG_new]

:blush: atheists really appear to hate listening to good and sound advise.
The truth is foolishness to them,and they seem unaware that they are blind by the enemy.

Have you ever considered that what you think is truth may be actually foolishness, or are you blinded by your religious prejudices ?

satan hates them too simply because God loves them,and created them. They could possibly be saved.
Until their motives change,they cannot ever understand the holy bible.
If I were proven wrong and God didn't exist,what have I lost?

That's a question you have to answer for yourself. However, let me warn you: if you are wrong and Odin exists, you will suffer in Hel as a believer in a false god.

(That cannot happen because God must exist and he's alive and well,amen.)

Please do not confuse your personal beliefs - however honest and strong - with objectively established facts.

It cannot be a coincidence that an ark like object has been found near Mount Ararat.

Which planet are you talking about ß No such object has been found near Mount Ararat, Planet Earth. Are there other Ararats around, and if so, in what solar system ?

Those that cannot accept the truth of The Holy Bible simply cannot accept discipline for sins,and they cannot accept the fact that God lives

I'll have to ask you again not to confuse your beliefs with facts.

because they don't want to be punished for what they do all the while believing they have the right to do as they please,but I know that if man were to be the judge of man,it would be cruel judgment far worse that the judgment of our Holy Father. Those that love sin do not want to give it up,and they don't know what the word humble is. I honestly believe that all or most self proclaimed atheists are really a theist at heart,they just hate to give up sin and they just don't want to be good.

And I honestly tell you that you are wrong, and that your beliefs are bigotted and offensive.

I am sure that many of them think this lie they tell helps them get more loose sex too because think about it for a second,if they can convince the weak (the weaker) that there is no God,they can also convince them that there is no sin,right?

You must be projecting your own shortcomings onto others. That's not nice.

God exists and every intelligent person in the world knows it,amen.

Sorry. Your claim has just been refuted by a counterexample: me.

[LGM]

If you don't accept the truth about God soon,you are in great danger of being fooled by the Antichrist who is coming very soon.
If you even listen to the news at all,you know all the signs are now here in our generation.

Here is a clear example of why Tim Lahaye is a multimillionaire.

LGM
...if you don't accept the truth about the universe, your world and your species soon, it will be too late when you're dead. If you read kendal's posts at all, you know all the signs point to a lifetime of superstitous ignorance...

[EvoUK]

[sigh]

I thought Kendel gave up and left by now- it's not like anyone actually takes him seriously.

[kendal]

I am not a male,but it's good to know there are no sexists here.

I don't worry about you all because there won't be any atheists left soon,not even one to mop the floor with.
your folly with be the embarrassment of you for sure!
The great big piles of dung that you atheists build on top of your own heads is simply amazing!!!
You would have to literally bang your heads on steel walls and concrete to force your brain to accept such things,trying to force things to fit just because you wish they did won't make it happen.
If you behave like an animal thats your own carnal natured fault,so don't start blaming the animals like you already started blaming God. You just have to blame all of your problems on everyone and everything around you because you cannot take responsibility for yourself and your behavior!!!
How is it the evolutionist can convince weak christians to accept evolution but not atheism? hmmm.......................................
evolution is spreading rapidly in churches today,but not atheism.
Because of terrorists and crime,ect..... the world is creating a global church called inter-faithism where everyone must respect and tolerate one anothers religion and religious beliefs. The only people who won't be accepted will be those who say that Jesus is the only way!
There won't be any evolutionist atheists thats for certain,so take your pick people,what will you be in the near future? hmmmm...... an ex-atheist global church goer,or a Jesus Freak? those will be your only choices soon,so think long and hard about it while there is still time,because you don't have to believe me at all,just listen to the news,ect.....
The world is a changin' alright,but not towards atheism.
You can be part of the Babylonian religious system,or you can be a Jesus Freak,which will it be? Jesus Freaks will of course be hated,and they won't be popular at all.
1.Babel is back!
2. Sodom & Gomorrah is back!
3. The days of Noah are here again!
4.believers of fables & fairytales in the last days!
5.religious tolerance! ( Jesus Freaks called "the haters") (atheists called "biggest haters")
6. people giving up privacy for safety ( I.D. chip implants) tracking devices!
7. Personal DNA profiles soon to be made mandetory with I.D.
8. The Pope joins all religions as one big happy family ( The Mother Harlot & her daughters re-unite ) The global religion.
9. Everyone will speak in one common language and/or be able to understand one another no matter their language is.
10.Man trying to be his/her own god,man trying to save man.
11. lovers of self,lovers of money,violence will still increase.The love of most grows cold.

12.false peace
13.Rebellious Man kind shakes fists at God.
14.rebellious mankind refuses to repent and be saved.

The headlines and news now show the bible to be correct,it's all out in the open today,amen.
Believe what you will,but think on it long and hard.
Also,spy chips are all over the place,and they say it won't be long before they try to make a police state. Thats what being a radical liberal does to the world.
Freedom is a great thing when it doesn't violate God or others,but it's a very dangerous thing when it does!!!
Killing babies is murder!
God doesn't tell people to act like nasty sex addicted dirt bags.
You know it's getting too filthy when V.D. doesn't slow you down and the animals are better behaved than some people.
My dogs and cats don't have sex as much as most worldly people do.
My goats and chickens would put most secular individuals to shame with their modesty compared to theirs.
It's so sad when you have to blame God for not listening to him. What a cop out!!! I'm tired of all of you big cry babies blaming God and animals for the way you act. Clean up the closet before you get out of it!
No wonder the government thinks people need so much help,they can't even control themselves!!! Gee',thanks alot for making the rest of humanity look bad!!!
If you wanted real freedom to live right,you would not be offended by God and the holy bible.
Think.........
Well,you better buckle up,you are in for the bumpiest ride of your lives,amen.:eek:

[TheOneAndOnly]

Kendel, I have absolutely no idea what you're going on about.

[salvationfound]

and while I am not yet convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that evolution occured, I will not deny it simply because it doesn't fit to what I want to believe.


So does that mean your belief in it is based at least partially on faith?


his book would be a whole lot more sound than that which any religion offers today.


your opinion. To me it is the clearest book in the world.



we are only going to do so by shedding the barbaric wargods of our ancestors.


I have no idea what this means. Could you explain it more?



Here is a clear example of why Tim Lahaye is a multimillionaire.


Would people stop with the whole if you make a religious book your not
allowed to make money argument? People never once complained about
Mel Gibson making millions on his movies until he made a religious movie.
Anybody who complains that he is making millions on Passion and yet paid
money to see his other films is a hypocrite.

If you complain about Tim Lahaye let us also complain about:
James Cameron-making millions exploiting the Titanic
Steven Spielburg-making millions exploiting the Holocaust
Oliver Stone-making millions exploiting the death of JFK

I think all these people had the right to make a story and so does Lahaye.

[MikeWC]

Salvation, LGM is saying LaHaye is a millionaire because there are people (Like Kendal) dumb enough to pay him for his snake oil.

[Jayrok]

My dogs and cats don't have sex as much as most worldly people do.
My goats and chickens would put most secular individuals to shame with their modesty compared to theirs.

what in the name of sam hill...?

your dogs have sex with your cats? Well, if the pets are promiscuous, at least your goats and chickens are modest!
:lmbo:


:lolo:

[elysian]

Polyandry.

I could have a "male harem."

Other than that, not really. And it would get old quickly anyway, so I would rather serve God instead of seeking false gratification here.

[salvationfound]

your dogs have sex with your cats?


Jayrok I don't agree with some stuff Kendal has said but I'm sure you know
as well as I do he said nowhere in his post they have sex with each other.

He just said dogs and cats have sex.

That was a personal attack on his character.

[Jayrok]

Jayrok I don't agree with some stuff Kendal has said but I'm sure you know
as well as I do he said nowhere in his post they have sex with each other.

He just said dogs and cats have sex.

That was a personal attack on his character.

oh, stop it. I was just playing with him. Not trying to attack his character, just poking fun at his pets.

no harm intended. :tongue:

[Bob the Builder]

My dogs and cats don't have sex as much as most worldly people do.

Please explain what is wrong with having sex.
And calm down, no atheist hates any god - you can't hate something that doesn't exist

[Bob the Builder]

Polyandry.

I could have a "male harem."

Other than that, not really. And it would get old quickly anyway, so I would rather serve God instead of seeking false gratification here.

Is this your reason to be an atheist? Wouldn't you be better off in a religion where such things are permitted? Being an atheist has nothing to do with harems! Or has it...? *checks small print*

[elysian]

Is this your reason to be an atheist? Wouldn't you be better off in a religion where such things are permitted? Being an atheist has nothing to do with harems! Or has it...? *checks small print*

If I believed as atheists do, that there is no God, then I wouldn't worry about indulging in sinful behavior, especially if it was something I liked. I like men. If I believed there was no God then I'd want to pack as much pleasure into every day because if I believed there was no God, then life on Earth is all there is. So, wouldn't it be logical, if this life is all there is, to grab the gusto while the getting's good?

I do however believe there is a God, and that He has boundaries for human conduct. His boundary for sexual behavior is one man, one woman within the confines of marriage. This boundary is for our own good. Just as a four-year old would love to eat a pound of chocolate candy, parents set boundaries on chocolate. A piece of chocolate is fine after dinner as a dessert, but too much chocolate (chocolate outside the boundaries as it were) can be a bad thing. Too much chocolate will make you fat, or make you sick.

I believe God does exist and His boundary for sex serves a good purpose- it protects us from physical diseases. It protects us from emotional harm. It brings stability to our families and children.

[Jayrok]

If I believed as atheists do, that there is no God, then I wouldn't worry about indulging in sinful behavior, especially if it was something I liked. I like men. If I believed there was no God then I'd want to pack as much pleasure into every day because if I believed there was no God, then life on Earth is all there is. So, wouldn't it be logical, if this life is all there is, to grab the gusto while the getting's good?

I do however believe there is a God, and that He has boundaries for human conduct. His boundary for sexual behavior is one man, one woman within the confines of marriage. This boundary is for our own good. Just as a four-year old would love to eat a pound of chocolate candy, parents set boundaries on chocolate. A piece of chocolate is fine after dinner as a dessert, but too much chocolate (chocolate outside the boundaries as it were) can be a bad thing. Too much chocolate will make you fat, or make you sick.

I believe God does exist and His boundary for sex serves a good purpose- it protects us from physical diseases. It protects us from emotional harm. It brings stability to our families and children.
I don't know about this. You make it sound like an atheist has no morals and wants to party everyday without a care in the world or about consequences. That isn't true at all. Atheists are humans and they care about fellow humans. They don't go around screwing everything they see and destroying everything they see because this life is all they have. That is very shortsighted of you IMO. I know many atheists who don't believe in a God, but they do have faith in their fellow man. They do have wholesome morals because they live in and believe in a society. An atheist who has children care about their well-being and teaches them to do right by people just as much as a christian parent does for his children. You don't need a God to tell you that doing right by people is the right and moral thing to do.

You equate an atheist with things like unprotected sex, etc... with a four-year old who will eat chocolate until he gets sick? Sit back and really read that. Do you really think people that don't believe in God, have the mindset of good and bad of a four year old?

Do you think atheists go around having unprotected sex because they don't know any better?

That's not a fair picture you paint of atheists at all. You think they are evil, but that's not true at all. They just don't believe in a God.. the thing is, they don't believe in a devil either.. so being evil is not on their (to-do) list.

[salvationfound]

oh, stop it. I was just playing with him. Not trying to attack his character, just poking fun at his pets.

no harm intended.


Oh ok sorry about that then buddy. *smacking self in the head*

[burgy]

I also feel that atheism is impractical, and while certainly a lot more logical than theism I feel, it makes the same basic presumption about that which is essentially unknowable.

The claim you are making above is that God is unknowable. Scientifically, that claim is probably valid. But if God does exist, he is probably capable of communication to anyone who cares something about himself. My claim, in opposition to yours, is that he has done so to me. At age 30, BTW, some 40 + years ago.

Some of my thinkingf on this point is on my website, if anyone cares.

That's why I am a non-theist, I simply don't have a strongly held opinion about it one way or another.

That's what I was until age 30. The term that describes me best at that age is "ignostic." That's an agnostic who holds that the evidence is so sparse that investigation is not worth the effort (finite life).

The reason theism doesn't sit well with me is because it rests upon what are fundamentally wild speculations, that is:

1) a god is necessary for the universe to exist (which is a self-defeating statement, if something as magnificient as a god can exist, then why not something as comparably insignificant as a universe?)

Good argument; I had not seen it in that form before. However, change the word "necessary" in the above to "possible." I began my search only by admitting the "possibility," not the necessity.

2) humans are one of the primary reasons for the universe existing (this follows from presumption #1 and is WAY too human-centric for me to take seriously, especially considering how late in the game we appeared, and how incredibly small and insignificant we are in the grand scheme of the universe).

Not a necessary assumption at all. To hold this requires more hubris than I can justify.

3) god created humans with purpose of them worshipping it (this follows from presumption #2, which itself was dependent on presumption #1, and it's absurd because something as presumbably as powerful as this presumed human-like god would be above such petty desires to have its glutes kissed by us lowly humans. That would be like us desiring to be revered a by a bunch of insects. Why would we care? Why would god actually care? The only people who want to be "worshipped" on earth are egomaniacs and I have a hard time accepting that an all powerful entity like a god could have such an ego and actually get a kick out of us lowly primates bowing to it).

Not a necessary assumption. Some people do hold this, of course, but it is not a necessary (or even useful) assumption.

In short, the athiest makes one and only one presumption: there is no god. But the theist makes presumption after presumption with no end in sight, presumptions to explain/justify the initial presumptions until we end up with presumptions as whacky as: "homosexuality is immoral", and "god will punish you unless you can convince yourself of its existance".

Some do. Not all. This theist began with only one assumption -- that it was possible there was a God. The second assumption was that, if I were to become a theist, God would have to do the job; almost by definition I could not do it myself.

All else has followed.

Therefore, I ask, who is truly more presumptuous, the theists or the atheists? While I'm neither, I must admit, I think the answer is exceedingly evident (but it's not to any of you I'm sure).

Decent question. I'm sure there are those in both camps competing for the title. <G>

My 2 cents..

Satori[/QUOTE]

[elysian]

I don't know about this. You make it sound like an atheist has no morals and wants to party everyday without a care in the world or about consequences. That isn't true at all. Atheists are humans and they care about fellow humans. They don't go around screwing everything they see and destroying everything they see because this life is all they have. That is very shortsighted of you IMO. I know many atheists who don't believe in a God, but they do have faith in their fellow man. They do have wholesome morals because they live in and believe in a society. An atheist who has children care about their well-being and teaches them to do right by people just as much as a christian parent does for his children. You don't need a God to tell you that doing right by people is the right and moral thing to do.

You equate an atheist with things like unprotected sex, etc... with a four-year old who will eat chocolate until he gets sick? Sit back and really read that. Do you really think people that don't believe in God, have the mindset of good and bad of a four year old?

Do you think atheists go around having unprotected sex because they don't know any better?

That's not a fair picture you paint of atheists at all. You think they are evil, but that's not true at all. They just don't believe in a God.. the thing is, they don't believe in a devil either.. so being evil is not on their (to-do) list.

I don't believe atheists are evil or have no morality. I do believe that some atheists do use a form of moral relativism to justify certain behaviors, just as some who claim to be Christian come up with some pretty weird rules that aren't exactly Scriptural. I believe we are all products of the Fall.

Yes I believe most atheists would have enough sense to engage in self-preservation behavior (i.e. refraining from indiscriminate sexual encounters and other risky activity.) My husband is agnostic- yet he generally subscribes to social mores and does not engage in behavior generally considered to be detrimental or impolite (unless he's drinking with his buddies...)

My question though to non-theists is:

If you believe there are moral standards- things that are right and things that are wrong, if you believe in the intangibles such as love and affection, where do those things come from? Are they random chance? Chemical reactions? Why is "natural law" such a prevalent constant in human society?

Yes I do believe atheists/agnostics are wired like any other human being- with the capacity to love, with the capability for the full spectrum of human intellect and emotion. But I believe there is more than biology. You said yourself that "if it feels good do it" isn't a viable way of life. If you don't believe in God, then why isn't it? Is it merely the self-preservation instinct? If this is so then why would an atheist do something altruistic that would not directly benefit him?

There is a higher law and a higher standard.

[MikeWC]

If this is so then why would an atheist do something altruistic that would not directly benefit him?
...because I want to. What other motivation would I need?

[Jayrok]

I don't believe atheists are evil or have no morality. I do believe that some atheists do use a form of moral relativism to justify certain behaviors, just as some who claim to be Christian come up with some pretty weird rules that aren't exactly Scriptural. I believe we are all products of the Fall.

Yes I believe most atheists would have enough sense to engage in self-preservation behavior (i.e. refraining from indiscriminate sexual encounters and other risky activity.) My husband is agnostic- yet he generally subscribes to social mores and does not engage in behavior generally considered to be detrimental or impolite (unless he's drinking with his buddies...)

My question though to non-theists is:

If you believe there are moral standards- things that are right and things that are wrong, if you believe in the intangibles such as love and affection, where do those things come from? Are they random chance? Chemical reactions? Why is "natural law" such a prevalent constant in human society?

Yes I do believe atheists/agnostics are wired like any other human being- with the capacity to love, with the capability for the full spectrum of human intellect and emotion. But I believe there is more than biology. You said yourself that "if it feels good do it" isn't a viable way of life. If you don't believe in God, then why isn't it? Is it merely the self-preservation instinct? If this is so then why would an atheist do something altruistic that would not directly benefit him?

There is a higher law and a higher standard.
People are, by nature, communal. We prefer to live in societies instead of like barbarians. I believe people are basically good inside, no matter what their faith is.. with some exceptions, of course.. Where does love and affection come from? Everyone has the socialogical and psychological need to be accepted by others. We want to "belong" as opposed to being outcasts from society. It has nothing to do with faith in a deity. It's common phychological needs, just like the physical needs of people, we have social needs as well.

Same thing with pets. Take Dogs for instance. A dog is the most loyal and loveable creature on the planet, arguably. But God did not give the dog a soul. So he didn't plant love in that dog. On the other hand, you have ill-tempered snakes and other not so friendly creatures. Did God create them that way? I don't think so. Their environment made them that way. Dogs want to be loved, just like humans... with or without a God. Dogs don't worship a God. But they still can love.

You guys like to say that God made us as good people and when we do good it is a direct product of God. But when evil happens, you toss blame to the devil or the fall of adam, as if God didn't create evil in a person as well. God did create evil, he said so in the bible.

[Bob the Builder]

This theist began with only one assumption -- that it was possible there was a God.

Interesting. We all have that assumption, yet some of us are still atheists...

[HRG_new]

My question though to non-theists is:

If you believe there are moral standards- things that are right and things that are wrong, if you believe in the intangibles such as love and affection, where do those things come from? Are they random chance? Chemical reactions? Why is "natural law" such a prevalent constant in human society?

But it isn't, as soon as you proceed from its existence to its contents. People have a sense of right or wrong (so do chimps, dogs and cats, although on a lower level), but societies differ widely in what exactly is right resp. wrong. Let me just list a few topics:

the treatment of those who do not belong to your own clan/tribe/nation/class ..
Polygamy
Morality of the death penalty
Homosexuality
Free speech etc.

It is quite ridiculous that there is a single "natural law" which deals with all these topics. Many people have referred to "natural law"; but what they did is taking their moral opinions, projecting them onto nature and reading them back from there.

[kendal]

Please explain what is wrong with having sex.
And calm down, no atheist hates any god - you can't hate something that doesn't exist
:ahem: Hello',I am a female,thankyou!!!
sex without loyalty in marriage causes and spreads V.D.
uncontroled sexual activity kills,damages,and hurts the lives of way too many people. A.I.D.'s killed one of my brothers in 1999 just before his 31st birthday.
he was saved years before he died,and God let him live years instead a the few months the Dr.'s said he had. He got his sight back,he could walk,read and write again,and his dementia was gone. even when he died,he could still understand things and he didn't lose his mind,but they said he would,yet he didn't.
He suffered more in the years before he was saved then he ever did after he was saved.
I am related to a young girl who would not stay in school,she totally hated her parents for trying to make her live right and stay out of trouble.This girl lied,stealed,got into fights,and she slept with every guy she could,even tricking some by saying she was pregnant. she slandered her parents and spread lies about them. This girl the Dr. said got the farm,as he called it she had so many different types of veneral disease at the same time. She will have herpes for life,and all before the age of tweny years old. she didn't believe her parents or anyone,even though she knew V.D. was an epidemic. This girl still tries to hurt her parents and want to get revenge on them just because they would not accept her abuse and made her leave their home as soon as she was old enough.
whats wrong with sex you say?
Nothing when it is controled and in the right setting!!!
Why is the killing of the unborn accepted yet spanking a bad kid is called abuse?
I don't know you,but I don't think you have a right to choose and pick which morals to accept and which ones to reject. if you have any morals at all,you borrowed them from God because he is where morals came from not the world,amen.

[FirstSunday33ad]

"The Declaration of Independence of humanity:
"Man is the measure of everything" - Protagoras "

God help us all....

[Bob the Builder]

:ahem: Hello',I am a female,thankyou!!!

I know you are, I saw your previous post - I don't know why you are repeating this here...

I don't know you,but I don't think you have a right to choose and pick which morals to accept and which ones to reject.

Of course I do, what right do you think you have to dictate to me what my morality should be? Morality was not created any more than gravity or any other natural law was.

[kendal]

You have read way too many liberal textbooks,and in fact u are showing the mental over load of it all. teachers who lie to the students should be fired and text books that lie should be burned!!! you are a shining example of that and what the gays and lesbians are trying to get away with in the public schools. Hilary Clintone fan fan no doubt about it !
in the bible when the people were wicked they got a wicked ruler that was even more wicked than themselves!:eek:

[kendal]

If I believed as atheists do, that there is no God, then I wouldn't worry about indulging in sinful behavior, especially if it was something I liked. I like men. If I believed there was no God then I'd want to pack as much pleasure into every day because if I believed there was no God, then life on Earth is all there is. So, wouldn't it be logical, if this life is all there is, to grab the gusto while the getting's good?

I do however believe there is a God, and that He has boundaries for human conduct. His boundary for sexual behavior is one man, one woman within the confines of marriage. This boundary is for our own good. Just as a four-year old would love to eat a pound of chocolate candy, parents set boundaries on chocolate. A piece of chocolate is fine after dinner as a dessert, but too much chocolate (chocolate outside the boundaries as it were) can be a bad thing. Too much chocolate will make you fat, or make you sick.

I believe God does exist and His boundary for sex serves a good purpose- it protects us from physical diseases. It protects us from emotional harm. It brings stability to our families and children.
:smile: I agree with your post. A fine christian example displayed here and I wish there were more like you here!!! You bless me!

[kendal]

I don't know about this. You make it sound like an atheist has no morals and wants to party everyday without a care in the world or about consequences. That isn't true at all. Atheists are humans and they care about fellow humans. They don't go around screwing everything they see and destroying everything they see because this life is all they have. That is very shortsighted of you IMO. I know many atheists who don't believe in a God, but they do have faith in their fellow man. They do have wholesome morals because they live in and believe in a society. An atheist who has children That's not a fair picture you paint of atheists at all. You think they are evil, but that's not true at all. They just don't believe in a God.. the thing is, they don't believe in a devil either.. so being evil is not on their (to-do) list.
:ahem: You are wrong here Bub!
the bible clearly says that the scoffers in the last days would be willingly ignorant. In other words they choose to be ignorant and they do it on purpose!!! 2 Peter 3:3-5

You are not good no matter how you preach otherwise and ya know it! Sorry dude,in this life,you do not get to pick and choose which morals you want and which ones you can just throw out!!!
God is not about to bend down and kiss your booty!!!!
The good news is there won't be any atheists soon,the bad news is that many of them will conform to the Mother Harlot one world religion ( Inter-faithism)
:blush:
The scoffers in the last days are ignorant by choice,not by logic!
Sounds like you have been reading to many liberal text books again!

[kendal]

Jayrok I don't agree with some stuff Kendal has said but I'm sure you know
as well as I do he said nowhere in his post they have sex with each other.

He just said dogs and cats have sex.

That was a personal attack on his character.
:blush: Thanx alot SF but I love the debate with atheists because I know why they don't want there to be a God,and the bible tells us why. The bible tells it like it is,amen.,and it chaps their hide to the sky!!! Oh' how they just hate the bible,and they hate to be told the truth about how there will soon be no atheists left just converts to the one world religion!!!
If you know an atheist,let me have em',I'll tell them the truth.To believe there is no God makes you a fool! Someone has to stand in the gap and hey,they sure need to at least be warned of their folly so they have even less of an excuse!!!

[HRG_new]

"The Declaration of Independence of humanity:
"Man is the measure of everything" - Protagoras "

God help us all....

Well, if you do not want to become independent, that's your problem - not mine ;)

[kendal]

...because I want to. What other motivation would I need?
:blush: where does that desire come from?
I personally don't believe you,but I don't know you so......
You lack the evidence to support your claims that you are not greedy and selfish 'round the clock!!!


The fool says in his heart there is no God!

[EvoUK]

:ahem:

Is kendel still around? [sigh]

[kendal]

I know you are, I saw your previous post - I don't know why you are repeating this here...



Of course I do, what right do you think you have to dictate to me what my morality should be? Morality was not created any more than gravity or any other


natural law was.

:eek: What gives you the right to spread lies about my God?
You have no right to go straight to a christian forum and spread your trash!!!
You sir,are one arrogant little dude,and I personally do not think you have any right what so ever to bash another persons faith,especially when they are in a forum that is christian,and you are not a christian.
I get the joy of knowing that soon there won't be any atheists,but too bad so many will convert to the global one world religion rather than to be saved.

Just because you believe all that garbage don't expect others to believe it.Anyone that listens to you was already in trouble anyone and the only little push with your feather just gave them the excuse to live out what they already wanted to do anyway!
God won't ever kiss your butt,so just forget it!
Who is the dummy? It is the fool who says in his heart there is no God!
In the last days the scoffers will be willingly ignorant!!!! 2Peter 3: 3-5

[EvoUK]

I get the joy of knowing that soon there won't be any atheists,but too bad so many will convert to the global one world religion rather than to be saved.


Do you make this garbage up yourself, or does somone write it down for you?

Who is the dummy? It is the fool who says in his heart there is no God!

Using the bible in discussion with an atheist- excellent idea... :ahem:

I'll just go get my Qu'ran- I'm sure I can find a few passages in there for you non-believers...

:rock:

[Roy]

You have no right to go straight to a christian forum and spread your trash!!!
You sir,are one arrogant little dude,and I personally do not think you have any right what so ever to bash another persons faith,especially when they are in a forum that is christian,and you are not a christian.
...
Just because you believe all that garbage ...

Let me get this straight - he is not allowed to bash your faith, but you are allowed to bash his?

Roy

[Seasanctuary]

Let me get this straight - he is not allowed to bash your faith, but you are allowed to bash his?
Obviously a false analogy because Kendal is right. :noid:

[Bob the Builder]

:eek: What gives you the right to spread lies about my God?


OK, let's start with you showing me where I have lied.

[ilkhani'tus]

:smile: I agree with your post. A fine christian example displayed here and I wish there were more like you here!!! You bless me!I sincerely hope that this is NOT "a fine christian example"! Why? Just read what this character said:

If I believed as atheists do, that there is no God, then I wouldn't worry about indulging in sinful behavior, especially if it was something I liked. I like men. If I believed there was no God then I'd want to pack as much pleasure into every day because if I believed there was no God, then life on Earth is all there is. So, wouldn't it be logical, if this life is all there is, to grab the gusto while the getting's good?

I do however believe there is a God, and that He has boundaries for human conduct. His boundary for sexual behavior is one man, one woman within the confines of marriage. This boundary is for our own good. Just as a four-year old would love to eat a pound of chocolate candy, parents set boundaries on chocolate. A piece of chocolate is fine after dinner as a dessert, but too much chocolate (chocolate outside the boundaries as it were) can be a bad thing. Too much chocolate will make you fat, or make you sick.

I believe God does exist and His boundary for sex serves a good purpose- it protects us from physical diseases. It protects us from emotional harm. It brings stability to our families and children.If the only reason for doing "good" is because there's a god around to punish you, either himself or through the "rules" he's set up, then you are NOT a moral person! Not anymore moral than a mean kid who only behaves to avoid getting into trouble with his parents.

People aren't considered moral until they are able to figure out and follow the rules of society without having to have someone looking over their shoulder all the time.<~~not everyone is moral, that's why we have cops.

For an example: Carl Sagan was an atheist, yet he wrote in his book "Cosmos" that if someone disagrees with you, don't kill them, because they're a unique individual whom the universe will never produce again. Care to contrast that with how xians have acted throughout the ages (ie. Those who blaspheme the Lord shall be put to death, etc)? or your friends' statement that you liked so much?


So, who do you think is more moral...the person who was already an atheist who right off says not to kill people OR a xian who says that if he became an atheist he'd basically do whatever he wants to do?


Or, to help drive this point home--as Dan Barker a former preacher once said: Who would you rather be married to: someone who in marriage was faithful to you only because it's against "god's rules" to fool around, OR someone who's faithful to you because they actually love and respect you, regardless of god-belief?


You have no right to go straight to a christian forum and spread your trash!!!
You sir,are one arrogant little dude,and I personally do not think you have any right what so ever to bash another persons faith,especially when they are in a forum that is christian,and you are not a christian.
...
Just because you believe all that garbage ...

BTW, in case you haven't noticed, this is the "Apologetics forum". Read what it says underneath...athiesm vs. theism.

What's that mean? That means we argue about god, or in other words, that is waht gives him the right! That's what this forum here is for! If you can't stand to see someone criticize your god, or if you can't defend him, you can go go to one of the Christian only forums on this board.

While you're at it, you could maybe stand to work on you tone when you criticize others, especially when your criticism is unjustified in the first place.



Also, we're still waiting for any examples of

1) where "Bob the Builder" lied about your god
2) examples of the many mistakes in "liberal" textbooks, since you seem to know that they are so useless
3) any evidence that those who write the textbooks even have a "liberal" agenda in the first place!


**This is NOT "Rapture Ready" or some exclusively fundy board like that, where you can just spout off to a chorus of amens...Here, you have to back up what you say.**


If that's too much, then you can go to:
http://www.rr-bb.com
or
http://forums.tribulationforces.com


Both of those sites are more or less-xian only...in RR at least, atheists are restricted to ONE forum..."Apologetics", which you can't even see unless you're signed on.


This board here actually allows some discourse between believers and non -believers.

[kendal]

:ahem:

Is kendel still around? [sigh]
:wink: U want me,don't ya!

[kendal]

Let me get this straight - he is not allowed to bash your faith, but you are allowed to bash his?

Roy
Hey,hey,hey,...... I do not bash anyones faith,but if you listen to the news even or look around at the times you are now in,you can see where all of this is going!
Why come here and stir up the christians if you don't have too?:blush:

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know the world is getting more and more religious!!!

[kendal]

I know you are, I saw your previous post - I don't know why you are repeating this here...



Of course I do, what right do you think you have to dictate to me what my morality should be? Morality was not created any more than gravity or any other natural law was.
:smile: I have every right,Spunky!

[kendal]

:ahem:

Is kendel still around? [sigh]
:teeth: About your little pic of Prez. Bush,don't you give any of us enough intelligence to know for a fact that if The President Bush came to your house you would be kissing his fanny Big Time?
Give us some credit,dude!!!

[EvoUK]

I consider myself his superior in most ways, I don't see why I should begin to "kiss his fanny"...

BTW, as he's a guy- why on earth would he have a fanny? Is he a hermaphrodite as well as a moron now?

[Roy]

Hey,hey,hey,...... I do not bash anyones faith,

Yeah, right, so when you say "all that garbage" you're being complimentary. And porcines aviate.

[Bob the Builder]

:smile: I have every right,Spunky!
Now you have confirmed 100% how deluded you really are. :hehe:

Spunky?!?! Sorry to dash your sexual fantasies love, but talking to you isn't quite that exciting :shrug:

[kendal]

Well, if you do not want to become independent, that's your problem - not mine ;)
:woohoo: Are you saying that people who believe in God are not independent? It's a free choice to believe in God or not,and when you choose to believe God you are using your freedom to choose,and your rights!!!
God sets you free and helps you make wise choices,amen.
Thats pretty independent to me!!!
Even a dummy is considered wise if he believes in God,amen.

[kendal]

Do you make this garbage up yourself, or does somone write it down for you?



Using the bible in discussion with an atheist- excellent idea... :ahem:

I'll just go get my Qu'ran- I'm sure I can find a few passages in there for you non-believers...

:rock:
What a nutty thing to say!
If you believe the Qu'ran then you support religious fredom and religious beliefs.
You won't be called a hater.
as an atheist,you believe in no god at all,and you come here to a christian forum to tell us about it! What is wrong with this picture,dude?:lmbo:

[kendal]

If you only serve God because you fear punishment,you have some major problems,because what makes you believe there is a God who will actually punish you if you had no faith that a God is real?

:flaming:

I believe in God because he is right,and I believe what his word says.
I believe in what God stands for,and he's 100% right!!!
I'm on God's side because I believe it's wrong to have sex without being married to the person you have sex with. I believe adultery is wrong,and I believe that it's wrong to have abortions,and to steal and lie,ect......
If thats too hard for you to live by,you might want to ask yourself how it got to that point,and why your morals are so loose instead of blaming God,or saying there is no God.
If you have no self control then thats more of a character flaw in yourself and not the fault of anyone else. If you cannot stop sinning willfully,then you cannot stop doing much of anything else thats not good for you.
If you cannot live by a moral code that requires you to stop being self centered and greedy,I wouldn't have you for a friend.
Bad company spoils good habits,and I am very careful of who my friends are.
Having good and clean morals is very good for mental health and well being.
God helps us make better choices and prevents us from harming others or stepping into our neihbors yard to steal or take from him/her that is not rightfully ours. God helps us keep our bodies clean so they will live longer,and God helps us have clean mouths so we don't talk trash to others.
I believe God knows what he is doing,amen.:read: :jardin: :luv: :mm: :baby:

[kendal]

:dance: :dance: God is a great blessing and a great help to everyone who believes him. God helps to prevent the heart break and sadness that comes with sex before marriage,known to christians as greasy monkey love,and God helps prevent the spread of AID's,and all STD's,God helps us to stay mentally,morally and physically clean and pure,God helps us care for our health,minds and bodies,and God helps us have a healthy self image. God helps prevent the heart break of bad relationships and poor choices in life.

Having faith in a Holy,loving and good God gives us hope and courage to face the challenges that normally go along with life,and God gives us peace and joy that nothing else can give!:pray:
Try him,you might see for yourself how real he is,amen.

[chsalvia]

God helps prevent the spread of AID's,and all STD's

Even Hepatitis C?

[rach12]

God helps to prevent the heart break and sadness that comes with sex before marriage,known to christians as greasy monkey love,and ... <snip>
:twitch:






:lol:

[C. D. Ward]

I can think of only one reason to be an atheist: intellectual honesty.

And by this I am not saying that theists are intellectually dishonest. I'm saying that any individual who honestly examines the evidence and determines that he/she can not affirm god-belief should be an atheist. Of course, the converse is true as well; any individual who honestly examines the evidence and determines that he/she must affirm god-belief should be a theist.

[Bob the Builder]

It's a free choice to believe in God or not,and when you choose to believe God you are using your freedom to choose,and your rights!!!

Nonsense. Can you "choose" to become an atheist? Or do you feel inside you that your god exists? It is impossible to choose what to believe.

[Rationalist]

What the world needs is more "greasy monkey love".

Make greasy monkey love, not guerilla war for oil. :)

[kendal]

Now you have confirmed 100% how deluded you really are. :hehe:

Spunky?!?! Sorry to dash your sexual fantasies love, but talking to you isn't quite that exciting :shrug:
:bravo: I have every reason to doubt that you'd say that if you met me,but I wouldn't go for you,and I am very happily married,thank you,but No way Jose'!!!

[kendal]

What the world needs is more "greasy monkey love".

Make greasy monkey love, not guerilla war for oil. :)
:lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: Ta',hee.hee,he,he......
oh' you are so funny,don't stop,don't stop!!!

[kendal]

I consider myself his superior in most ways, I don't see why I should begin to "kiss his fanny"...

BTW, as he's a guy- why on earth would he have a fanny? Is he a hermaphrodite as well as a moron now?
:whack: superior to what? your loose lover?

[kendal]

:fencing: Why can't atheists prove there is no God?

They love to fight so much,but why,when they have nothing they can prove?
Why is there so much the atheist cannot understand?

:pray: The christian theistic world view can account for the laws of logic by stating they come from God.
A. God is transcendent;that is,He is beyond the material universe being it's creator.
B.God has originated the laws of logic because they are a reflection of his nature.
C. Therefore,the laws of logic are absolute.
D. They are absolute because there is an absolute God.

The atheistic worldview cannot account for the laws of logic/absolutes,and must borrow from the christian worldview in order to rationally argue.

[chsalvia]

The christian theistic world view can account for the laws of logic by stating they come from God.

The Christian worldview can "account" for a lot of things by claiming they come from God. You know, like anything we don't understand right now.

[Seasanctuary]

:fencing: Why can't atheists prove there is no God?
Why can't theists prove there is a God?

Real Answer: Both Theists and Atheists have proved to various people's satisfaction that there is / isn't a God.

:pray: The christian theistic world view can account for the laws of logic by stating they come from God.
A. God is transcendent;that is,He is beyond the material universe being it's creator.
B.God has originated the laws of logic because they are a reflection of his nature.
C. Therefore,the laws of logic are absolute.
D. They are absolute because there is an absolute God.
You're starting with God existing, then arguing from there that God exists.

Premise: God exists.
Conclusion: God exists.

Brilliant! :b_cyclps:

The atheistic worldview cannot account for the laws of logic
Why not, specifically?

Caution: Try not to include "God exists" as a premise this time.

[shunyadragon]

:fencing: Why can't atheists prove there is no God?

They love to fight so much,but why,when they have nothing they can prove?
Why is there so much the atheist cannot understand?

:pray: The christian theistic world view can account for the laws of logic by stating they come from God.
A. God is transcendent;that is,He is beyond the material universe being it's creator.
B.God has originated the laws of logic because they are a reflection of his nature.
C. Therefore,the laws of logic are absolute.
D. They are absolute because there is an absolute God.

The atheistic worldview cannot account for the laws of logic/absolutes,and must borrow from the christian worldview in order to rationally argue.

First you have to pesent a logical arguement. Your arguement broke more than a few rules. I would think that most people look to Greece and people like Aristotle for the origins of logic and debate.

[Bob the Builder]

:bravo: I have every reason to doubt that you'd say that if you met me,
Really? What makes you think that? How do you know I'm not gay?

but I wouldn't go for you,and I am very happily married,thank you,but No way Jose'!!!

I'm very glad to hear it, not that I would go for you either. Guaranteed.

[Bob the Builder]

:fencing: Why can't atheists prove there is no God?

Why can't a theist prove any gods?

Why is there so much the atheist cannot understand?
That's true for all humans.


:pray: The christian theistic world view can account for the laws of logic by stating they come from God.
A. God is transcendent;that is,He is beyond the material universe being it's creator.
B.God has originated the laws of logic because they are a reflection of his nature.
C. Therefore,the laws of logic are absolute.
D. They are absolute because there is an absolute God.

That's nonsense, why do the laws of logic, or physics or anything have to originate from somewhere? The simple fact is THEY DON'T.

The atheistic worldview cannot account for the laws of logic/absolutes,and must borrow from the christian worldview in order to rationally argue.
:lmbo:

[kendal]

Really? What makes you think that? How do you know I'm not gay?



I'm very glad to hear it, not that I would go for you either. Guaranteed.


:eek: No doubt you would be gay or a happily married christian,and since your not christian,that just leaves one option doesn't it?
Either way, I am not trying to attract any one,I am very happy with my christian husband. I am not insulted at all by the lost who claim they wouldn't be interested in me. Actually,that is a good thing! YES!!!

[kendal]

The Christian worldview can "account" for a lot of things by claiming they come from God. You know, like anything we don't understand right now.
:ahem: You don't understand because you either can't or don't want to!:badger:

Just do me one big favor,o.k? If you see that I told you the truth one day,or night,which ever happens first,will you at least consider believing Jesus Christ?
Thats all I ask of any of you. Would you at least think about it?

[Seasanctuary]

I'm pretty sure all the skeptics here have considered "believing Jesus Christ."

[kendal]

Why can't a theist prove any gods?


That's true for all humans.



That's nonsense, why do the laws of logic, or physics or anything have to originate from somewhere? The simple fact is THEY DON'T.


:lmbo:
:badger: The fact that I have the proof in my own life is good enough for me. You don't have to believe me,but one day you'll believe in something totally different than what you claim you believe in now,I just know for a fact this is true.
:cheers: Common sense would tell most people that evolution is a lie.
So,you are an atheist who believes in evolution,hmmmmm.....................:brood:
That is strange!!!
Why would an atheist choose to believe in evolution when so many other religions also believe in it? You would think that an atheist would want to get as far away from religion as they could get. Something is very wrong with this picture! Why does an atheist have to believe in anything?
To believe that the first man and woman just got here by random chance is hard enough to believe,but to be an evolutionist and an atheist,hmmmmm....................:noid:
I just hope you will accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and personal savior when you see everything begin to happen as I told you it would.

[kendal]

:violin: I'm pretty sure all the skeptics here have considered "believing Jesus Christ."
:idea: Oh' you think so?
Sounds strange to me because there are so many religions and so many different churches out there all claiming to know the truth,why would they think Jesus Christ could be true?
If you really want to believe in Jesus Christ,you will,and nothing will get in your way!
I don't have a church,it's just God,the Holy Ghost,Jesus,& me every day and every night.
I believe God and his word,and I believe Jesus Christ is worth everything in the world!!!
Lets just say for instance,what if you chose to believe in God,and you died,and you never woke up so you didn't know the outcome,or what if you died,and didn't believe in God and did wake up and had eternal torment forever?
Too hard for you to believe,right? Well,why chance it though?
:juggle: Don't you ever get tired of not having a true purpose or meaning for your life?
Why do you want to be around the christians if you are not arrogant enough to feel that you can change the way they think and believe?
It seems so odd that you would want to be around christians to me.
If your mind is already made up,then what are you here for?
no amount of christian testimony is going to change what you think so why be here?
I know for a fact God is real,but I cannot make you see that.
I don't think you want God to be real. I honestly believe you love sin,and hate all authority. I don't mean it to offend you,thats just the impression I get from you. I don't think you want God to exist because you don't want to live right,yet if you truly were a good person you wouldn't have a problem doing what the bible says to do. Good people don't have a conflict with the bible at all.
You are not going to fight for something you can't win are you?
remember,you are going to have no choice but to accept all religious views very soon. It's called promoting global peace and unity,and everyone has to show tolerance towards all religious views.
You won't be able to live the life of an atheist,even if you feel you still are one. You'll have to be tolerant of others and their religion. atheists cannot do that for very long. You are an atheist,right?
I am really just trying to help you. All I want from you is to give Jesus Christ a chance when you see all of this happening,and I mean a real,honest,true chance. Would you do that?

[kendal]

:b_bow: Why do most people all over the world believe their is a God?
Why did so many people die for their faith in Jesus Christ?
satan did a great job of putting so many false religions in the world,but Jesus Christ is not a false religion. If you ever wanted to believe in him,you would.
Why can't you prove there is no God?
Is it because you are not omni-present?
The Bible says,to believe there is no God makes you a fool!
I believe it.
If God says you are not intelligent then that is good enough for me.

[Rationalist]

:b_bow: Why do most people all over the world believe their is a God?
God's, godesses, animal gods, river gods, spirits, demons, ghosts, aliens, bigfoot, the loch ness monster, etc.

Does that answer your question?

Why did so many people die for their faith in Jesus Christ?
Allah, David Koresh, Jim Jones.

satan did a great job of putting so many false religions in the world,but Jesus Christ is not a false religion.
All religious say that. They say that about Christianity. They can't all be right.. but they sure can all be wrong.

If you ever wanted to believe in him,you would.
Same goes with unicorns.

Why can't you prove there is no God?
Why can't you prove there is a God?

Barring that, why can't you prove he's not Allah?

Is it because you are not omni-present?
How do you know I'm not?

The Bible says,to believe there is no God makes you a fool!
Imagine that. A book that depends primarily on you believing in God states that if you don't you're foolish.

I believe it.
I don't.

If God says you are not intelligent then that is good enough for me.
If you could prove God existed, and he actually wrote the Bible, that would be good enough for all of us. So you better get started then.

[Bob the Builder]

:eek: No doubt you would be gay or a happily married christian,and since your not christian,that just leaves one option doesn't it?

er, no it doesn't. There're plenty of other options.

Either way, I am not trying to attract any one,I am very happy with my christian husband.

I'm glad to hear it!

I am not insulted at all by the lost who claim they wouldn't be interested in me. Actually,that is a good thing! YES!!!

You weren't supposed to be insulted, the simple fact is you're just not my type, love. And for your information, I'm not lost, I know exactly where I am. :tongue:

[Bob the Builder]

:badger: The fact that I have the proof in my own life is good enough for me. You don't have to believe me,but one day you'll believe in something totally different than what you claim you believe in now,I just know for a fact this is true.

What do you mean "claim to believe" - do you think you know what I believe better than I do?
So what's going to happen to make me change my beliefs then?

:cheers: Common sense would tell most people that evolution is a lie.:lmbo:

Common sense would tell you the Sun goes around the Earth and that the Earth is flat! You need a bit of knowledge in the mix as well.
Which part of the theory of evolution does "common sense" tell you is wrong then?

So,you are an atheist who believes in evolution,hmmmmm.....................:brood:
That is strange!!!

Why?

Why would an atheist choose to believe in evolution when so many other religions also believe in it? You would think that an atheist would want to get as far away from religion as they could get.

And thinking life evolves has what to do with religion exactly? Which god is being worshipped here?


Something is very wrong with this picture! Why does an atheist have to believe in anything?

We all believe things, kendal. Do you believe there is life elsewhere in the Universe? I do. Do you believe Derby County will stay up this season? I do.



To believe that the first man and woman just got here by random chance is hard enough to believe,but to be an evolutionist and an atheist,hmmmmm....................:noid:

What "first man and woman"? :huh:

I just hope you will accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and personal savior when you see everything begin to happen as I told you it would.

Given acceptable evidence, I hope I would do that. Remember, no-one can choose what to believe.

[kendal]

What do you mean "claim to believe" - do you think you know what I believe better than I do?
So what's going to happen to make me change my beliefs then?:ahem: What a silly notion! I doubt you would change what you believed in unless you were forced,and even then,who knows. If you are getting what you want out of your story,you'll stay with it until it no longer gives you what you want.

:lmbo:

Common sense would tell you the Sun goes around the Earth and that the Earth is flat! You need a bit of knowledge in the mix as well.
Which part of the theory of evolution does "common sense" tell you is wrong then?:smile: You really believe in fables,huh?
every bit of the evolution religion is false,and easy to figure out that it's all make believe,like Harry Potter.



Why? Why not?:wink:



And thinking life evolves has what to do with religion exactly? Which god is being worshipped here? Please check out this site by a fellow evolutionist,K?
www.resurrectisis.org/PaganEvolution.htm (http://www.resurrectisis.org/PaganEvolution.htm)





We all believe things, kendal. Do you believe there is life elsewhere in the Universe? I do. Do you believe Derby County will stay up this season? I do.
I believe if you were married you'd have a baby! My assumption has more fact in it than your evolution religion does,even if my assumption isn't true or doesn't come true. It's just a proven probability that has happened often enough to be predictable.:blush:






What "first man and woman"? :huh: Yes, Adam and Eve! The male chromosone Y can only be traced as far back as Noah,but the female chromosone goes all the way back to Eve. There had to be a first,amen. God is it! The Alpha & The Omega!!!



Given acceptable evidence, I hope I would do that. Remember, no-one can choose what to believe. :smile: But we can look around us and think for ourselves what the odds are in favor of or against anything! It's just plain old common sense.

[Bob the Builder]

You seem to have got the formatting messed up, I'll try and sort it out..What a silly notion! I doubt you would change what you believed in unless you were forced,and even then,who knows. If you are getting what you want out of your story,you'll stay with it until it no longer gives you what you want.
YOU said atheists will change their beliefs. I was asking why/how?

You really believe in fables,huh?
every bit of the evolution religion is false,and easy to figure out that it's all make believe,like Harry Potter.
Evolution is not a religion. If "every bit" of it is false, then why does almost every Christian agree that "micro evolution" (as they call it) happens?


Please check out this site by a fellow evolutionist,K?
www.resurrectisis.org/PaganEvolution.htm

I looked at this, and as I posted in that other thread (I can't remember which) this is selective breeding, not evolution.

I believe if you were married you'd have a baby! My assumption has more fact in it than your evolution religion does,even if my assumption isn't true or doesn't come true. It's just a proven probability that has happened often enough to be predictable.
That's a silly thing to believe. I know many people who are married and have no children. I'm sure you're not interested but I have 3 children.
Again, evolution is not a religion. It is a theory based on factual evidence. What is your assumption based on? I suggest you look carefully at it, it looks very shaky.


Yes, Adam and Eve! The male chromosone Y can only be traced as far back as Noah,but the female chromosone goes all the way back to Eve. There had to be a first,amen. God is it! The Alpha & The Omega!!!
No, there did not "have to be a first".



:smile: But we can look around us and think for ourselves what the odds are in favor of or against anything!
Yes we can, but a) the odds aren't in favour of gods and b) if you're trying to convince yourself of something then it should be clear that you don't really believe it.

[kendal]

:hi: Here are a few sites that you may want to look at.

I hope they are useful to someone here.
www.resurrectisis.org/PaganEvolution.htm (http://www.resurrectisis.org/PaganEvolution.htm)
www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-234.htm (http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-234.htm)
www.evolutiondocumentary.com (http://www.evolutiondocumentary.com)
www.harunyahya.com/20questions (http://www.harunyahya.com/20questions)


please let me know what you think of these sites,o.k?:wink:

[Bob the Builder]

:hi: Here are a few sites that you may want to look at.

I hope they are useful to someone here.
www.resurrectisis.org/PaganEvolution.htm (http://www.resurrectisis.org/PaganEvolution.htm)
www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-234.htm (http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-234.htm)
www.evolutiondocumentary.com (http://www.evolutiondocumentary.com)
www.harunyahya.com/20questions (http://www.harunyahya.com/20questions)


please let me know what you think of these sites,o.k?:wink:

OK.
The first one mentions evolution several times, but it's really talking about selective breeding, a practice man has used for thousands of years.
The second one is icr and as I pointed out elsewhere, undermines your claim that evolution is a religion when it says that Pagans do not believe that the Universe came from nothing.
The third is some kind of multimedia presentation that I'm not going to sit through at work!!! (You trying to get me sacked kendal? :brood: )
The fourth, well, it's so blatantly biased towards the religious p.o.v, I just can't read it with a straight face. I started to read it, but the assumptions they were making were so far distanced from my position I decided there was no point finishing it.

[kendal]

:b_bow: :b_bow: :b_bow: Atheists will have to change their views and accept the true roots of their pagan religion in order to get along with people in the world because of religious intolerance becoming a hate crime.

But that doesn't many you will be much better for it,yet you'll at least believe in a god,though false gods/goddess's are fake.,and it's a great big sin against the one true living God. It's better just to break down and admit your error and be saved through Christ Jesus,rather than to go through what you will in the near future.
Christians are evolutionists? Well,not in my book. they are pagan religious theist's that have gone back to their original roots of evolutionism.

check out this site: www.darwinism-watch.com/ (http://www.darwinism-watch.com/)
and these too : www.evidencesofcreation.com (http://www.evidencesofcreation.com)
www.resurrectisis.org/PaganGenesis.htm (http://www.resurrectisis.org/PaganGenesis.htm)
www.yfiles.com/ (http://www.yfiles.com/)

I know you do try very hard to convince yourself that the holy God of the bible doesn't exist,but that doesn't make you right. I know he is alive and more real than both of us are,amen.
:b_splits: (http://www.yfiles.com) I just challenge you to do the research for yourself,so when you do learn the truth,you'll feel good about yourself knowing you did it on your own without the help of a christian sister.
I wish you no harm at all,I just hate to see a soul that is precious to God lose what he worked so hard to give you. Jesus did it all to save us. I hope you'll one day know this is true.
A soul is a terrible thing to waste!!!

[Bob the Builder]

Atheists will have to change their views and accept the true roots of their pagan religion in order to get along with people in the world because of religious intolerance becoming a hate crime.

You don't really understand what an atheist is, do you? Or a Pagan, come to that.
An atheist does not believe that any gods exist - not yours, not the Pagan gods, not one. Which, by definition, means that an atheist is not a member of any religion.

But that doesn't many you will be much better for it,yet you'll at least believe in a god,though false gods/goddess's are fake.,and it's a great big sin against the one true living God. It's better just to break down and admit your error and be saved through Christ Jesus,rather than to go through what you will in the near future.

I agree that false gods are fake, I just think there's one more fake god than you do :wink:

Christians are evolutionists? Well,not in my book. they are pagan religious theist's that have gone back to their original roots of evolutionism.
Plenty of Christians agree that species adapt to their environment, it's the splitting into a new species bit that they tend to disagree about.

check out this site: www.darwinism-watch.com/ (http://www.darwinism-watch.com/)
and these too : www.evidencesofcreation.com (http://www.evidencesofcreation.com)
www.resurrectisis.org/PaganGenesis.htm (http://www.resurrectisis.org/PaganGenesis.htm)
www.yfiles.com/ (http://www.yfiles.com/)

I know you do try very hard to convince yourself that the holy God of the bible doesn't exist,but that doesn't make you right. I know he is alive and more real than both of us are,amen.

Not at all, I am convinced that no gods exist and every so often I question that. Isn't it healthy to question your beliefs now and again?
:b_splits: (http://www.yfiles.com) I just challenge you to do the research for yourself,so when you do learn the truth,you'll feel good about yourself knowing you did it on your own without the help of a christian sister.
I wish you no harm at all,I just hate to see a soul that is precious to God lose what he worked so hard to give you. Jesus did it all to save us. I hope you'll one day know this is true.
A soul is a terrible thing to waste!!!
Why don't you list some of the things common sense tells you is wrong with evolution? After that you can try to convince me that there is such thing as a "soul".

And then let's try and get back on topic!! :tongue: