The perfect argument against God - it bats 1.000! [Archive] - The Orange Mane

freak6

07-16-2007, 09:33 PM

This is how I proved the Christian god is an impossibility, and all 6 priests and pastors from different Christian sects agreed with me that thier god was by definition impossible.

First, the principal characteristics of that define the Christian god.

1. It is all powerful.

2. It is all good.

3. It is all knowing.

God knows everything. God knows exactly what his Angels will do before he even makes them.

God created Angels.

God knows before he even creates Lucifer that it will become the most evil force in the Universe. Before it creates Lucifer, it instantly analyzes everything that will come to pass and...

God makes the decision, knowing and intending for everything that will happen if he creates Lucifer. If it was not it's intention, he would not have created Lucifer the exact way it did, because of God being all powerful and knowing everything that Lucifer will do BEFORE he creates him.

God creates Lucifer.

Therefore, God intentionally created Lucifer to be the most evil force in the universe.

Everything that Lucifer did was exactly what God wanted him to do, or else God would not have created him, because he knew exactly what, where, and when Lucifer would do everything that he does.

Because time does not affect God or it's knowledge, if God did not want that to happen he would not have created Lucifer in the first place.

God therefore cannot be all good if he intentionally created the most evil force in the universe with the express intention to do every evil deed that Lucifer would do.

In fact, given that God is all powerful and all knowing, he INTENDED for Lucifer to do every evil act that he did.

He created Lucifer and put into the chain of events the exact circumstances for everything that is evil in the universe to happen, according to how it wanted it to happen.

God is therefore directly responsible for all of Lucifer's evil as Lucifer is merely doing everything that god created him to, down to the last and smallest detail, which God intended for Lucifer to do.

God therefore cannot be all good.

Unless...

His knowledge is limited by time, and he created Lucifer as the most beautiful angel with good intentions unaware that Lucifer would turn against him...

But then God is not all powerful as time affects him, and not all knowing.

The bible reads as if God is not all knowing, and his knowledge is affected by time. Either way, the Christian god is by it's own definition impossible.

The clergy I spoke to all had degrees in theology from thier different sects of Christianity, and all of them admitted that thier god was impossible as well.

Sorry for beating that dead horse to mush about the intentionality of God and his pet Lucifer, but it is the most important trait.

Please don't rush to respond to this, and try to disprove it. It cannot be disproven.

Take the time to contemplate the argument.

Remember, 6 Pastors and Priests have already admitted that this proves the Christian god is impossible by it's own definition.

RMT

07-16-2007, 09:48 PM

What I find amazing is that the word of 6 preachers refuting the existence of God is somehow more believeable than the thousands of others who preach about God's existence.

Reminds me of a stats quote: torture numbers long enough and they'll confess to anything.

Lev Vyvanse

07-16-2007, 10:02 PM

Reminds me of a stats quote: torture numbers long enough and they'll confess to anything.

Did you know a lie is 75% more believable in the form of a stat?

mosca

07-16-2007, 10:02 PM

This is just another twist on the age-old Riddle of Epicurus:

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

I've yet to hear a good answer to it, but I'm sure many have tried.

RMT

07-16-2007, 10:09 PM

Did you know a lie is 75% more believable in the form of a stat?

so true - of course, 5 out of 4 have trouble with fractions, too ;)

Lev Vyvanse

07-16-2007, 10:24 PM

2. It is all good.

So freak what is your definition of good? Because good can be used in 20 ways meaning 20 different things.

This is a good thread.

freak6

07-16-2007, 10:27 PM

This is just another twist on the age-old Riddle of Epicurus:

I've yet to hear a good answer to it, but I'm sure many have tried.

Kind of, but mine is much more specific and direct to the definitions the various churches prescribed to thier deity.

Lev Vyvanse

07-16-2007, 11:21 PM

Kind of, but mine is much more specific and direct to the definitions the various churches prescribed to thier deity.

So what is the definition various churches use for "good".

This bacon and ketchup sandwich is good.

Garcia Bronco

07-16-2007, 11:27 PM

Good is arbitrary. Today, good was done by the execution of a madman in the Capital of Colorado. If God is good and not affected by time, then God would probably be what we would call a utilitarian. Perhaps figuring the casual tree to create the greatest good. What is the greatest good? I don't know. I do know that from person to person it would be a slightly to very different, but always somehow different.

Like most worship....maybe we give God or the Creator more credit than they deserve.

Lev Vyvanse

07-16-2007, 11:38 PM

baja

07-17-2007, 12:04 AM

This is just another twist on the age-old Riddle of Epicurus:

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

I've yet to hear a good answer to it, but I'm sure many have tried.

Read my signature line and you will have your answer.

freak6

07-17-2007, 12:09 AM

So freak what is your definition of good? Because good can be used in 20 ways meaning 20 different things.

This is a good thread.[/COLOR]

Ask the christians. Look it up in the dictionary.

Not evil?

LOL

Lev Vyvanse

07-17-2007, 12:26 AM

Ask the christians. Look it up in the dictionary.

Not evil?

LOL

So the sandwich I just ate is "not evil". And if the definition is "not evil" I'm going to need the definition of evil.

freak6

07-17-2007, 12:29 AM

So the sandwich I just ate is "not evil". And if the definition is "not evil" I'm going to need the definition of evil.

Does it really matter?

Good and Evil are opposites.

God and dEvil are opposites.

Lev Vyvanse

07-17-2007, 12:36 AM

Does it really matter?

Good and Evil are opposites.

God and dEvil are opposites.

A god can be good for us by creating the ultimate evil as long it helped us be good people.

See how good the word good is at being useless?

freak6

07-17-2007, 12:41 AM

A god can be good for us by creating the ultimate evil as long it helped us be good people.

The christian god is still not all good because he created lucifer with the express intent for him to be the most evil force in the universe.

According to what you propose that christian god would have to have limited knowledge, which breaks one of the 3 definitions of that god.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

07-17-2007, 12:48 AM

Unless of course you could created something with freewill outside of your control.

If, as according to Judeo-Christian theology, God is omnipotent and omniscient, then, by definition, nothing is outside of His control.

Lev Vyvanse

07-17-2007, 12:53 AM

The Christian god is still not all good because he created Lucifer with the express intent for him to be the most evil force in the universe.

According to what you propose that Christian god would have to have limited knowledge, which breaks one of the 3 definitions of that god.

My point is you are using a word that has something like twenty definitions that can be used. Your not even trying to have an honest conversation. Can you even use a word besides good?

mosca

07-17-2007, 12:55 AM

A god can be good for us by creating the ultimate evil as long it helped us be good people.

See how good the word good is at being useless?
If the Christian God (in the context of this thread) really cared at all about "good", he'd simply control everything and make everything good. Creating the "ultimate evil" wouldn't be necessary to help us be "good" - he could just make us "good" when he created us.

The whole thing is a paradox.

Lev Vyvanse

07-17-2007, 12:55 AM

If, as according to Judeo-Christian theology, God is omnipotent and omniscient, then, by definition, nothing is outside of His control.

My point exactly. Why do you even have to talk about good and bad its a done deal.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

07-17-2007, 01:01 AM

My point exactly. Why do you even have to talk about good and bad its a done deal.

Yes.

Theologians attempt to solve one paradox (the existence of evil) by raising another (free will.)

Lev Vyvanse

07-17-2007, 01:07 AM

Yes.

Theologians attempt to solve one paradox (the existence of evil) by raising another (free will.)

Think we are saying the same thing. You can't really have an omnipotent god and also have good or evil or freewill or anything besides one series of events that have already happended.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

07-17-2007, 01:22 AM

Think we are saying the same thing. You can't really have an omnipotent god and also have good or evil or freewill or anything besides one series of events that have already happended.

Yep.

You'd be surprised (or maybe you wouldn't) at how many people don't understand this bit of fundamental logic. ;)

mhgaffney

07-17-2007, 01:56 AM

You can't really have an omnipotent god and also have good or evil or freewill or anything besides one series of events that have already happended.

Nonsense. Of course you can.

You are talking about determinism. But that results in a totally predictable and boring universe. The real world is anything but.

We human beings are creatures of habit -- and prey to many frailties -- but we are nonetheless free to accept or deny God -- free to do good or evil -- free to piss in God's face if we wish.

Our radical freedom is what makes our existence so interesting. If we were not free then honoring God would be meaningless.

Lev Vyvanse

07-17-2007, 01:59 AM

Yep.

You'd be surprised (or maybe you wouldn't) at how many people don't understand this bit of fundamental logic. ;)

Damn I guess you're right.LOL

bcbronc

07-17-2007, 03:35 AM

If the Christian God (in the context of this thread) really cared at all about "good", he'd simply control everything and make everything good. Creating the "ultimate evil" wouldn't be necessary to help us be "good" - he could just make us "good" when he created us.

The whole thing is a paradox.

but you can't have good without the evil. it's like having a one-sided coin.

only by creating "evil" could "good" be created. if you think it was "good" of God to create "good" then you have to think it equally "good" to create "evil".

it is possible for God to create evil and still be all-good.

bronco610

07-17-2007, 03:40 AM

I will tackle this tomorrow but I already have the answer Freak. Most Pastors are taught the answer for grief counseling. Too tired to explain tonight though.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

07-17-2007, 06:22 AM

if you think it was "good" of God to create "good" then you have to think it equally "good" to create "evil".

it is possible for God to create evil and still be all-good.

Are you arguing, with Heraclitus, that "for God, all things are good; for man, some things are good and some are evil?"

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

07-17-2007, 06:30 AM

We human beings are creatures of habit -- and prey to many frailties -- but we are nonetheless free to accept or deny God -- free to do good or evil -- free to piss in God's face if we wish.

This notion of free will is logically incompatible with the Judeo-Christian conception of God.

According to Judeo-Christian theology, God created the universe and everything that exists ex nihilo, i.e., out of nothing.

It follows that nothing comes into existence or happens independent of God's will and God's foreknowledge (given God's omniscience and omnipotence.)

alkemical

07-17-2007, 09:54 AM

alkemical

07-17-2007, 09:59 AM

Kind of, but mine is much more specific and direct to the definitions the various churches prescribed to thier deity.

No, actually it's the same thing to be honest.

Stormontheplains

07-17-2007, 09:59 AM

You guys spend as much time telling people not to believe in god as the Mormons do knocking on my door!!! I can't figure out who is more irritating!!

alkemical

07-17-2007, 10:05 AM

You guys spend as much time telling people not to believe in god as the Mormons do knocking on my door!!! I can't figure out who is more irritating!!

You also find the irony in that?

orangeatheist

07-17-2007, 12:48 PM

You guys spend as much time telling people not to believe in god as the Mormons do knocking on my door!!! I can't figure out who is more irritating!!

Hmmm....that's like saying, "You guys spend as much time slamming the door as the Mormons do knocking on it."

Well....if there wasn't any knocking...

And, no, Clavi, it isn't ironic. It's responsive.

orangeatheist

07-17-2007, 12:55 PM

but you can't have good without the evil. it's like having a one-sided coin.

only by creating "evil" could "good" be created. if you think it was "good" of God to create "good" then you have to think it equally "good" to create "evil".

it is possible for God to create evil and still be all-good.

Wow. Classic dualism.

So, you can't imagine a world in which there is no sickness or disease, no death or war, no hatred or strife? Is such a world impossible?

I wonder what folks think Heaven is going to be like?

So, God not only creates life, he destroys it? (Very Old Testament, but at least consistent.) God can hate as well as love? God brings a sword as well as an olive branch?

And, thus, the question is begged: What's the point? Is there a goal for this Christian God? (As Freak specifically mentioned that his argument deals with this god.) What is that goal if one exists?

Genesis mentions that following ever act of Creation, God considered his creation "good." At this time, "sin" had not come to corrupt Creation. How was God to know if what he created was good if there wasn't anything evil/wrong about his creation by which to compare it? Did God just have evil thoughts and thus knew the difference? Why does God have evil thoughts if this is so? What does God do with evil thoughts? Does he just keep them for comparative reasons? Is evil everlasting? Does evil exist independent of God? What makes something evil? Is something evil because it is evil or is it evil merely because God claims that it is evil?

Get back to me when you have some real answers. (See Euthyphro dilemma. You won't be alone in trying to untangle this mess)

Stormontheplains

07-17-2007, 01:14 PM

Hmmm....that's like saying, "You guys spend as much time slamming the door as the Mormons do knocking on it."

Well....if there wasn't any knocking...

And, no, Clavi, it isn't ironic. It's responsive.

What I am saying is both sides of the arguement are very over bearing and irritating. I believe in GOD, I don't believe in pushing it on other people.

mhgaffney

07-17-2007, 01:23 PM

This notion of free will is logically incompatible with the Judeo-Christian conception of God.

According to Judeo-Christian theology, God created the universe and everything that exists ex nihilo, i.e., out of nothing.

It follows that nothing comes into existence or happens independent of God's will and God's foreknowledge (given God's omniscience and omnipotence.)

You are treading in deep waters, LABF.

Related to this is the Judaeo-Christian concept of time, which IMO is one of our biggest problems, today -- because it locks us into a linear framework. Acc to the Bible, time began at a certain zero point, before which there was nothing. This religious idea also sustains the scientific theory of the Big Bang -- which is obviously a load of malarkey.

The Gnostic Christians had a much more nuanced understanding. In the Gnostic world the cosmos -- and our existence -- are great mysteries -- not so easily explained in terms of a linear framework.

The Gnostics also attributed the work of creation to a lesser figure -- a Demiurge - not the absolute Godhead, who couldn't be bothered with such mundane affairs.

I suspect the Gnostics had it right. We've barely begun to plumb our human origins -- let alone the creation of the universe.

The universe may well be infinitely large -- and infinitely old.

Moreover, most of human history remains unknown to us. I suspect we have been around for hundreds of thousands of years -- if not longer -- however natural cataclysms have erased most of this history.

Curious -- is it not? - that we appear to be on the verge of repeating history again -- even as I speak. The next generation of humans may well live in caves once again -- and eat grass.

Atwater His Ass

07-17-2007, 01:24 PM

It's called faith for a reason.

freak6

07-17-2007, 01:47 PM

I'm not claiming my proof to be original by any means. I just presented my version of the paradox based upon the christian constraints they put on thier god, and bam, no more christian god.

What is important to note, is that in the jews/christians desperate pursuit to make thier god more definable, more omnipotent, and more real, the result of was the opposite.

Attributing omnipotent knowledge, power, and goodness to a god whose existence is also defined and told in O.T. myths is ridiculously absurd once those myths are simply read, and put into context of the definition of this god.

In order for todays Christians to be logically viable, they must disavow themselves completely from the O.T..

freak6

07-17-2007, 01:50 PM

Doing so of course destroys the foundation and basis for the faith in the first place.

alkemical

07-17-2007, 01:50 PM

Hmmm....that's like saying, "You guys spend as much time slamming the door as the Mormons do knocking on it."

Well....if there wasn't any knocking...

And, no, Clavi, it isn't ironic. It's responsive.

No it is irony. Not my fault you can't see the humor.

baja

07-17-2007, 02:05 PM

L O L

orangeatheist

07-17-2007, 02:32 PM

No it is irony. Not my fault you can't see the humor.

Clavi, it's not humor. You just like to believe you're a fence sitter, above the fray, and cast non-committal judgements on both sides of the religious debate. Fact is, you've chosen a side of the fence even if you don't want to admit it to yourself.

For an atheist to respond to a theist shouting in his ear is not ironic nor is it humorous. It's merely a response. Some people choose to close a deaf ear to the theistic traffic while others do not. It's not funny. It's merely a fact that some people won't take it and choose to offer a dissenting opinion.

It was pointed out that some atheists are just as bad at shouting about their non-belief as theists are about shouting their belief. But I'd like to be pointed to one atheist statement (regarding atheism) that was made independent of a theist's claim. What is atheism other than a response to theist assertions regarding the existence of a divinity?

Ask yourself if an atheist would have anything to say if theists really did keep to themselves.

DBruleU

07-17-2007, 02:35 PM

Clavi, it's not humor. You just like to believe you're a fence sitter, above the fray, and cast non-committal judgements on both sides of the religious debate. Fact is, you've chosen a side of the fence even if you don't want to admit it to yourself.

For an atheist to respond to a theist shouting in his ear is not ironic nor is it humorous. It's merely a response. Some people choose to close a deaf ear to the theistic traffic while others do not. It's not funny. It's merely a fact that some people won't take it and choose to offer a dissenting opinion.

It was pointed out that some atheists are just as bad at shouting about their non-belief as theists are about shouting their belief. But I'd like to be pointed to one atheist statement (regarding atheism) that was made independent of a theist's claim. What is atheism other than a response to theist assertions regarding the existence of a divinity?

Ask yourself if an atheist would have anything to say if theists really did keep to themselves.

Ask yourself if a theist would have anything to say if an atheist would keep to themselves?

Don't play the victim.

Hotrod

07-17-2007, 02:45 PM

DBruleU

07-17-2007, 02:47 PM

Personally I dont understand what the point is. People who believe will continue to do so and those that dont prolly never will.

I'm pretty sure I would never spend the hours that Freak has coming up with "proof" that something I dont believe in didnt exist.

Its like hunting for bigfoot when you dont believe he exists.

Pretty much how I feel. No one is going to change anothers mind.

It's just a merry-go-round...that never ends.

alkemical

07-17-2007, 02:49 PM

Clavi, it's not humor. You just like to believe you're a fence sitter, above the fray, and cast non-committal judgements on both sides of the religious debate. Fact is, you've chosen a side of the fence even if you don't want to admit it to yourself.

For an atheist to respond to a theist shouting in his ear is not ironic nor is it humorous. It's merely a response. Some people choose to close a deaf ear to the theistic traffic while others do not. It's not funny. It's merely a fact that some people won't take it and choose to offer a dissenting opinion.

It was pointed out that some atheists are just as bad at shouting about their non-belief as theists are about shouting their belief. But I'd like to be pointed to one atheist statement (regarding atheism) that was made independent of a theist's claim. What is atheism other than a response to theist assertions regarding the existence of a divinity?

Ask yourself if an atheist would have anything to say if theists really did keep to themselves.

No it is quite funny. Besides, i don't see the believers starting a ton of threads proclaiming their POV over and over again. Seems to me there are some insecurity issues there.

I haven't chosen any side, i'm trying to bridge sides. I just don't have any more time to waste with people who are tied to their dogma. It's not my fault you don't see how your ilk fall into the same fundamentalist trap you so abore.

THAT is the irony and THAT is why it is funny.

alkemical

07-17-2007, 02:53 PM

Personally I dont understand what the point is. People who believe will continue to do so and those that dont prolly never will.

I'm pretty sure I would never spend the hours that Freak has coming up with "proof" that something I dont believe in didnt exist.

Its like hunting for bigfoot when you dont believe he exists.

That's my whole stance Hotrod. Why spend hours and hours trying to convince others (and possibly subconciously yourself) about something. Why not just take your own solace in matters regarding yourself?

Bob

07-17-2007, 03:02 PM

That's my whole stance Hotrod. Why spend hours and hours trying to convince others (and possibly subconciously yourself) about something. Why not just take your own solace in matters regarding yourself?

With some folks it can be interesting, and I have learned a few new things, but with a select few, I think that they may go over the top. If you look at the bulk of the threads on this site those who do not belive in God have been more evengalistic than those that do. I have not hijacked any threads to rant, or started any threads about "aeithism is evil"

Anyway, you are right about trying to "convince another"
I think that I have spent too much time after getting baited by folks who only will ask thier questions, but not answer anyone elses.

bcbronc

07-17-2007, 03:29 PM

[QUOTE]Wow. Classic dualism.

So, you can't imagine a world in which there is no sickness or disease, no death or war, no hatred or strife? Is such a world impossible?

I wonder what folks think Heaven is going to be like?

So, God not only creates life, he destroys it? (Very Old Testament, but at least consistent.) God can hate as well as love? God brings a sword as well as an olive branch?

wow. classic nonsense. what are you talking about?

And, thus, the question is begged: What's the point? Is there a goal for this Christian God? (As Freak specifically mentioned that his argument deals with this god.) What is that goal if one exists?

again, what are you talking about? I'm not about to defend the christian god, but are you saying there has to be a goal for this god to exist? you seem to be implying that if someone can't spell out God's goals, then that is proof that God doesn't exist. faulty logic.

Genesis mentions that following ever act of Creation, God considered his creation "good." At this time, "sin" had not come to corrupt Creation. How was God to know if what he created was good if there wasn't anything evil/wrong about his creation by which to compare it? Did God just have evil thoughts and thus knew the difference? Why does God have evil thoughts if this is so? What does God do with evil thoughts? Does he just keep them for comparative reasons? Is evil everlasting? Does evil exist independent of God? What makes something evil? Is something evil because it is evil or is it evil merely because God claims that it is evil?

first you make the HUGE assumption that God is some guy sitting in a throne contemplating his actions. this faulty assumption throws your whole argument in the toilet.

still, you seem to be missing a key point in your genesis story. "good" and "evil" were already in the garden of eden, only adam and eve did not recognize either because they did not have this "knowledge". only after eating the apple did they begin to judge things either "good" or "evil".

God simply created what is. but you can't have up without down; you can't have life without death; and you can't have good without its opposite "evil".

so you have two options: if "good" is worth having then you accept the "necessary evil" as equally good-because without the evil the good could not exist. or you accept that both "good" and "evil" are illusions, but that doesn't fit in a discussion about the christian god.

Get back to me when you have some real answers. (See Euthyphro dilemma. You won't be alone in trying to untangle this mess)

socrates? please. a moral action transcends even the gods' opinions, just like a "good" action transcends the definitions of man. as long as a man's actions depend on relativism to be declared "moral" then that man's actions are suspect. referring back to Euthyphro, a truly pious act stands on it's own two feet and needs no outside confirmation-from the gods or elsewhere-to affirm it's piety.

feel free to get back to me when you have some real questions. and note, I don't consider "what does God do with evil thoughts?" a real question.

TheDave

07-17-2007, 03:33 PM

See this is the beauty of taking an agnostic approach... I have no idea if god exists and franly... i don't care. Keep your thiestic/athiestic beliefs to yourself and we will all be better for it.

and yes... I'm fully aware that i'm going to hell :devil:

bcbronc

07-17-2007, 03:51 PM

Are you arguing, with Heraclitus, that "for God, all things are good; for man, some things are good and some are evil?"

sort of, but not really.

my argument is more that for God all things are neither good nor evil since this is simply two sides of the same coin. you can't get rid of one side without getting rid of the whole coin, and you equally can't create the coin without including both sides.

so to say that there being bad in the world proves God cannot be all-good ignores the logical necessity of both good and evil existing for one to exist. if both are necessary for one, and good is "good", then evil is also "good" in that it allows us to experience the good.

alkemical

07-17-2007, 04:02 PM

With some folks it can be interesting, and I have learned a few new things, but with a select few, I think that they may go over the top. If you look at the bulk of the threads on this site those who do not belive in God have been more evengalistic than those that do. I have not hijacked any threads to rant, or started any threads about "aeithism is evil"

Anyway, you are right about trying to "convince another"
I think that I have spent too much time after getting baited by folks who only will ask thier questions, but not answer anyone elses.

The way i see it is, why bother trying to have a discussion with people who want confrontation. I make no allusions that discussions are not interesting or needed. New POV's are always welcomed, but militant reactions and those who are only provocateurs to advance conflict are a waste of oxygen.

alkemical

07-17-2007, 04:03 PM

BroncoInferno

07-17-2007, 04:42 PM

Ask yourself if a theist would have anything to say if an atheist would keep to themselves?

Wow. Christians would stop proselytizing, stop trying to force intelligent design into public school science classrooms, stop trying to keep consenting adults from marrying whomever they see fit, stop telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies, etc if only atheists would keep to themselves? Can I get this in writing?

alkemical

07-17-2007, 04:44 PM

Christians would stop proselytizing, stop trying to force intelligent design into public school science classrooms, stop trying to keep consenting adults from marrying whomever they see fit, stop telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies, etc if only atheists would keep to themselves? Can I get this in writing?

Then move. Considering you are a minority, your rights are protected by the constitution. But in all due seriousness, if you don't like it move to an athiest country of your choice.

BroncoInferno

07-17-2007, 04:47 PM

Then move. Considering you are a minority, your rights are protected by the constitution. But in all due seriousness, if you don't like it move to an athiest country of your choice.

Good grief, not the "love it or leave it" line. You are better than that, Josh. Thanks, but I'll keep fighting for liberty as long as there are those who wish to limit it. If you want to stay a coward on the fence, be my guest.

alkemical

07-17-2007, 04:52 PM

Good grief, not the "love it or leave it line". You are better than that, Josh. Thanks, but I'll keep fighting for liberty as long as there are those who wish to limit it. If you want to stay a coward on the fence, be my guest.

I'm not a coward for being an agnostic, i'm just honest about it. (Besides i didn't realize that i had to CHOOSE a side, i must have missed that in the life-operating guide that i had to believe in something). I don't need authority to make my own opinions (either by man or god). I love liberty, but you don't want liberty. You want to oppress and silence dissenters to your POV. So if you really don't like it, move. You don't want freedom to choose what to believe in, you only want your POV subjectated as the principle. Since that's the case, tyranny be your name.

BroncoInferno

07-17-2007, 04:57 PM

I'm not a coward for being an agnostic, i'm just honest about it. (Besides i didn't realize that i had to CHOOSE a side, i must have missed that in the life-operating guide that i had to believe in something). I don't need authority to make my own opinions (either by man or god). I love liberty, but you don't want liberty. You want to oppress and silence dissenters to your POV. So if you really don't like it, move. You don't want freedom to choose what to believe in, you only want your POV subjectated as the principle. Since that's the case, tyranny be your name.

Wrong. I'm not trying to change opinions. I'm trying to get them to leave me alone. If they want to think gay marriage is a sin, fine, think it, preach it, but those who disagree ought to be able to do as they wish. If they believe in an unproven "science", fine, but don't force school children to learn theories in science classes that no reputable scientist beleives. Etc. That is not preventing them from having a view point. It is simply preventing them from making their opinions into laws that others who disagree will have to follow. Why don't you leave since you're too much of a coward to stand up for liberty?

alkemical

07-17-2007, 05:05 PM

Smiling Assassin27

07-17-2007, 05:16 PM

Weak as they come. See, the rational position is that God exists, not the opposite. But as some other poster has already rightly posted, this is the Dark Age of reason. For example, disbelieving in God because evil occurs just flat out isn't thinking. Denying God because you haven't seen a miracle isn't using reason, it's shallow and incomplete. Saying the word 'evolution' and claiming it disproves God is lazy and illogical. But legitimate argument on this is not really probable here. There's some damn funny insults, however. Props.

BroncoInferno

07-17-2007, 05:22 PM

LOL You still don't get it. But that's what happens when emotion over-rides the logical circuits of the brain. The christian right has not infringed upon me. Not to mention the decietful way of trying to induce liberty, when it's really a cover for your own agenda.

The Christian right has not tried to infringe on the rights of others? Are you kidding me? Hilarious!

Wrong. I believe in liberty for everyone, including those I disagree with. They are the ones who wish to inact laws that I must follow that I don't agree with and which cause no harm to them.

I wasn't forced to learn creationsim in a public school, and besides there are options (private schools, a public charter, etc). If you don't like "in god we trust" on money, use a CC, etc.

Nor was I forced to learn creationism in school, but many are now trying to alter that. Private schools aren't an option for everyone, which is why it is the duty of public schools to teach students things that experts in the given field accept and agree with. Untested theories should not use public schools as their proving grounds. It's irresponsible to do so. I don't personally care about "In God Trust" or whatever, that has very little effect on day to day life.

If you don't want to excersize your rights to choose, there is no liberty. If there is no choice, there is no liberty. You don't want liberty. You want your agenda forced like those you have disdain for.

Wrong. Choice is precisely what I want. I want the fundamentalist to have their right to say gay marriage is wrong if they want. I also want those who disagree to have the right to ignore them and do as they see fit. I want them to be able to tell their children that evolution is mularkey if they want. But I also want public schools to teach science that is accepted by the scientific community and not use public schools as testing grounds for unaccpeted theories. Etc.

PS i find it funny how i don't want liberty when everyone here knows of my anarchist views, so basically you created a strawman & ad hom. argument and haven't actually said anything of merit. Are you sure you are a member of the human race, because it doesn't look as though you have a leg to stand on.

You pretend to stand above the fray with your useless, cowardly fence sitting, but instead your own world view is muddled into incoherency. What have you contributed of merit? "Every view point is the same"? "I'm better than everybody because I don't have an opinion on anything?" Hilarious!

BroncoInferno

07-17-2007, 05:27 PM

See, the rational position is that God exists, not the opposite.

Until you can provide one shred of solid evidence to support the claim, it will remain an absurd claim. And, remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

BroncoInferno

07-17-2007, 05:46 PM

epicSocialism4tw

07-17-2007, 05:53 PM

If, as according to Judeo-Christian theology, God is omnipotent and omniscient, then, by definition, nothing is outside of His control.

That's not really true. I know of a local Baptist college that has a theology department full of open theists.

freak6

07-17-2007, 06:10 PM

Wow. Christians would stop proselytizing, stop trying to force intelligent design into public school science classrooms, stop trying to keep consenting adults from marrying whomever they see fit, stop telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies, etc if only atheists would keep to themselves? Can I get this in writing?

Exactly. This is why we must rid ourselves of religion.

When Christians stop putting thier BS myths and lies into our public education, how we live, and try to put the 10 commandments into the constitution, then I'll stop destroying thier pathetic religions.

Look at the fool we have in office.

 He told America that "I talk to God, and he told me to invade Iraq"



My brothers are dieing because moronic fundamentalist Christians put this fool of a boy into office. It directly effects us. 

When Kings become Philosophers and Philosophers become Kings.

Stormontheplains

07-17-2007, 06:45 PM

Bob

07-17-2007, 07:09 PM

The way i see it is, why bother trying to have a discussion with people who want confrontation. I make no allusions that discussions are not interesting or needed. New POV's are always welcomed, but militant reactions and those who are only provocateurs to advance conflict are a waste of oxygen.

It is just that I feel a need to engage: to find out those who only want confrontation i.e freak6, and those that can bat it around without wanting to bat me around i.e (almost everyone else...)

Bob

07-17-2007, 07:12 PM

Bob

07-17-2007, 07:50 PM

Wrong. I'm not trying to change opinions. I'm trying to get them to leave me alone. If they want to think gay marriage is a sin, fine, think it, preach it, but those who disagree ought to be able to do as they wish. If they believe in an unproven "science", fine, but don't force school children to learn theories in science classes that no reputable scientist beleives. Etc. That is not preventing them from having a view point. It is simply preventing them from making their opinions into laws that others who disagree will have to follow. Why don't you leave since you're too much of a coward to stand up for liberty?

Inferno, don’t worry about Christianity taking away your rights -- your line of thinking is winning. Christianity is becoming marginalized and pushed to the fringes of society, as it has in Europe…and then what?

On a semi-related note … it will be very interesting to see if secularists in Europe will have the fortitude to stave off the growing Muslim populations within their own countries, who increasingly are calling for Shiria law. In England recently her majesties’ prisons had to be updated and spent millions on bathroom updates to change the direction of where toilets face – as Muslim inmates were complaining that they had to ride toilets side-saddle lest they face Mecca while they defecate. I am not sure of your take on this subject – honestly -- but there are some interesting numbers to think about: Population rates of Europe: 1.38 per couple. Population rates of those who happen to be Muslim 3.5 per couple. Some countries like Spain are very low 1.1 in their case. I think that there is little nuance or willingness to understand those quickly growing religious minorities – they attempt to understand them within the context of poverty or class. The unifying ideas of European society after they have taken Christianity and Nationalism out is what -- Multi-culturalism, environmentalism? How much strength do these murky themes have to Muslim youth growing up surrounded by what they perceiving to be hedonism, and weakness. Europe based on population rates alone will not exist as we now it 30 years from now. As these things apply to you and me? I think that the net result that America is “weaker” than it was in 1950 – because to the degree we have taken God out of the public square and our consciousness we reduce common ground, and our ability to identify real evils that do threaten our society. As America has drifted from founding ideas, we have become more unsure of ourselves, less willing to stand up. The Boy Scouts become evil, and evil becomes relative. I think that Europe may be an extreme example, but it shows the evolution of an ideology. I think that there was a purpose for separation of Church and state – so that a state religion could not be forced upon another. I wonder when folks will start to clamor that radio stations cant be used to mention God – after all they are the “public airwaves” and so the extreme minority may exercise its dominion over the masses through an ACLU lawsuit, and take away another religious right…

BroncoInferno

07-17-2007, 08:05 PM

America without a religious foundation, is not the country that people have died trying to get to or have died fighting for. This country is what it is due to the christian society. that doesnt mean the idiot's or tv evengelist, it is the common man and family who work hard and go to church on sunday.

Wrong. Our constitution is based on principles of the Enlightenment. It has been inspite of our religious heritage that the country has become what it is.

Garcia Bronco

07-17-2007, 08:20 PM

I wonder when folks will start to clamor that radio stations cant be used to mention God – after all they are the “public airwaves” and so the extreme minority may exercise its dominion over the masses through an ACLU lawsuit, and take away another religious right…

1st Amendment right. Now...public opinion and market can shut down anything. But the government cannot censor ideas on th epublic airwaves.

Garcia Bronco

07-17-2007, 08:21 PM

Wrong. Our constitution is based on principles of the Enlightenment. It has been inspite of our religious heritage that the country has become what it is.

Maybe...maybe not. I would imagine it was both

BroncoInferno

07-17-2007, 08:22 PM

Inferno, don’t worry about Christianity taking away your rights -- your line of thinking is winning. Christianity is becoming marginalized and pushed to the fringes of society, as it has in Europe…and then what?

On a semi-related note … it will be very interesting to see if secularists in Europe will have the fortitude to stave off the growing Muslim populations within their own countries, who increasingly are calling for Shiria law. In England recently her majesties’ prisons had to be updated and spent millions on bathroom updates to change the direction of where toilets face – as Muslim inmates were complaining that they had to ride toilets side-saddle lest they face Mecca while they defecate. I am not sure of your take on this subject – honestly -- but there are some interesting numbers to think about: Population rates of Europe: 1.38 per couple. Population rates of those who happen to be Muslim 3.5 per couple. Some countries like Spain are very low 1.1 in their case. I think that there is little nuance or willingness to understand those quickly growing religious minorities – they attempt to understand them within the context of poverty or class. The unifying ideas of European society after they have taken Christianity and Nationalism out is what -- Multi-culturalism, environmentalism? How much strength do these murky themes have to Muslim youth growing up surrounded by what they perceiving to be hedonism, and weakness. Europe based on population rates alone will not exist as we now it 30 years from now. As these things apply to you and me? I think that the net result that America is “weaker” than it was in 1950 – because to the degree we have taken God out of the public square and our consciousness we reduce common ground, and our ability to identify real evils that do threaten our society. As America has drifted from founding ideas, we have become more unsure of ourselves, less willing to stand up. The Boy Scouts become evil, and evil becomes relative. I think that Europe may be an extreme example, but it shows the evolution of an ideology. I think that there was a purpose for separation of Church and state – so that a state religion could not be forced upon another. I wonder when folks will start to clamor that radio stations cant be used to mention God – after all they are the “public airwaves” and so the extreme minority may exercise its dominion over the masses through an ACLU lawsuit, and take away another religious right…

I think you are assuming that all secularists want the same thing. Believe me, the relativism that is prevalent in Europe in not something I buy into. Quite the contrary. Again, I am for choice, I am not for banning religion or anything like that. As long as it is maintained in the private sphere and does not attempt to seep into government where its edicts and ideas become compulsory via law, I have no problem. It's as simple as that. Believe me, I'm a big 1st amendment guy, I'm not interested in banning religion (or anything else, for that matter) off the radio. But it's a two way street, of course.

Bob

07-17-2007, 10:38 PM

I think you are assuming that all secularists want the same thing. Believe me, the relativism that is prevalent in Europe in not something I buy into. Quite the contrary. Again, I am for choice, I am not for banning religion or anything like that. As long as it is maintained in the private sphere and does not attempt to seep into government where its edicts and ideas become compulsory via law, I have no problem. It's as simple as that. Believe me, I'm a big 1st amendment guy, I'm not interested in banning religion (or anything else, for that matter) off the radio. But it's a two way street, of course.

Good. Any thoughts on Muslim extreemism? I feel paraniod, but everything I see and hear tends to reinforce that the threat is real.

By the way, i dont agree with you many times, but love the way you express youself -- very well spoken -- and usually not too shrill. ;)

bronco610

07-18-2007, 03:06 AM

bronco610

07-18-2007, 03:11 AM

As far as all the other arguments on this thread go, "Judge Not, Lest You Be Judged"!!! That saying should be used by all Christians, Atheist, and Agnostics alike. Unless of course you just Like to be tempted by the Devil to fight!!!
Hilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious!

alkemical

07-18-2007, 08:49 AM

You pretend to stand above the fray with your useless, cowardly fence sitting, but instead your own world view is muddled into incoherency. What have you contributed of merit? "Every view point is the same"? "I'm better than everybody because I don't have an opinion on anything?" Hilarious!

not at all. I don't sit on the fence one bit. I just refuse to accept any form of -sim to belive in. I don't need to belive in something like you fundamentalists do.

now when it comes to other things i'm very opinionated on, so again - noting baseless lies and personal attacks. So until you actually have anything of merit to say, and actually want discussion - you aren't to be taken very seriously (mostly because you are so serious).

alkemical

07-18-2007, 08:56 AM

Jsoh, you've got your own view point, you're welcome to it, I don't agree with it, you might as well just chalk me up as a lost cause and move on. I'll continue to fight against those who want to make their opinions on civil matters that do not effect them into law (yeah, I know, I'm trying to coherse people into letting others do as they wish so long as it does not harm nonconsenters, so I'm no better--yada yada).

I haven't taken you seriously in a few weeks. You've stated you don't really want discussion, you want confrontation. Which is why you feel persecuted. Your own sensitivity to things is pretty absurd IMO. I haven't been prosecuted more than words hurled at me (which is far better than stones IMO) for studying all different religions/systems. Gay marriage isn't going to be seriously banned. It's all just stupid topics to split people and get them to argue while not paying attention to what's going on around them. I just feel bad for people, when they aren't aware they are just buying into a system that enslaves them. Words, thoughts, beliefs (a belief isn't just religious ya know) - are all bondage upon the mind of man, and the mind of man is what really influences the world around. The principles of equiv. exchange are very valid when dealing with people, groups, cultures, etc.

My quest is to bridge science and spiritual together - they aren't that far apart. Just terminology and stubborness from stupid monkeys is what's holding all back. F'ng pride - somehow people don't get over how often it makes them fall. It's always "my way", nobody really wants freedom - everybody is a tyrant. (even me, after all i think anarchy is the way to go - but i realize stupid monkeys F it all up - BAD MONKEY!)

orangeatheist

07-18-2007, 09:47 AM

Ask yourself if a theist would have anything to say if an atheist would keep to themselves?

Don't play the victim.

This is about the dumbest reply I've ever gotten (and I haven't even read the rest of the thread yet!).

Are you seriously telling me that theism is a response to atheism? Theists have plenty to say regardless of anyone else's beliefs. Even if every atheist on the planet were to convert to some form of theism and there wasn't a single person who didn't believe in a god, then the theists would simply turn on each other. They do it today. Witness: The Middle East; Northern Ireland.

And, it has nothing to do with playing a "victim." I don't feel victimized by theists. I feel dumber having engaged them, but victimized, no. My only point was that Clavi was trying to play the wise arbitrator and equate theist preaching with atheist responses. There isn't an equation here. It's one person responding to the other.

orangeatheist

07-18-2007, 09:56 AM

No it is quite funny.

Yes. You're the fundy for funny. I get it now. There will be no convincing you otherwise.

Besides, i don't see the believers starting a ton of threads proclaiming their POV over and over again. Seems to me there are some insecurity issues there.

Do some unbelievers feel they need to justify their disbelief? Sure. Do they feel safer doing here than door-to-door or on a street corner? Sure.

What motivates them to start such threads is the issue here. It is responsive to a pressure they feel from the outside. That's all. You find it "ironic" and preachy. Preachy, it may be to some extent. But, again, I stress my point: without the pressure from the other side, what would atheists have to disagree with?

I haven't chosen any side, i'm trying to bridge sides.

I know that's how you view yourself, but your actions speak louder than words. You consistently faint whenever you see disagreement and argument between theists and atheists. You claim to want simple, calm dialogue but what you really do is stir the pot with your thinly veiled theism. It's not a secret; it can be read in your replies. You may consider yourself an agnostic --dead center between two extremes--but the fact of the matter is you have one foot on the fence and one foot firmly planted on the side of theism. You like the idea of a "Higher Power." You harbor hope and desire to more in this universe than "meets the eye."

It's clear to whose side you gravitate, Clavi.

I just don't have any more time to waste with people who are tied to their dogma.

Says the guy with more posts in theistic threads than just about anyone else.

It's not my fault you don't see how your ilk fall into the same fundamentalist trap you so abore.

Your Honor, please witness Exhibit A.

THAT is the irony and THAT is why it is funny.

What's really funny is your feigned objectivity. But, I'm sure you won't be able to see it.

BroncoInferno

07-18-2007, 10:17 AM

My quest is to bridge science and spiritual together

So you tell yourself. Yet, in all these threads you've done nothing but sling turds with the rest of us "apes." The only difference is your crap is of an unusual texture and gets tossed from a different angle.

orangeatheist

07-18-2007, 10:28 AM

wow. classic nonsense. what are you talking about?

Do you know what dualism is? You are claiming that evil exists because good cannot exist without it. I asked you if you could imagine good existing without evil by giving you an example of imagining a world without disease, famine, war, etc. Now, answer the question: Can you imagine a world without these evils? And would the world be good without them?

again, what are you talking about? I'm not about to defend the christian god, but are you saying there has to be a goal for this god to exist? you seem to be implying that if someone can't spell out God's goals, then that is proof that God doesn't exist. faulty logic.

You could only claim that I used faulty logic if indeed that is what I used. I didn’t. I merely asked what God’s goal is, from a Christian perspective. You can either answer that question or you can’t. My question had nothing to do with proving this god’s existence or not.

first you make the HUGE assumption that God is some guy sitting in a throne contemplating his actions. this faulty assumption throws your whole argument in the toilet.

It wasn’t my assumption, bc. Read further back in the thread. W*GS asked Freak to spell out his “perfect argument” against god. When Freak did, he specifically mentioned the Christian god. That is the subject, then, of this thread. I am merely keeping my questions in that context.

still, you seem to be missing a key point in your genesis story.

MY Genesis story? I must be missing something. Namely, the royalties!

"good" and "evil" were already in the garden of eden, only adam and eve did not recognize either because they did not have this "knowledge". only after eating the apple did they begin to judge things either "good" or "evil".

So, you beg the question (and make an error in the process). First, the Garden of Eden is very late in the Hebrew creation myth. The entire universe has already been called into existence and considered “good” before Eden is grown specifically for Man. The question begged is when did evil begin to exist? From whence is its source?

God simply created what is. but you can't have up without down; you can't have life without death; and you can't have good without its opposite "evil".

Which is what I called classic dualism. I disagree. I can easily imagine a world in which an all-good God kept things all-good. It isn’t a difficult thought at all.

so you have two options: if "good" is worth having then you accept the "necessary evil" as equally good-because without the evil the good could not exist. or you accept that both "good" and "evil" are illusions, but that doesn't fit in a discussion about the christian god.

You’re right. Good and evil exist within the Christian paradigm. Now, it’s up to them to explain how it is so and how this is consistent with an all-good, all-powerful god.

socrates? please. a moral action transcends even the gods' opinions, just like a "good" action transcends the definitions of man. as long as a man's actions depend on relativism to be declared "moral" then that man's actions are suspect. referring back to Euthyphro, a truly pious act stands on it's own two feet and needs no outside confirmation-from the gods or elsewhere-to affirm it's piety.

Very good. So you reject morality as having its source in a divine being. Thus, Euthyphro’s challenge poses no difficulties for you. Good to hear it.

feel free to get back to me when you have some real questions. and note, I don't consider "what does God do with evil thoughts?" a real question.

While it may not apply to you, it is a very valid question to someone who believes in an omnibenevolent deity.

orangeatheist

07-18-2007, 10:34 AM

So you tell yourself. Yet, in all these threads you've done nothing but sling turds with the rest of us "apes." The only difference is your crap is of an unusual texture and gets tossed from a different angle.

Not only that, Inferno, but by his mere statement, "My quest is to bridge science and spiritual together" he implies spirituality is on equal footing and has an equal reality with science. It's real obvious to me now for which team Clavi bats. For all his protesting, he really is a closeted theist. It's the reason you always see him "sling turds" at atheists and never against the theist. He's convinced only himself that he's an agnostic.

And for all his pleas for calm and rational discussion, he's the guy with over 22,000 posts, multiples of which are in threads he claims to abhor.

alkemical

07-18-2007, 10:48 AM

Yes. You're the fundy for funny. I get it now. There will be no convincing you otherwise.

Do some unbelievers feel they need to justify their disbelief? Sure. Do they feel safer doing here than door-to-door or on a street corner? Sure.

What motivates them to start such threads is the issue here. It is responsive to a pressure they feel from the outside. That's all. You find it "ironic" and preachy. Preachy, it may be to some extent. But, again, I stress my point: without the pressure from the other side, what would atheists have to disagree with?

I know that's how you view yourself, but your actions speak louder than words. You consistently faint whenever you see disagreement and argument between theists and atheists. You claim to want simple, calm dialogue but what you really do is stir the pot with your thinly veiled theism. It's not a secret; it can be read in your replies. You may consider yourself an agnostic --dead center between two extremes--but the fact of the matter is you have one foot on the fence and one foot firmly planted on the side of theism. You like the idea of a "Higher Power." You harbor hope and desire to more in this universe than "meets the eye."

It's clear to whose side you gravitate, Clavi.

Says the guy with more posts in theistic threads than just about anyone else.

Your Honor, please witness Exhibit A.

What's really funny is your feigned objectivity. But, I'm sure you won't be able to see it.

Funny aren't you the one who said you are "oh so objective" - then when i cited Tesla & Edison you backed away from it?

I never made any claims to be completley objective. I think the manner of the fundamentalist-atheists here is just out of this world funny. the only exhibit you need to look at, is yourself in the mirror.

You don't want discussion you want confrontation, just like Inferno. I post on theism threads becuase well, the psychology of people who believe in things fascinating. I don't stir the pot, i just call bull**** on bull****. That's why i prod believers and fundamentalists (such as yourself).

Your own statements above show you are no different than anyone of any other religion trying to convert people. That's the irony i find absolutley hilarious.

Not to mention the fact - I am an agnostic - i just find that the fundamentalist side of you doesn't like view things outside of your pretty little box- where everything is explained to you by authority - no different than anyone else.

I'm sorry that you need conflict and the ego-filled sense of being right and enlightened all the time, maybe you can find peace and be secure with your belief system without persecuting everyone who disagrees with you.

So go ahead and fling your petty insults - they only further prove that you are pretty insecure with what you believe - and you need conflict to validate you are right. No different than a 'christian' who feels that 'persecution' validates their belief - you operate under the same MO. So until you can actually be an adult, and not let emotions cloud your own judgement, i really have nothing futher to say to you.

Until you have anything relevant to say, i wish you a good day.

alkemical

07-18-2007, 10:52 AM

So you tell yourself. Yet, in all these threads you've done nothing but sling turds with the rest of us "apes." The only difference is your crap is of an unusual texture and gets tossed from a different angle.

No, not really. I have a real interest in discussion. My only apology is that i stooped to your level. So again, until you have anything relevant to say that isn't a personal insult, and really want disucssion and not your own failed ego - have a good day.

alkemical

07-18-2007, 11:00 AM

Not only that, Inferno, but by his mere statement, "My quest is to bridge science and spiritual together" he implies spirituality is on equal footing and has an equal reality with science. It's real obvious to me now for which team Clavi bats. For all his protesting, he really is a closeted theist. It's the reason you always see him "sling turds" at atheists and never against the theist. He's convinced only himself that he's an agnostic.

And for all his pleas for calm and rational discussion, he's the guy with over 22,000 posts, multiples of which are in threads he claims to abhor.

I never said i hated thesim. No wonder you guys are all ass-backwards. Your reading comprehension is pretty bad. Not to mention i've been on the site since, I dunno - what 2k1. If you don't think i've prodded thesists - why don't you ask glorymule, hell even llama and i went into it and DBruleU. Ask them if i ever prodded them.

I guess facts never get in your way of being wrong.

Sprituatlity on one level or another has been around since man has been alive, from the shamans to present day. It's just as important as science. Not to mention - alot of today's quantum theories mirror alot of what has been said THOUSANDS of years go - just in a different language and context.

Illustrating your ineptitude is becoming a full time job.

BroncoInferno

07-18-2007, 11:11 AM

No, not really. I have a real interest in discussion.

Interesting that you claim we want confrontation, placing yourself above the fray. Yet, when you made your inital response to me in this thread, a comment that was not directed towards you, you told me I ought to leave the country, knowing precisely what type of response I was going to give. That's not confrontational on your part? In your screed to orangeatheist above, you tell him he's "hilarious" and call him a "fundamentalist." Yeah, you sure are making a strong attempt to avoid confrontation Uhh

You're deluding yourself, man.

My only apology is that i stooped to your level.

Apology accepted :)

So again, until you have anything relevant to say that isn't a personal insult, and really want disucssion and not your own failed ego - have a good day.

And you never stooped to insult, did you? My views are "funny", you "feel sorry" for people like me, I'm a "fundamentalist," etc. Face it, you're no different than the rest of us.

orangeatheist

07-18-2007, 11:40 AM

Until you have anything relevant to say, i wish you a good day.

And seeing as how you get to judge for yourself what is relevant and what is not, any further conversation between us will be nonexistent. Sort of like God.

I pegged you, Clavi. Sorry if that hurt. Seems Inferno's on to you, too.

EDIT TO ADD:
And, Clavi, if these discussions are so beneath you, why do you participate? Why can't you just leave the children to argue in the sandbox? Go somewhere else where you can contemplate your thoughts in solitude or at least with like-minded individuals. Theists and atheists have been arguing these points for centuries and there are some of us who enjoy the biting dialogue. If you find it "fundamentalist" on both sides, fine. We know your opinion, have considered it for what it's worth, and wish you well. Go on. Leave. We don't need a nanny to try and babysit us spatting kids.

Didn't you ever see the episode of Andy Griffith where he tried to be the reasoned, even-tempered arbitrator between a hard-headed husband and his nit-picking wife? He forced them to play nice and call each other "dear." They were miserable. It took a bit of wisdom and humility for Andy to realize that this is the way these two folks enjoyed talking to each other. Think you can learn a lesson from that episode?

For a lady who bemoans the spatting, I doth think she protests too much.

Spider

07-18-2007, 11:52 AM

We all know I better then anyone else and above the fray ...... but we dont need to bring that up again ;D

DBruleU

07-18-2007, 11:53 AM

This is about the dumbest reply I've ever gotten (and I haven't even read the rest of the thread yet!).

Are you seriously telling me that theism is a response to atheism? Theists have plenty to say regardless of anyone else's beliefs. Even if every atheist on the planet were to convert to some form of theism and there wasn't a single person who didn't believe in a god, then the theists would simply turn on each other. They do it today. Witness: The Middle East; Northern Ireland.

And, it has nothing to do with playing a "victim." I don't feel victimized by theists. I feel dumber having engaged them, but victimized, no. My only point was that Clavi was trying to play the wise arbitrator and equate theist preaching with atheist responses. There isn't an equation here. It's one person responding to the other.

My point is, it seems to be you and the rest of the atheists are the ones doing the complaining around here, not the theists.

Whenever there is even the slightest mention of Christianity, you go into a tirade, and a thread is certainly hijacked by you stating how you are so proud of the fact that you hate Christians, and stay as far away from them as possible. You even go so far as to go through the phone book and scratch out anyone that has a 'fish' next to their add.

Face it...it isn't the believers that have a problem with you, it's the unbelievers that have a problem with the believers...and you sure do yell louder too.

alkemical

07-18-2007, 12:24 PM

And seeing as how you get to judge for yourself what is relevant and what is not, any further conversation between us will be nonexistent. Sort of like God.

I pegged you, Clavi. Sorry if that hurt. Seems Inferno's on to you, too.

EDIT TO ADD:
Go somewhere else where you can contemplate your thoughts in solitude or at least with like-minded individuals.

Inferno:

Yet, when you made your inital response to me in this thread, a comment that was not directed towards you, you told me I ought to leave the country

___

Yet more irony.

orangeatheist

07-18-2007, 12:28 PM

My point is, it seems to be you and the rest of the atheists are the ones doing the complaining around here, not the theists.

And I explained why that may be true here. But, in general, and in the larger context of society, you cannot even begin to compare the influence of atheism against the influence of theism. Well over 90% of the American public believe in some sort of deity (Clavi included ;) ). So, again, I reiterate: Atheists would have nothing to discuss if religion truly was something believers did in private. There may be a few academic discussions regarding the idea, but certainly not a "culture war" that spills over into internet forums.

Whenever there is even the slightest mention of Christianity, you go into a tirade,

I do? I actually see myself as relatively quiet. I may offer my opinion, but I certainly don't go off into tirades. I'd like you to substantiate that claim or retract it. You need to show the evidence that at the "slightest mention of Christianity" I go into "a tirade." The key phrases you will need to substantiate are "slightest mention" and "tirade." I'm interested in learning of your results.

and a thread is certainly hijacked by you stating how you are so proud of the fact that you hate Christians,

Again, you're going to need to substantiate this assertion or retract it. Point out a thread that I have hijacked by stating I'm proud of the fact that I hate Christians.

and stay as far away from them as possible. You even go so far as to go through the phone book and scratch out anyone that has a 'fish' next to their add.

I never stated that I go through the phone book and scratch out anyone who has a 'fish' next to their ad. This is evidence that you read what you want to read. In a thread in which the discussion was regarding Christians making their beliefs painfully visible ("What Flag Is This Guy Flying"), another poster had commented,

you know.... whatever. Why is it that christians have to go out of their way to make a point like that? I am just fine with the idea of a christian flag but to fly it above the american flag is just obnoxious. Sort of like that giant cross of lights up 285 (and yes, I know it is a cemetary). I wonder what people would say if it were a crecent or a star of david.... That being said, if the dude wants to do the flag thing then go right ahead.

Here's my comment (which has just been described as me "go[ing] so far as to go through the phone book and scratch out anyone that has a 'fish' next to their add [sic]"):

Couldn't agree more.

And I'm actually glad when people publicly display their Christianity. Lets me know who to avoid. Like a garden center on County Line Road that advertises with the ichthys. I don't patronize their business and go to Arapahoe Acres instead. Like Hobby Lobby and Chick-fil-a who close on Sundays for religious reasons, or Domino's Pizza. I won't give them my business. If I'm flipping through the Yellow Pages looking for a plumber, or furnace repair shop, I'm happy to see the ones advertise with the little Christian fishies in the corners of their ads. Helps me avoid making the mistake of giving them my hard-earned atheist money! I'm pleased as punch when Christians let me know who they are. I wish there was more of it.

You tell me: Where in my reply do I give the impression of actively thumbing through the Yellow Pages in a concerted effort to seek out and rub out any ads that have the ichthys? Do you even have the capacity to understand my point?

And, to be honest, I'd forgotten about that thread and my comment because I wasn't really invested in it. Visiting it just now I've noticed all the hate-filled replies and nasty comments made regarding it. Hardly proof that I "hijack threads" to tell people about my "hate of Christianity." What it really is is demonstrative proof that you guys are a little hysterical when it comes to conversing with an atheist.

Face it...it isn't the believers that have a problem with you, it's the unbelievers that have a problem with the believers...and you sure do yell louder too.

We have to yell louder to get above the din of centuries of theistic rule. And to claim that believers don't have a problem with unbelievers, give me directions to your neck of the woods so I can move there.

BroncoInferno

07-18-2007, 12:37 PM

Inferno:

Yet, when you made your inital response to me in this thread, a comment that was not directed towards you, you told me I ought to leave the country

___

Yet more irony.

More proof that you are just as interested in confrontation and oneupsmanship as the rest of us. You are starting to priss and preen around like a deluded peacock...ironic, given your espoused loathing of such things.

alkemical

07-18-2007, 12:40 PM

More proof that you are just as interested in confrontation and oneupsmanship as the rest of us. You are starting to priss and preen around like a deluded peacock...ironic, given your espoused loathing of such things.

what's good for the goose...... :) Besides i'm giving you guys what you want, confrontation. Enjoy it. It's not often you get what you ask for.

orangeatheist

07-18-2007, 12:56 PM

Theists have plenty to say regardless of anyone else's beliefs. Even if every atheist on the planet were to convert to some form of theism and there wasn't a single person who didn't believe in a god, then the theists would simply turn on each other.

Case in point:

I don't agree with much the catholic church does.

You guys make this so easy.

alkemical

07-18-2007, 02:34 PM

Case in point:

You guys make this so easy.

That's the summation of alot of things i went over a while ago OA. It doesn't matter what it is: People will not like each other for various reasons: Futball teams, shoes, colours (red/bue), etc.

DBruleU

07-18-2007, 04:24 PM

Case in point:

You guys make this so easy.

huh?

epicSocialism4tw

07-18-2007, 04:31 PM

Case in point:
You guys make this so easy.

Wow.

You have uncovered such a bright and shining truth. May we all build you monuments and engrave your name in stone from here until eternity. ::)

It's quite elementary, my dear contrarian, that humans have fundamental disagreements of all sorts.

orangeatheist

07-18-2007, 04:35 PM

Wow.

You have uncovered such a bright and shining truth. May we all build you monuments and engrave your name in stone from here until eternity. ::)

It's quite elementary, my dear contrarian, that humans have fundamental disagreements of all sorts.

It would actually make you look a tad less foolish if you understood my point in context. As you have often suggested to others, angry, why don't you read back a bit in this thread and see if you can't figure out why I wrote what I did?

Bronco_Beerslug

07-20-2007, 09:49 AM

Wow.
You have uncovered such a bright and shining truth. May we all build you monuments and engrave your name in stone from here until eternity. ::)
It's quite elementary, my dear contrarian, that humans have fundamental disagreements of all sorts.Ah, the Mad Yak drama queen once again has nothing to offer but condescending tripe.

It's actually kinda fun watching OA reducing you and a few others here to this level.

skpac1001

07-20-2007, 11:46 AM

alkemical

07-20-2007, 11:55 AM

skpac1001

07-20-2007, 12:04 PM

In Christian world, i guess god would have put his money where his mouth is though - if he "gave his kid" to us, and we killed him. Not saying i agree/disagree - just pointing out something i've noticed.

Yeah, I suppose the Christians might have painted themselves into a corner. The Jews can escape since their god is mean as hell.

alkemical

07-20-2007, 12:50 PM

Yeah, I suppose the Christians might have painted themselves into a corner. The Jews can escape since their god is mean as hell.

There's alot to judism - and like christinaity - depends on which sect you subscribe to. Hassidic Judism IMO is more aiken in ways to Rastifarianism in ways. (Much like the Christos & Buddha).

There's a channel for everybody.

skpac1001

07-20-2007, 01:15 PM

There's alot to judism - and like christinaity - depends on which sect you subscribe to. Hassidic Judism IMO is more aiken in ways to Rastifarianism in ways. (Much like the Christos & Buddha).

There's a channel for everybody.

I'm sure thats true, but what ties all the sects of Judism together, or does anything? I would assume it would be acknowledgement of the Torah as holy, and the God in the Torah doesnt come across to me as overly concerned with being "good". I think he is kind of the Dirty Harry of the modern gods.

Spider

07-20-2007, 01:23 PM

alkemical

07-20-2007, 01:52 PM

I'm sure thats true, but what ties all the sects of Judism together, or does anything? I would assume it would be acknowledgement of the Torah as holy, and the God in the Torah doesnt come across to me as overly concerned with being "good". I think he is kind of the Dirty Harry of the modern gods.

Well more or less it is the belief in a single, omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent, transcendent God, who created the universe and continues to govern it.

God (as with christianity), is only nice to "your kind". so all transgressions are justified (maybe to harsh a word?) against "nonbelievers" or "nonfollowers" of god's law.

There's allot more (of course) -

skpac1001

07-20-2007, 02:59 PM

I never did understand why Christians objected being thrown to the Lions ...... hell from what Christians believe , there should be a waiting line for them to be tossed .......... if you are going to feel bad for anyone , fell bad for the clean up crew

Also, I dont see why Islamic terrorists interested in becoming a martyr dont just stand up in front of machine gun nests and charge them with a knife. Its a much quicker ticket to Paradise then sneaking around for months or years planning sneaky attacks, if you ask me. Its also more considerate for those of us who like staying on Earth.

skpac1001

07-20-2007, 03:06 PM

Well more or less it is the belief in a single, omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent, transcendent God, who created the universe and continues to govern it.
God (as with christianity), is only nice to "your kind". so all transgressions are justified (maybe to harsh a word?) against "nonbelievers" or "nonfollowers" of god's law.

There's allot more (of course) -

So, the reason some of these sects consider themselves Jewish sects rather then Christian sects or deist sects is maybe more historical (they came from orthodox Judism, but began changing thier beliefs) then actual differences in belief? The reason I ask is because the boldface part doesnt really exclude Christian or other deist beliefs.

Spider

07-20-2007, 03:31 PM

Also, I dont see why Islamic terrorists interested in becoming a martyr dont just stand up in front of machine gun nests and charge them with a knife. Its a much quicker ticket to Paradise then sneaking around for months or years planning sneaky attacks, if you ask me. Its also more considerate for those of us who like staying on Earth.

I got no problem with this ..........

orangeatheist

07-20-2007, 04:01 PM

If I was religious I would just drop the "god is all good" premise and go on with my buisiness. There is certainly enough evidence just from the Old Testament that God is not above doing horrible, petty things.
"Hey you, sacrifice your child to me. Yeah, good, put him on the slab, put the knife to his neck....Ha Ha Ha, ok forget it, you dont have to kill him, I was just checking."

Hold on there, cowboy! Not so fast! You sure let ol' Yahweh off the hook rather quickly. Have you so soon forgotten that child sacrifice is indeed part of Scripture? You can't forget the obvious one: God's sacrifice of his own kid. That one sort of goes without saying. But that isn't the only case.

In the Book of Judges, chapter 11, there's the story of a man named Jephthah. Jephthah was one of the judges of Israel before the people began to demand (and then received) kings. The story of Jephthah revolves around his daughter and a rather rash promise he makes to Yahweh. To win a battle against the evil Ammorites, Jephthah promises to sacrifice to Yahweh anyone who comes to greet him at the door of his tent if he returns victorious from his siege. The promise is recounted in Judges 11:31:

"Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering."

Who should run out to greet him when he returns from battle? His own daughter. Now, at this point, does Yahweh intervene to say to Jepthah, "Thou loyal and faithful servant! I see that your heart is good and that you stood against mine enemies. It was I, the Lord thy God, who delivered the children of Ammon into thine hands. I saw the faithfulness of thy heart, in thy promise to give unto Me what thou lovest the most. But, lo, thy faith has made thee whole. Thou shalt love thy daughter for many years. Take her." And the affair is done with?

Nope.

Ol' Yahweh lets Jephthah kill his own daughter as a sacrifice to him. Judges 11:39 "And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed".

And then, of course, there's the much better known story of Abraham and Isaac. That the Bible is a patchwork of various sources is disputed by no one other than the ultra-conservative fundamentalists. Biblical scholars know that many sources were used to write the Hebrew Scriptures. There may be a clue in the Abraham and Isaac story that the original tale actually ended with Abraham actually following through with the slaughter of his son for the sake of Yahweh's blood lust.

If you'll note in the beginning of the story (Genesis 22:3), Abraham leaves to follow through with Yahweh's command to sacrifice his son bringing with him a donkey, Isaac and two other young men. This is how it is written:

"So Abraham rose early in the morning, saddled his donkey, and took two of his young men with him, and his son Isaac..."

Notice how the narration is careful to list everyone who goes on the journey (my bold).

When Abraham and his party finally reach the place where the deed is to be done (Genesis 22:5), Abraham takes Isaac with him and tells the two young men to stay behind with the donkey. Here is how it was written:

"Then Abraham said to to his young men, 'Stay here with the donkey; the boy and I will go over there; we will worship, and then we will come back to you."

Again, note how the author is careful to mention everyone in the party (my bold).

Here, some scholars believe another source intervenes in the story which has Abraham NOT sacrifice Isaac. However, they note something unusual at the end of the tale. The author, who has been careful up to this point, to tell his readers what everyone in the story is doing, suddenly has Abraham return apparently alone from the mountain/hill/place.

Genesis 22:19, "So Abraham returned to his young men, and they arose and went together to Beersheba..." Where's Isaac? This sudden drop of Isaac from the story leads some scholars to speculate that the original tale ended with Abraham actually sacrificing his son and then returning to the two young men alone.

Something to ponder.....:wiggle:

alkemical

07-20-2007, 04:10 PM

So, the reason some of these sects consider themselves Jewish sects rather then Christian sects or deist sects is maybe more historical (they came from orthodox Judism, but began changing thier beliefs) then actual differences in belief? The reason I ask is because the boldface part doesnt really exclude Christian or other deist beliefs.

Well in christianity, jesus is the redeemer. Jesus is "worshipped" as the way to god. In my own very personal interpretation: If you live like jesus, you become more than man.

The Jewish faith doesn't identify that Jesus was "god's kid". (at least from all my studying).

Spider

07-20-2007, 04:18 PM

hehehehehe ......
http://www.jao.com/africa/serengeti/lions.jpg

Just kidding ;D

skpac1001

07-20-2007, 05:18 PM

Hold on there, cowboy! Not so fast! You sure let ol' Yahweh off the hook rather quickly.

Something to ponder.....:wiggle:

Ha!
Yeah, I give more respect to Yahweh then the other skygods. He is in a permanent bad mood and considering how he treats his choosen people, I dont wanna be his enemy.

alkemical

07-23-2007, 09:34 AM

http://altreligion.about.com/library/weekly/aa111502a.htm

Who was John Dee? He is virtually unknown in modern times, although he has had a profound influence on popular culture- without him, there would be no Harry Potter, no Gandalf, no wizard bearing a crystal ball.

As a brilliant magician, mathematician, scientist, and secret agent, John Dee was the original Renaissance man. Something of a prodigy, Dee entered St. John's College at Cambridge at age 15. He achieved notoriety early on with a charge of sorcery, which stemmed from a mechanical flying beetle demonstrated in a stage play. After spending many years studying mathematics and cartography, he took an interest in natural magic, a pastime then accepted by the church. From his studies he developed a doctrine that one could obtain knowledge of God from the applied practice of magick- a controversial idea that was to get him into trouble on a number of occasions.

Tried as a Wizard

His notoriety as a skilled astrologer eventually caught the attention of Queen Mary's court, and he was asked to cast horoscopes for the Queen and her prospective husband, Philip of Spain. During this time, he made the mistake of befriending the Princess Elizabeth, then in captivity as a political rival of Queen Mary. Hysteria was roused, and he was charged, tried, and acquitted of attempting to kill Mary with black magic. Shortly after his release, Mary did die and Elizabeth ascended the throne. Elizabeth had not forgotten her friend, and Dee was asked to choose an auspicious date for her coronation. Their friendship continued, although in much secrecy, due to Dee's growing (if undeserved) reputation as a black magician.

Her Majesty's Service

Dee eventually became Elizabeth's court astrologer, and soon after, her spy. As an agent of the crown, Dee conducted several mysterious missions for purposes mostly unknown to this day. He relished his espionage duties, creating elaborate, sophisticated ciphers. In his correspondence with the Queen during these episodes, he signed his communiqués "007," a moniker that would be used again, as any fan of the spy genre will recognize.

In between spy missions, Dee continued his studies in mathematics, cartography, and alchemy, as well as his experiments in magic. He developed state of the art navigational techniques, instituted the use of telescopes and navigational equipment in the military, and developed secret codes for military communication. He also translated many important mathematical works, and introduced the English speaking world to Euclidian Geometry.

Edward kelley

Dr. Dee's interest in the properties of glass soon merged with his interests in magick, and encouraged by books on demonology, he began to experiment with using glass and crystals as divination devices, a practice known as scrying. All of his experiments were fruitless. In despair, he turned to outside help, eventually settling upon John Talbot, a pharmacist turned alchemist who had turned to criminal means to support his obsession with alchemy. Talbot, who changed his name to Kelley upon entering Dee's employ, became Dee's full time crystal gazer.

As a piously religious man, despite the rumors surrounding him, Dee had no interest in contacting demons, opting instead to try to converse with angels. The experiment was a success- a being referring to itself as 'Madimi,' soon manifested. Kelley would gaze into a crystal and describe his visions to Dee, who posed various questions and kept scrupulous notes. The result of years of effort in this endeavor was the Enochian magical system- a means of contacting angels through the use of a system of 'calls' and a language Kelley claimed was dictated directly from the angels.

The so-called 'Enochian' language, named after the biblical Enoch, has a sophisticated grammar that has baffled skeptics. While it must be remembered that Dee had considerable background in ciphers and languages, his scrupulous diaries indicate that it was Kelley who received and dictated the material to Dee, making it that much more mysterious. Kelley was not the educated man Dee was, and had not the ability or the talent required to create such a language. In fact, Kelley seemed unaware of the spiritual import of what he was doing- during one session he interrupts the angel's message to ask for money!

About those Angels...

Dee and kelley continued their work while travelling around europe seeking work as alchemists; Kelley eventually became suspicious of the nature of the so-called 'angels' and began to resist the work. When Dee pressed, he resumed for a little time- only to have a vision so terrifying that he refused to scry again, and left Dee's service permanently. Kelley died shortly after leaving Dee's employ, of injuries received from a fall during in an attempted prison break. Dr. Dee returned to England to find his house and library had been destroyed by a mob. He returned to the university, held various acedemic posts until 1604, when he was once again charged with sorcery, and was forced to appeal to King James for protection. He died in poverty only four years later.

John Dee's legacy is deep and broad-his cartographic tools allowed unprecedented explorations, and he made many advances in European mathematics and geometry. His fearsome appearance in a tall pointed hat and his penchant for crystal balls gave the world the archetype of the wizard after which dozens of story book wizards have been based, including Gandalf, Harry Potter, and even the Wizard of Oz. He founded the Rosicrucian order, the first of many magical secret societies, which promoted spiritual growth throughout the centuries.

Long after his death, a young man in the United States used a scrying crystal to contact an angels- who gave him a book written in a mysterious angelic language. The young man, Joseph Smith, went on the found the Mormon Church. In the nineteen fifties, archaeological digs turned up magical talismans created nearly two thousand years ago by Coptic Christians, which bear mysterious characters which bear a startling resemblance to Dee's angelic language.