Questions about God... theists answer these!

Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Questions about God... theists answer these!

List of questions about God, religion and the supernatural have been compiled by IG over the years as well as some interesting ones by readers.

1. If Jesus fulfilled all the OT prophecies so well, why didn't the Jews recognize him as the messiah? - Francois Tremblay

2. If Gen 3:24 is true, why hasn't anyone found the Cherubims and the " flaming sword which turned every way"?

3. It's been proven that modern humans originated from Africa. Yet, the Adam and Eve story claims the first Humans lived in a garden in Eden, near 4 rivers. ( Most of which no one can find). One of these rivers mentioned is the Euphrates, which runs through Iraq, Syria and a portion of Turkey. What's the truth? Did man come out of Africa or near the Euphrates River? - The Infidel Guy

4. When the believer gets to Heaven, how can Heaven be utter bliss when people they love and care about are burning in Hell ? - The Infidel Guy - [Note: Some say God erases your memories of them, but if God erases your memory, you as Mr. Joe /Jane Smoe ceases to exist.]

5. How can a God have emotions, i.e. jealousy, anger, sadness, love, etc., if he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent? Emotional states are reactionary for the most part. How can God react to us if he is all-knowing and has a divine plan? - IG [Note: Indeed, many religious texts display their gods this way . Listen to the An Emotional Godshow.]
6. Why would God create a place such as hell to torture sinners forever when he foreknew who would disappoint him? - IG [Note: Some say you have a choice, but this misses the point. If God hates sin so much, why create Adam and Eve when he knew they'd sin? The only conclusion I can come up with, if Yaweh exists, is that he wanted sin to enter the world.]

7. "God is all merciful," we hear quite often. Wouldn't it be more merciful of God to simply snap sinners out of existence rather than send them to hell? Or better yet, since he's all-knowing, not allow them to be born at all? - IG
ON GOD'S LOVE & HELL
1.) God's love is superlative.
2.) God's love of man exceeds man's love of self.
3.) Man's love of self prohibits torture.
4.) Considering God's greater love for us, Hell (eternal torture) is illogical.

8. Muslims are supposed to pray 5 times a day towards Mecca. Each prayer includes a variety of ritualism and posturing. If a muslim astronaut were to land on Mars. Prayer to Mecca would be ritualistically impossible due to the rotation of Earth and Mars. Are Muslims stuck here in Earth? IG [Note: Since this was first posted, a Muslim astronaut was faced with this very dilemma. The authoritative clergy informed him to pray as he normally would. I see this no where in the Koran. You see? Religions must change, or die out. It's interesting to note that, in the Koran, the moon is believed to be in the lowest Heaven, the level for those that barely made it to Heaven. Surah 71:15-16. One problem, no man can supposedly get to Heaven until they die. Yet, we've been to the moon. Our satellites beyond that.]

9. Why haven't we seen God reattach severed heads, restore someone who was burned alive or regrow amputated limbs? Surely these would be miracles difficult to deny. - Adam Majors and IG [Note: The typical answer is that man doesn't dictate God's actions. The conundrum here however is that, if God wants us to "know" him, then surely feats such as those mentioned above would be happening all over the world. Until they do, I'll remain an atheist.]

10. Why does God entrust the spreading of 'His' word to sinners? Why doesn't he do it himself? - IG [Note: Surely God would have known that not everyone would be convinced by the reality[sic] of his Bible. If God loves us so much, we are all going to Heaven. If God knew that I would be an atheist, and he doesn't like atheists, he shouldn't have allowed me to come into existence. But he did. Therefore, I must be serving the will of God, for I exist. Smiling]

11. In II Kings 2-23/24 we read about God sending 2 she-bears to attack children for calling the prophet Elisa bald, which he was, the bears killed 42 of the children. Was this a good thing to do? -- Brandon and IG[Note: I have heard some argue that the boys were a gang. So?! I didn't read anywhere in that passage where they laid a finger on the guy . Also, what kind of bears are these that can kill 42 kids? Super Bears? Surely the kids had to be running away.]

12. I have often heard from many believers that even Satan has a presence in the church, which is why even in church people can still have impure thoughts. If Satan can find his way in the church, how do Christians know that Satan didn't find his way into the Bible and twist the whole book? After all, men did vote on which books would make the Holy Bible. - The Infidel Guy

13. Why did God allow Lot and his daughters to escape from Sodom and Gomorra when he destroyed it only to later have Lot and his daughters engage in incestuous fornication. (Genesis 19:30-36) - Disillusioned [Note: To have intercourse with daddy dearest of course.]

14. Genesis 1:28-29 shows that man and all the animals were first created herbivorous. Most young-earth Christians (ones that believes the earth is less than 10,000 years old) say that the fall of man resulted in carnivorous animals ( hence death of animals). So, why did God punish the animal kingdom, making animals kill and devour each other because of man's mistake? Or, if you're an old-earth Christian (one that accepts that animals existed on earth for billions of years before man came on the scene) then how come fossils show carnivorous animals existed before man? - http://www.caseagainstfaith.com/contact.htm.

15. Many Christians believe that God is a thinking being, that he solves problems and makes a way for them when troubles come. Does God Think? If God is thinking, did he know his thoughts before he thought them? If so, again, where is his freewill and how is God thinking at all if everything seems to be one uncontrollable action/thoughts. - The Infidel Guy [Note: I'd say a God cannot think at all. To do so, would strip him of omniscience. Thinking is a temporal process.] ON GOD'S ATEMPORALITY
1.) God, an atemporal being, created the Universe.
2.) Creation is a temporal processes because X cannot cause Y to come into being unless X existed temporally prior to Y.
3.) If God existed prior to the creation of the Universe he is a temporal being.
4.) Since God is atemporal, God cannot be the creator the Universe.
[Note: I guess I should also note here that a timeless being would be without the proposition of past, and future. But to be omniscient, God must know the past and future. Hence a God that is atemporal and omniscient cannot logically exist. Smiling]

16. I have often heard that faith is all that is neccessary to believe in God and accept the Bible as true. If this is true aren't all supernatural beliefs true since they also require "faith"? - IG ON FAITH
1.) A prerequisite to believe in a Faith is faith.
2.) Having faith is all that is required to accept a Faith (belief) as true.
3.) All Faiths are true.
[Note: Of course all Faiths aren`t true, but this is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from a person that states that, "Faith" is how one knows God.]

17. Why didn't God just kill Adam and Eve after the Fall and start from scratch? Actually, if God is all-knowing wouldn't he know that man would need to be killed eventually anyway, (the biblical flood)? Why create Adam and Eve at all? - and ON THE GARDEN OF EDEN
1.) God is omniscient (all-knowing).
2.) God knew that before he created man that they would eat of the tree of knowledge.
3.) God placed the tree of knowledge in the Garden anyway.
4.) God wanted sin to enter the world.
[Note: If God didn`t want sin to enter the world, why create Adam and Eve at all? He knew what would happen. Why place the forbidden trees in the Garden in the first place?]

18. If a spirit is non-physical but the human body is physical, how does a spirit stay in our bodies? - IG ON SPIRITS
1.) Spirits are not physical entities.
2.) Brains are physical entities.
3.) Past experiences are stored in our physical brains, we call that, Memory..
4.) Injury can damage portions of the physical brain that store memory and can alter or erase memories completely.
5.) If human spirits exist... after death, spirits can have no memory.
[Note: Some will say the spirit stores physical memories as well, but if true, the spirit would have to be physical at least to a degree. How could a non-physical spirit store, physical memories?]

19. Does God know his own future decisions? If God is all-knowing he actually shouldn't have any decisions to make at all. Nor can he choose anything over something else. For that would mean that he is neither omniscient nor omnipotent. In fact, he can't even think if this is the case. Since he can't DO anything, he might as well not exist. - IG ON GOD'S IMMUTABILITY - Unchangingness
1. If God exists, then he is immutable.
2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
3. An immutable being cannot at one time have an intention and then at a later time not have that intention.
4. For any being to create anything, prior to the creation he must have had the intention to create it, but at a later time, after the creation, no longer have the intention to create it.
5. Thus, it is impossible for an immutable being to have created anything (from 3 and 4).
6. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5) - Theodore M. Drange

20. If God is all-knowing, how could he be disappointed in His creation? -- [Note: Indeed, wouldn't God know that before the creation of our Universe what creatures would disappoint him? That being the case why create those creatures at all? Also, in knowing absolutely the behavior of humans before creation, God cannot be disappointed either... for this world is exactly as he has planned it to be. If it's not, why create us at all?]

21. God struck down the Tower of Babel angry at the intent of the people that built them, if this is the case, many of the great pyramids ( which are bigger than any ziggurat) around the world should be rubble also, yet many still stand today. Were not the Egyptians and many other ancient pyramid builders reaching toward God /The Heavens? - IG [Note: In actuality, many of the Pharaoh's believed that, via their pyramids, they would become God's themselves.]

22. In the watchmaker analogy, a watch is used to show us intelligent design and compares that to the Universe as evidence of design. We know watches are designed because we have past experience with watches, as well as with other man made objects. My question is: What Universe is the Intelligent Design proponent using to compare this Universe with to draw such an analogy? What God did he see create a Universe? - IG

23. Why did God flood the earth to remove evil? It didn't work! Evil came right back, God should have known that would happen! So why did He bother? - PhineasBg [Note: A good example of how quickly sin returned, was Noah getting drunk just after they discovered land.]

24. If the garden of Eden was a perfect paradise as xians claim, then why did Eve even want to eat the fruit? Wouldn't a perfect place provide everything a person would want or desire and thus she would want nothing? - keyser soze [Note: Why were the trees there in the first place? Of course they love to throw the serpent into the equation. But ummm..who let the serpent into the Garden?... and why would God create such a creature knowing he would cause man's fall? Hmm.. God must have wanted the fall to happen.]

25. Why would an all-powerful god become flesh in order to sacrifice himself to himself so that his creation might escape the wrath of himself. Couldn't god, in his infinite wisdom, come up with something a little more efficient? - ON THE BODY OF CHRIST
1.) God?s flesh was known as Jesus.
2.) Flesh cannot enter into Heaven (according to Paul)
3.) God is no longer Jesus.
4.) Jesus doesn?t exist.

(Note: Many at this point will state that the spirit lives on so therefore Jesus lives. This really depends on what you believe about Jesus. Is Jesus the son of God or God in flesh? If Jesus is merely the son there is no problem.However, if Jesus ?is? God himself, we do. You see, Jesus is called Jesus because of the attribute of Flesh. If Jesus = God (who is spirit) then the entity known as Jesus ceases to exist. The flesh/body of Jesus, no longer exists and the spirit of God is still the unchanging spirit of God. No Jesus at that point. The Flesh, called Jesus, is dead.)

26. After 9/11 a lot of people have been tossing around " god bless america". Why do they keep saying this? From the looks of it god hasn't blessed anything. If god had blessed america, the 9/11 event would've never happened. Theists seem to give the answer of "everything is part of gods big plan". If everything is part of gods big plan, why are we after Bin Laden? Wasn't he and other terrorists just carrying out gods desired plan? So it seems that Bin Laden/ terrorism isnt our enemy, but god . - [Note: Unfortunately many religious nuts believe they are fulfilling their God's plan by going to war.]

27. Christians say that God is NOT the author of confusion. Can you say, Tower of Babel? - The Screaming Monkeys

28. If Noah's flood supposedly covered the earth for a year, regardless of whether or not all the animals could fit on the ark, what the heck happened to all the plants? Can you imagine a cactus surviving under 4 miles of water for a year? I can't either! - Kyle Giblet [Note: With God all things are possible. Oh wait, except in Judges 1:19.]

29. The highest rainfall ever recorded in a 24 hour period was 47inches in the Reunion Islands in 1947 (during a severe tropical storm). To cover the whole earth to a depth of 5.6 miles, and cover the mountain tops (i.e. Mount Everest), it would need to rain at a rate of 372 (three hundred and seventy two) inches per hour, over the entire surface of the earth. Can rain fall at such an astronomical rate? Where did all the water come from?? Where did it all go to??? And would not the dynamics of the earth be so out of balance (tides etc.) that the earth would become so unstable that it would wobble off into outer space???? -

30. What do Muslim women get in Paradise? - IG [Note: Some Muslims I have interviewed about this say that Muslim women will get the same thing men get or equal value. Smiling Oh really? So Muslim women will get 72 virgin men? lol. If Muslim men get 72 virgins, where are all these virgin women coming from? What of their freewill? Is Allah creating these women to be slaves to the men in Paradise?]

31. In the "Last Days" Jesus is supposed to appear in the clouds. How are the Christians on the opposite end of the world going to see him? Are there going to be millions of Jesus'? What about people that work underground? What about people in deep space? -

32. The Bible says that God is a jealous God . How is this an example of a moral absolute of which man is supposed to follow? - IG ON GOD`S JEALOUSY
1.) "God is love." 1 John 4:8.
2.) "Love is not jealous." 1 Cor 13:4
3.) "I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God." Exodus 20:5.
4.) The Christian god cannot logically exist.
(NOte: Basically love is NOT jealous, yet god is jealous, then God can`t be love. But if god IS love he cannot be jealous. Be he is.)

33. A true Muslim man is not supposed to do anything that the prophet Muhammad didn't do. If one remembers there was a big debate over whether or not Muslims should eat Mangos. If this is true, why in the Hell were these Islamic Fundamentalists flying airplanes? - IG

34. If the earth was covered by a complete global flood, every living creature killed except those surviving on the ark, why are there many completely unique animal species in Australia that are found no where else indigenously on the earth? -

35. If god is omniscient and " god is love," why would he allow a child to be conceived, knowing that that child would one day reject him and spend eternity burning in a lake of fire?- TiredTurkeyProd

36. Revelations is supposed to take place on Earth. What if we colonize the moon or Mars or inhabit a self-sustaining space station? Do we escape "judgement"? -- Ray Sommers [Note: No we don't Ray... and of course we all know that if there is any intelligent life out there besides us, they are all going to Hell too. Eye-wink]

37. Isaiah 40:28 says, "...the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is he weary?" If this is true, why did God rest on the seventh day?- IG

38. Everytime I go to a funeral the preacher and guests always say that " God " has called that person to Heaven or they say, " God said it was time to come home", or some such variation. If God is calling these people "home", why are we putting the murderers of these victims in prison? How can we punish a man or woman for doing God's will? - IG

39. Does God have a gender? In most churches, God is predominately referred to as a "he"? - IG [Note: The Bible says God is male, but what does this mean? Does God have a penis? Does he have hormones that dictate his gender? Smiling]

40. Why can't we wait until we get to Heaven to worship God ? Why would it be too late? - IG

41. What is the purpose of prayer? What can a finite being on Earth possibly tell an omnipotent, omniscient deity that he doesn't know already? - IG ON PRAYER
1.) Humans can?t change God?s mind for he has a divine plan and is unchangeable.
2.) Prayer can't change God's mind.
3.) Prayer doesn't change anything.
(Prayer may make you feel better emotionally, but it doesn`t change God`s mind.)

42. Some say Jesus was the all-knowing God. Jesus would have known then that when he died he'd be in heaven in less than 3 days to rule. If Jesus is alive and ruling today, what did he sacrifice? -- Cyndy Hammond

43. God knows that men are sinners, untrustworthy and evil, why does God leave it up to fallible man (clergy..etc) to teach others about his word? Why would he put our eternal souls at risk if he loves us so much? - The Infidel Guy and Danno778

44. Did Adam have nipples? If so, how did he acquire them? In fact, why would God give "later man" nipples at all? They serve no purpose other than lactation. Some say pleasure. Where is that in Genesis exactly? All mammals have nipples as well, are theirs pleasureful for them too? Many men don't find their nipples pleasurable at all. - IG

45. How did Adam and Eve know it was wrong to disobey God if they hadn't eaten of the tree of knowledge (of good and evil) yet? You can't blame them if they didn't know. - IG

46. If God has such a tremendous problem with uncircumcised penises, why did he make man with foreskin in the first place? - IG [Note: Some say, "So God can recognize his chosen people." Recognize? Is God so stupid that he has to physically look at men's penises? If not God, do other men need to? lol.]

47. Did Noah have fish onboard? Salt or Fresh? Since fresh water fish would die in salt, and salt water fish would die in fresh, only one type of fish would survive. Yet....?" - Frank Monaco

48. Why does the omnipotent, omnipresent God need help from man or angels to spread his word or do acts? - IG [Note: Some say God doesn't need help. But apparently he does.] - IG

49. How did Jesus ascend to Heaven in the Flesh when Paul says that flesh cannot inherit the kingdom of Heaven? (1 Cor.15:50) - IG [Note: Some say, well Paul said that and not Jesus. Yet they quote Paul when it suits there purposes.]

50. If God wants us to live right and choose "the good," why did he create evil? (Isaiah 45:6,7) Not to mention he already knows which people are not going to choose "the good" so why create those people in the first place? It seems that many people are born to go to Hell. - IG ON HELL
1.) God is all-knowing.
2.) Before I was born God knew I wouldn?t believe in him.
3.) I was born to go to Hell.
(Sure you may say I have a choice, but I think I`ve proven already that I really don`t. I`m simply fulfilling the will of God by being an atheist aren`t I? If I`m not, I shouldn`t exist: For God would have known that before I was created that I wouldn`t believe in him.)

51. I hear Christians all the time speaking of a spiritual war between Heaven and Hell, if this is true does God have limitations of power? Man only conducts wars because of our limitations of power and foresight. God has both all-power and all-knowledge, no reason for war of any kind. - IG

52. The Bible is full of phrases beginning with, "and the lord saw". Didn't he know before hand? - IG

53. How can a psychologist condone belief in something not proven to exist, when people are put into mental institutions on a daily basis for the same thing? i.e. aliens, fairies, imaginary people (Multiple Personality Disorders..)? - Dan Denton [Note: I'm sure that some of the pious believe that they are improperly placed there as well Dan. Smiling]

54. If Christians say they know God exists and that he will work miracles, what do they need faith for? Faith is not knowing. - IG

55. Brain, or shall I say, body transplants, will eventually be possible, where would the soul be then? Where is the soul? - IG

56. If God really wants us to know him, why doesn't he place the knowledge of him in our minds at birth? The same way many theists believe that God implants our sense of right and wrong in us a right birth. - IG

57. If God was Jesus' father (not Joseph), then why is Jesus' family tree traced through Joseph? -- Cyndy Hammond

58. What image of God was man made from? Couldn't have been a moral one or physical one. - IG [Note: One would suspect that an image of God would be perfect and cannot sin. Oops.]

59. Why can't God appear before everyone at the same time? Everyone in the world would then "know" he exists and not have solely "believe". And please, don't say he already tried that. Surely a God knows exactly what to do to convince a measly human of his existence. - IG

60. According to the New Testament Matthew 5:17 says "Do not suppose that I have come to abolish the Law and the prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to complete. I tell you this: so long as heaven and earth endure, not a letter, not a stroke, will disappear from the Law until all that must happen has Happened." So since Jesus has not returned the "Law" is still in effect, so why aren't we still burning witches, stoning adulterers and disobedient children, killing homosexuals, ostracizing people that work on the Sabbath (nurses, doctors etc.), flinging blood onto the horns of the alter, pulling off the heads of small birds, and don't forget human sacrifice to God (Leviticus 27 P.28 )? -- Sheila L. Chambers

61. If there is freewill in Heaven yet everyone has chosen good and is happy, isn't that proof that God could have made us with freewill, choosing good ( God ) and still being happy on Earth? - Dennis Hendrix [Note: In other words, evil didn't have to exist after all. Hey wait, even in Heaven apparently, evil can exist. At least for a short while. Satan became evil and was in heaven. Apparently he even had enough time to form an Army against God. Wow. Maybe Heaven won't be as peaceful as many believe.]

62. Why does God have a plan? Man is limited in power so we make plans because we are not all-knowing nor all-powerful. If God has a plan, isn't he reduced to a mere finite being? - IG

63. How could the all-merciful/loving God watch billions of his children burn over and over again for eternity? - IG [Note: Of course this is geared to those that believe in a fiery hell. I am well aware that not all Christians believe in a fiery Hell.]

64. Before reading and writing were invented (5000BC), on what basis did God use to judge the people who died before the Hebrew and Greek text (BIBLE) were written? -- [Note: They are all roasting in Hell. Smiling]

65. Many Christians tell me that I will "burn in hell". If I have a soul, how can a soul burn? Aren't souls non-physical entities? - IG [Note: Some Christians groups believe that you will be given new bodies after judgement. However, if true, what's the significance of a spirit in the first place?]

66. How can one hold to the barbaric belief that something has to DIE in order to appease a god for a bad deed? -- Nickolaus Wing [Note: Because an old book says so Nick.]

67. Why does SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) occur? Why would God allow a baby to live for such a short period of time? Why not just let them not be born in the first place? -- Terry Clark [Note: This actually happened to a friend of mine. Not even God himself could console her.]

68. If Jesus was nailed and died on Friday evening, and walked out of the tomb on Sunday morning, where's the 3rd NIGHT he predicted? Per Matthew 12:40: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. -

69. Many Christians claim that hell is merely existence outside of God ?s presence (C.S. Lewis among others). If this is the case, then Jesus could not have descended into hell (being God Himself). As a result, are you sure your sins are forgiven? - Byron Bultsma

70. Ten to twenty percent of all women who discover they are pregnant suffer a miscarriage. Also, it is estimated that anywhere from 14 to 50 percent of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. Seeing this is all part of God 's plan, does this make God the world's number one abortion provider? - Jim

71. What if, when you get to Heaven, you saw God causing pain and suffering out of anger or for the purpose of entertaining himself. What if he required people in heaven to praise and worship him non-stop even to the point of causing his worshipers discomfort, pain and boredom. What if, when he was bored, angry, or jealous, he would create natural disasters to make himself feel better. Would you still follow him? - Fernando [Note: Of course they would Fernando, many people followed Hitler out of fear as well.]

72. In Leviticus, the bible condemns homosexuality as an "abomination", giving some Christians a reason to hate, harass, torture and kill gays and even picket their funderals with " God hates fags" signs. In the same book of the bible the eating of shellfish is equally an "abomination". Are these Christians planning to go after the patrons of Red Lobster next? - [Note: hee-hee, that's all I can say. Jewish Law states that eating Fish without scales is an abomination and thus the Shark is one among the list. However, sharks do have scales, Placoid scales, one of the many reasons why a shark is called a Fish .]

73. Christians will tell you that if a baby dies it goes to heaven. Why then are they so against abortion? All the child is being deprived of is the opportunity to go to hell. Either that or god expects unborn fetuses to accept Jesus. -

74. If one could prove to you incontrovertibly that Jesus and God were all human fabrications would still believe? And why? - LOGICnREASON [Note: If you say yes. Then you are not concerned with the truth, you simply WANT to believe; and if you WANT to believe, indeed, there is nothing anyone can tell you..]

75. It is often said that God allows evil because one could not meaningfully appreciate good without experiencing its opposite. Why is it necessary to experience the opposite of something in order to appreciate it? Must I experience death in order to meaningfully appreciate life? -excidius

76. Bible literalists want you to believe that God's Word in the Bible is meant to be taken literally. If this is the case, why was Jesus fond of explaining things in parable and metaphor? Was Jesus literally discussing the biology of mustard seeds, or was the mustard seed parable meant to be interpreted figuratively as faith? -excidius

77. Liberal Christians say some parts of the Bible are literally true, but much else is to be interpreted figuratively as allegory. How do you know which is which? What distinguishing criteria are used? How can you be certain "God" is a literal and not a figurative concept? -excidius

78. Consciousness is the result of a physical brain, how could God being metaphysical be said to be conscious or sentient without having a brain? - Mindless

79. Considering how Leviticus is considered old law, and that Christians do not obey it anymore, why do they always use it to defend homosexuality being an "abomination"? -Bohorquez

80. If God is omnipotent and he has a plan ... then why did he not create the universe as it will be one second after the plan has succeeded? Who or what prevented him from doing that? - Timothy Campbell (http://www.tc123.com)

81. The large majority of people who have ever existed could not have learned of the Bible or Jesus Christ. And many people afterwards have found other religions or no religion at all to be more convincing, sometimes while being very virtuous. Do all these people really deserve eternal torment because of that? -- lpetrich

82. The above arguments also apply among different sects of Christianity, many of which state that most others are not True Christianity. -- lpetrich

83. Is it reasonable for the Creator and Ruler of such a vast Universe to be preoccupied with the sexuality of a species living on a tiny little planet? -- lpetrich

84. If the Christian god was all loving and all knowing why did he let religious figures such as Mohammed or Gautama Budda be born, knowing that they would mislead people from the 'true' faith and trick the majority of the world's population into burning forever in hell (in fact, if Islam didn't start, most of the middle east would probably be Christian). It would simple to use the Holy Spirit to guide them to Jesus and spread the 'true' faith. If the Holy Spirit exits, it certainly isn't doing it's job!

85. If one is obliged to follow all the teachings of the bible then why is engaging in homosexuality or adultery any worse than "suffering a witch to live", "muzzling the ox that treadeth the corn", "reaping the corners of thy field", "marring the corners of they beard", "plowing with an oxen and an ass", "hating thy brother in thy heart" or "eating frogs, shellfish and eels" ?

86. Exactly how did the alleged worldwide flood kill off all the world's sea creatures? How does one go about drowning a fish? -- Steever

87. Why did this alleged god create humans as an animal form of life that gets sick and dies and experiences pain and has a limited mind when 'it' could have created humans as a form of pure energy or of some indestructible material or whatever, and was totally ?sinless? and had ?pure? thought? If a god was omnipotent 'it' could have easily have done this. --AI

88. If a god is omnipotent how did 'it' fail to foresee that Satan would turn against 'it'? --AI

89. What is a god supposedly made of? --AI

This list was compiled by the Infidel Guy with submissions from many members of the atheist community.

PICK THE QUESTION YOU WANT TO ANSWER, AND POST IT HERE...

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
So, faith is the substance

So, faith is the substance of things that have no substance yet and the evidence of things that haven't provided evidence yet?

Sounds like belief without evidence to me.

I'd go on a rant about how much of an idiot Paul was but he didn't write Hebrews.

You certainly are a self contradictory wolf thing

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
I still don't get it.

I still don't get it. Whether God wants to do something seems irrelevant as to whether he can or not. These are two different topics. For example, I don't want to jump off a bridge, but, technically, I could. So, I think the response is just a red herring. The question still needs to be answered. 

Luposian wrote:
Thus, Faith is belief WITH evidence!  It is the SUBSTANCE (tangible element) of things HOPED FOR (that which has not yet come to pass), and is PROOF (evidence) of those things we cannot see, at the moment. 

 

jcgadfly wrote:
So, faith is the substance of things that have no substance yet and the evidence of things that haven't provided evidence yet?

 

I don't understand this either.

He did say, "faith is belief with evidence!" If that's the case, then I have no problems with faith. But, I don't think that's how faith is usually defined. Christians often say that they have faith when I ask them to present their evidence. They also often claim that they don't need to prove the existence of God because they "have faith." This suggests that many (if not most) Christians don't define 'faith' the same way Luposian does. Anyways, faith is just a word. What I am against is belief without evidence or even in spite of the evidence; if that's not faith, then there's no argument here.

And, "the substance (tangible element) of things hoped for (that which has not yet come to pass)." I'm confused again. What is "substance," and how is there a "substance of things hoped for?" What is the "tangible element?"

"Proof (evidence) of those things we cannot see, at the moment." What does "see" mean? Like, physically 'see,' with our eyes? By that definition, we have faith in everything that we know to be true, but can't see. That's a weird definition of faith. Or, is 'see' some kind of metaphor for something that we know to be true beyond a reasonable doubt, in general? But then, the sentence would imply something like, proven without proof, which is just silly, a contradiction.

Edit:

Luposian wrote:
The answer is:  "God would never do such a thing."  But, because the question is asked, with the full knowledge that it is impossible to answer (the logical answer to the question is "No." (which premises "all-powerful" from both sides of the question), but that very answer then "proves" the question's intent), the atheist scoffs and says... "then God CAN'T do something!"  But God is not just all powerful, but all knowing and all wise.  Thus, it behooves us to realize that God would never start creating heavier and heavier rocks, because it's a foolish (and pointless) endeavor.  He will be able to infinitely create heavier rocks and He will be able to infinitely lift them.  God doesn't do things just for the sake of stupid entertainment.  It is a question designed to make God look weak or to, in some way, cast doubt as to His aspects of being God, as I'm sure the majority of the questions of this thread are.

Some of the questions are "answerable" (and won't "prove" against God) and some are not.  But all are intended to belittle God to a remnant in reader's minds.  They wouldn't be asked otherwise.

So, given the fact the "opponent" is cheating from the very beginning (asking questions designed to make God (or Christians) look bad, from almost any angle you answer from ), what sane Christian would even want to play this game?  Do you play a game you KNOW you won't win?  If so, why?  Why play when you have NO chance of winning

Lol, it's not a mistake because it's intentional. The whole point of the question is to attempt show that omnipotence leads to contradictions, and ergo, is a logically impossible characteristic. Don't tell me you didn't even know that much.

It's not "cheating" (what the heck does that even mean?); it's a reductio ad absurdum.

And obviously, nobody engages in a debate if they think they're wrong. People think they can win; that's why they argue. Or, sometimes, if you're open-minded, then you're not trying to win. You're trying to understand the other person.

And, it's an argument against one of God's most prominently claimed traits, so of course it "makes God look weak." Duh! Are you offended or something? 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Not so much.

It would be nice if atheists were able to distinguish between "Christianity" and "Theism" because much of what is contained in all those questions is "Christianity" and not "Theism".

It would also be nice if atheists were able to read the texts in their original languages, and actually study and understand what those texts say, because quite often the texts do NOT say what is attributed to them when translated from the original languages into English.

"Heaven" and "Hell", since they are such popular subjects, are primarily Christian inventions.  Islam embellished and expanded on the concept, but "Heaven" as a magical Divine Theme Park of wonderfulness is much more "Christian" than anything.  "Hell" as the burning pit of firing and suffering -- Christian.

Likewise, the concept of G-d as this person with four limbs who could pick up a rock at all is Christian -- it's most certainly not Jewish and it's equally certainly not Islamic.  For the most part, gods as people-bodied divine entities came from pagan religions, and the conceptualization of the G-d of Abraham as a people-bodied entity arose because of Greek and Roman influences on the early Christian church.

Butterbattle's remarks about "proving" some kind of logical inconsistency involving G-d being "omnipotent" is more a demonstration of ignorance about varying god-concepts than a demonstration of mastery of logic.  Again, only Christianity places "god" within human space-time.  And this is why all those questions are basically an explanation of why Christianity just doesn't make much sense.

The best way to address "Can G-d create a rock so heavy He can't lift it?" isn't to argue yes or no, or to say "Ah-ha!  Inconsistency!" it's to point out that assuming G-d exists at all, G-d does not exist within our space-time.  The question doesn't expose an inconsistency, the question exposes a flawed premise -- the existence of G-d in our space-time in the first place.  Comprehending that -- again, assuming G-d exists -- G-d exists outside our space-time requires understanding what the very first sentence of Genesis implies.  Before our space-time existed, G-d existed.  The question starts with an assumption -- G-d exists in human space-time -- and then proceeds to demonstrate that G-d existing within human space-time produces a contradiction.  Now, normally in logic when that happens it proves that the initial assumption is incorrect.  And that, by the way, is how Reductio ad Absurdum actually works.  Thus, the proper and logically correct conclusion is NOT that G-d is not "omnipotent", but rather than the assumption that G-d exists within human space-time such that a rock can, at time T0 be in one location, then at time T1 be in another (or not) is itself flawed.  That's all one can LOGICALLY deduce from the absurdity of the question in the first place.

But let's look at the science -- what do we know about "mass" and "force" and "time".  We know that gravity and mass are related, and we know that gravity and time are related.  Einstein gave us equations that can be used to show this -- time near a black hole is different from time in interstellar space is different from time at relativistic velocities with respect to other frames of reference.  Matter creates both time and space.

Now, what does the "Old Testament" say -- it says that G-d created everything that exists from "nothing".  That's what the second word in Hebrew actually means -- creation from nothingness, not creation from something-ness.  With something-ness -- mass, space and time.  With nothingness -- no mass, no space, no time.  No contradiction between Science and the source texts.

On the subject of temporality, existence, pre-existence, etc., I think the Buddhists have this one covered best -- what did you look like before your parents were born?  The common mistake is in assuming that time happens everywhere all at the same time, and yet there are things which really exist in this universe which do not experience "time".  If you could strap a wristwatch onto a photon, time would stop for that wristwatch.  Strap a camera onto the photon and everything happens at once.  No "before", "during" or "after" because there is no time.

Anyway, I could go on with the rest of them, but it's really not worth it.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:"And God

butterbattle wrote:
"And God said, "Let there be light, and there was light." Genesis 1:3. Is that a metaphor? No?

No, it's not a "metaphor".

Study your Science.  At the earliest instances of time, "light" is about all there was.  If you look out into the heavens (with a radio telescope), that 'light' is still there in the form of the Cosmic Background Radiation.

We could do a bit more Genesis, but I'll be doing it in Hebrew and ignoring Christian mangling of the texts.

(And if we're going to do it, you will definitely want to bone up on your standard Cosmologies and Physics because I like to mix my Science and Theology and it helps if you can follow along.)

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:We

FurryCatHerder wrote:

We could do a bit more Genesis, but I'll be doing it in Hebrew and ignoring Christian mangling of the texts.

Do you like the new translation ?


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse

Anonymouse wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

We could do a bit more Genesis, but I'll be doing it in Hebrew and ignoring Christian mangling of the texts.

Do you like the new translation ?

No.  I prefer to read the Hebrew in Hebrew.  Makes a lot more sense that way.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10537
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Have I even posted in this

Have I even posted in this topic yet? Well probably not. It was around for almost a year before I even joined, and it's massive. So ignoring the first pages, since it would take quite awhile to read and respond to all of them, I'll just jump in now.

"It would be nice if atheists were able to distinguish between "Christianity" and "Theism" because much of what is contained in all those questions is "Christianity" and not "Theism"."

Is christianity not theistic? Do all the questions deal exclusively with christianity? Then don't spout such idiocy. Pick a question and answer it, as the OP suggests. 5 of the first ten questions could be answered by any theist, and one is specifically towards moslems. Get your head out of your ass.

"It would also be nice if atheists were able to read the texts in their original languages, and actually study and understand what those texts say, because quite often the texts do NOT say what is attributed to them when translated from the original languages into English."

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10537
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Funny how atheists wish

Funny how atheists wish theists would even read the English translations, never mind the originals.

"Butterbattle's remarks about "proving" some kind of logical inconsistency involving G-d being "omnipotent" is more a demonstration of ignorance about varying god-concepts than a demonstration of mastery of logic."

Not even remotely close to the point. His argument throws out omnipotence as incoherent. Obviously you aren't as smart as you think you are.

"Now, what does the "Old Testament" say -- it says that G-d created everything that exists from "nothing".  That's what the second word in Hebrew actually means -- creation from nothingness, not creation from something-ness.  With something-ness -- mass, space and time.  With nothingness -- no mass, no space, no time.  No contradiction between Science and the source texts."

Except god itself. There cannot have been nothing if there was god. So the text is a lie.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10537
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Study your Science.  At

"Study your Science.  At the earliest instances of time, "light" is about all there was.  If you look out into the heavens (with a radio telescope), that 'light' is still there in the form of the Cosmic Background Radiation.
We could do a bit more Genesis, but I'll be doing it in Hebrew and ignoring Christian mangling of the texts.(And if we're going to do it, you will definitely want to bone up on your standard Cosmologies and Physics because I like to mix my Science and Theology and it helps if you can follow along.)"

Apparently you need to brush up on basic cosmology yourself. Creation of existence and creation of light were quite obviously at different times in the bible. And yet, they happened simultaneously in reality.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

We could do a bit more Genesis, but I'll be doing it in Hebrew and ignoring Christian mangling of the texts.

Do you like the new translation ?

No.  I prefer to read the Hebrew in Hebrew.  Makes a lot more sense that way.

I was referring to this : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6274502/God-is-not-the-Creator-claims-academic.html

Might be unrelated to the discussion here (apologies if it is), but I've been asking every bible expert I run into what they think about this, so I might as well ask you.

 


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Is christianity not

Is christianity not theistic? Do all the questions deal exclusively with christianity? Then don't spout such idiocy. Pick a question and answer it, as the OP suggests. 5 of the first ten questions could be answered by any theist, and one is specifically towards moslems. Get your head out of your ass.

The vast majority of the entire post is either about Christianity, Christian interpretations of non-Christian originated texts, or the interpretation of philosophies from a Christian-based perspective.  So, yeah, just because there's a couple of questions about Islam from a non-Qur'anic perspective doesn't mean that it's pretty much a post about "Why Christianity is Stupid".

Not even remotely close to the point. His argument throws out omnipotence as incoherent. Obviously you aren't as smart as you think you are.

No, that's not how Reductio ad Absurbum works.  Reductio ad Absurdum disproves the PREMISE by demostrating that the PREMISE results in a contradiction.  Underlying the premise that "omnipotence" has anything to do with big rocks and big muscles is the premise that G-d exists in some sense that such a thing is even possible.

Does "time" exist?  Can you put "time" into a bottle?  No?  Then time doesn't exist because time can't be put into a bottle.  The underlying and unspoken premise is "everything that exists can be put into a bottle".  Okay, so maybe it's "measured" with a clock, scale, measuring cup or yard stick -- that determines existence, surely it does.  Does love exist?  Can love be put into a bottle?  No, therefore it can be measured.  Please show me your Love-O-Meter.  No such thing?  Then I guess "Love" doesn't exist either.

Besides being sophist arguments (where "sophist" is used in the "person who thinks they are clever, but is actually an idiot" sense of the word), they also beg the conclusion -- "I'm going to define 'Omnipotent' such that applying 'Omnipotent' to god  proves that god isn't omnipotent."

Apparently you need to brush up on basic cosmology yourself. Creation of existence and creation of light were quite obviously at different times in the bible. And yet, they happened simultaneously in reality.

It happened simultaneously in reality?

No, I'm sorry, it did not happen "simultaneously" in the most current understandings of early "Big Bang Existence".  To begin with, "time" didn't even exist -- time requires mass (see Einstein), and the earliest "stuff" was mass-less energy.  See earlier comment about putting wristwatches on photons.  Not that photons even existed at the beginning of the "Big Bang".

Okay, first five questions --

1. If Jesus fulfilled all the OT prophecies so well, why didn't the Jews recognize him as the messiah? - Francois Tremblay

Irrelevant to a general discussion of "Atheism versus Theism".  The Jewish answer is "Because he didn't fulfill them", but that's also irrelevant to a general "Atheism versus Theism" discussion.

2. If Gen 3:24 is true, why hasn't anyone found the Cherubims and the " flaming sword which turned every way"?

I'm missing some socks that I know are in my house.  I've not found them, therefore they don't exist.  Except that they keep on existing -- see "Conservation of Energy" and the fact that my house wasn't blown to bits when all my missing socks were converted into energy so they could escape detection.  Or perhaps they are like "Time" and "Love" and can't be put in bottles, but still exist.  Just saying.  Most likely -- under the washer or dryer, or possibly in the garage or somewhere else buried under 10 years of whatever causes "Hey, how did they get there?"

3. It's been proven that modern humans originated from Africa. Yet, the Adam and Eve story claims the first Humans lived in a garden in Eden, near 4 rivers. ( Most of which no one can find). One of these rivers mentioned is the Euphrates, which runs through Iraq, Syria and a portion of Turkey. What's the truth? Did man come out of Africa or near the Euphrates River? - The Infidel Guy

Also irrelevant to a general discussion of "Atheism versus Theism".  But you might also want to study up on where all these things are in relationship to "Africa".  Reading the rest of the book would be helpful also.  Pay careful attention to Day #6 and Genesis 1:27.  You got a map that shows where Day #6 took place?

4. When the believer gets to Heaven, how can Heaven be utter bliss when people they love and care about are burning in Hell ? - The Infidel Guy - [Note: Some say God erases your memories of them, but if God erases your memory, you as Mr. Joe /Jane Smoe ceases to exist.]

Irrelevant to a general discussion of "Atheism versus Theism".  The concepts presented in the question are based on Christian theology and derive their origins from pre-Christian pagan religions.  Perhaps the Greeks and Romans who invented Christianity got that part wrong.

5. How can a God have emotions, i.e. jealousy, anger, sadness, love, etc., if he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent? Emotional states are reactionary for the most part. How can God react to us if he is all-knowing and has a divine plan? - IG [Note: Indeed, many religious texts display their gods this way . Listen to the An Emotional Godshow.]

You've never debated religion with a Jew, have you?

G-d is not whatever attributes you ascribe to G-d.  And perhaps the Greek and Roman man-god concepts that underpin Christian really have affected your ability to enter into this discussion on either side.

If you want to have a thread titled "Why doesn't Christianity make sense?" I'd be all for that.  Just don't pretend that it's actually an Atheist / Theist debate.  Because it isn't.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse

Anonymouse wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

No.  I prefer to read the Hebrew in Hebrew.  Makes a lot more sense that way.

I was referring to this : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6274502/God-is-not-the-Creator-claims-academic.html

Might be unrelated to the discussion here (apologies if it is), but I've been asking every bible expert I run into what they think about this, so I might as well ask you.

"Bara" (bet-resh-alef) as used in the second word of the Torah means "create from nothing".

However ...

There is a general belief by some that G-d creates by "creating distinction", that is, by taking something and turning it into two different somethings, the sum of which is nothing (or equal to the original something).  I'm fond of this belief since it matches observed spontaneous creation of something from nothing in the universe.

If the universe came into existence because of probability (there's a probability of "something" coming from "nothing" given a sufficiently large quantity of "nothing&quotEye-wink, I'd be fine with this "separation" interpretation -- the two somethings that together was a nothing would be consistent with creation from nothingness.  It happens in physical reality -- don't see a reason "bara" couldn't be used to describe that process as well.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3609
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote: It

FurryCatHerder wrote:

 

It would also be nice if atheists were able to read the texts in their original languages, and actually study and understand what those texts say, because quite often the texts do NOT say what is attributed to them when translated from the original languages into English.

  Actually it would be very convenient if everyone on Earth still spoke the same language ( Genesis 11:1 ) but I think I read something in Genesis 11:6-7  indicating that God thought that was a bad idea.  Maybe God's "confusing" our language wasn't such a great idea after all.

 

 

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:I was

FurryCatHerder wrote:

I was referring to this : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6274502/God-is-not-the-Creator-claims-academic.html

Might be unrelated to the discussion here (apologies if it is), but I've been asking every bible expert I run into what they think about this, so I might as well ask you.

"Bara" (bet-resh-alef) as used in the second word of the Torah means "create from nothing".

However ...

There is a general belief by some that G-d creates by "creating distinction", that is, by taking something and turning it into two different somethings, the sum of which is nothing (or equal to the original something).  I'm fond of this belief since it matches observed spontaneous creation of something from nothing in the universe.

If the universe came into existence because of probability (there's a probability of "something" coming from "nothing" given a sufficiently large quantity of "nothing&quotEye-wink, I'd be fine with this "separation" interpretation -- the two somethings that together was a nothing would be consistent with creation from nothingness.  It happens in physical reality -- don't see a reason "bara" couldn't be used to describe that process as well.

Thank you for your opinion. I've gotten a lot of different ones from many christians, and yours is fairly original.

Still, I should probably stop bringing this up untill I get a full translation of all the professor's findings, as there's a little more to it than what's mentioned in that short article.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:Thank you

Anonymouse wrote:
Thank you for your opinion. I've gotten a lot of different ones from many christians, and yours is fairly original.

Not being a Christian, I'm glad to hear that I don't sound like one!

Anonymouse wrote:
Still, I should probably stop bringing this up untill I get a full translation of all the professor's findings, as there's a little more to it than what's mentioned in that short article.

I read an English translation of what she had to say and she's completely wrong about what "bara" means.  The context of the verb really doesn't leave any room for what she's claiming.  Not the only way word usage and context screws with what people "know" about what the Hebrew texts say ...

It also creates a variety of inconsistencies both in standard Abrahamic theologies as well as well-accepted science-based cosmologies.  The existent universe is generally accepted to have a point origin of extremely high energy, in presently accepted "Big Bang" theories.  Based on a reading of Hebraic (and the Qur'an -- religious Jews and Muslims agree on the Divine Origin of the Universe) texts, G-d "was, is and will be", having neither beginning nor end, the un-created Creator, etc.  If the Universe is some 13.8 billion years old, G-d has to have existed before "In the beginning", which then begs the question -- if G-d (assuming the existence of "G-d (l'havdil) as the one who divvied it all up" ) didn't do it, who did?

An argument COULD be made that Gen 1:1 starts "after the real beginning", but then the entire "Let there be light!" matter gets in the way -- there's only been one time in all of the universe's history where all the "light" was ever separated from all the "darkness" the way Gen 1:4 says it was "divided", and that was very, very early in the history of the Universe.  So, I'm voting she's just plain wrong no matter how it's sliced.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10537
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"The vast majority of the

"The vast majority of the entire post is either about Christianity, Christian interpretations of non-Christian originated texts, or the interpretation of philosophies from a Christian-based perspective."

Irrelevant. You are not being asked to answer questions that do not apply to you.

"So, yeah, just because there's a couple of questions about Islam from a non-Qur'anic perspective doesn't mean that it's pretty much a post about "Why Christianity is Stupid"."

Just because the majority of questions deal with the religion that holds the majority in the locations of almost every poster on these forums does not mean that it isn't a post on why theism in general is stupid.

"No, that's not how Reductio ad Absurbum works.  Reductio ad Absurdum disproves the PREMISE by demostrating that the PREMISE results in a contradiction.  Underlying the premise that "omnipotence" has anything to do with big rocks and big muscles is the premise that G-d exists in some sense that such a thing is even possible."

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10537
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Clearly you don't understand

Clearly you don't understand the term omnipotence very well. Until you demonstrate that you do, by example not definition, then I consider you incapable of seeing your failure and it is a waste of my time to continue debate on this point.

"Does love exist?  Can love be put into a bottle?  No, therefore it can be measured.  Please show me your Love-O-Meter.  No such thing?  Then I guess "Love" doesn't exist either."

This is where you go wrong again. Love as defined is an emotional response to stimilae, which is controlled by chemical reactions (to keep it simple), which can indeed be measured. Because there is not a testing machine on every corner suggests nothing more than that it is too complicated a test to be administered in ten seconds after popping in a quarter.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10537
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"It happened simultaneously

"It happened simultaneously in reality?No, I'm sorry, it did not happen "simultaneously" in the most current understandings of early "Big Bang Existence".  To begin with, "time" didn't even exist -- time requires mass (see Einstein), and the earliest "stuff" was mass-less energy.  See earlier comment about putting wristwatches on photons.  Not that photons even existed at the beginning of the "Big Bang"."

Alright, now lets see you justify your holy books description with what we observe in reality.

"You've never debated religion with a Jew, have you?"

Nope, but I'm not impressed yet either. Though I might be amused when you run into exnihlio, the most hardcore christian I've seen in awhile.

"G-d is not whatever attributes you ascribe to G-d."

Define god.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10537
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"And perhaps the Greek and

"And perhaps the Greek and Roman man-god concepts that underpin Christian really have affected your ability to enter into this discussion on either side."

Not at all. They were simply the first I rejected.

"If you want to have a thread titled "Why doesn't Christianity make sense?" I'd be all for that.  Just don't pretend that it's actually an Atheist / Theist debate.  Because it isn't."

Don't pretend it isn't, because it is.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:
Butterbattle's remarks about "proving" some kind of logical inconsistency involving G-d being "omnipotent" is more a demonstration of ignorance about varying god-concepts than a demonstration of mastery of logic.

I don't recall stating that my criticism applied to all Gods. It doesn't. It does, however, apply to all Gods that can do anything and everything. If Christians want to define omnipotence as being able to do merely anything that is logically coherent, I'm fine with that. Semantics don't matter as long as we agree on what the terms mean.

FurryCatHerder wrote:
Again, only Christianity places "god" within human space-time.

Eh...not really. The average Christian would claim that God transcends time and space, and it is a personal God. Well, to be honest, I'm not really sure what being placed within space-time means. Other than deists and pantheists, pretty much all theists would claim that Gods are: 

1) Supernatural.

2) Get involved in human business.

This allows the God to be an emotional and intellectual crutch and relieves it of most falsification and many potential counterarguments. It's an awesome God.

FurryCatHerder wrote:
No contradiction between Science and the source texts.

You mean, regarding just that one phrase, right?

butterbattle wrote:
"And God said, "Let there be light, and there was light." Genesis 1:3. Is that a metaphor? No?

FurryCatHerder wrote:
No, it's not a "metaphor".

Study your Science.  At the earliest instances of time, "light" is about all there was.  If you look out into the heavens (with a radio telescope), that 'light' is still there in the form of the Cosmic Background Radiation.

You misunderstood. Notice the bolded "said."

The implication was that God did not actually use spoken language. 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle

butterbattle wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:
Butterbattle's remarks about "proving" some kind of logical inconsistency involving G-d being "omnipotent" is more a demonstration of ignorance about varying god-concepts than a demonstration of mastery of logic.

I don't recall stating that my criticism applied to all Gods. It doesn't. It does, however, apply to all Gods that can do anything and everything. If Christians want to define omnipotence as being able to do merely anything that is logically coherent, I'm fine with that. Semantics don't matter as long as we agree on what the terms mean.

No, it applies to all the gods that you've created and the beliefs you have about what the gods you invented can and cannot do.  My experience of most atheists is that they have plenty of beliefs about gods.  You might as well just admit you are a theist and be done with it, except that instead of worshiping a god contained within some religious text, you worship the gods you've invented.

butterbattle wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:
Again, only Christianity places "god" within human space-time.

Eh...not really. The average Christian would claim that God transcends time and space, and it is a personal God. Well, to be honest, I'm not really sure what being placed within space-time means. Other than deists and pantheists, pretty much all theists would claim that Gods are: 

1) Supernatural.

2) Get involved in human business.

This allows the God to be an emotional and intellectual crutch and relieves it of most falsification and many potential counterarguments. It's an awesome God.

Right, they worship puppet-master-god.  But what does one group worshiping a puppet master have to do with another group of theists who don't?

As I said, if you want to have a debate about why Christianity is stupid, that's fine by me.  The title of this thread is not "Why Christianity is Stupid", so obviously you've got an axe to grind with theists who aren't Christians as well as those who are. 

butterbattle wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:
No contradiction between Science and the source texts.

You mean, regarding just that one phrase, right?

Ah, right -- no contradiction between getting picky about the use of the word "said" and the observed science.  Surely your belief or disbelief in gods of varying sorts is based on more than how precisely any forms of divine revelations are constructed.

In addition to being upset that G-d didn't answer whatever magical prayers you expected puppet-master-god to answer, you are upset that divine revelations include the use of metaphorical language rather than tedious descriptions of how divine revelation was experienced.

Quote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:

butterbattle wrote:
"And God said, "Let there be light, and there was light." Genesis 1:3. Is that a metaphor? No?

No, it's not a "metaphor".

Study your Science.  At the earliest instances of time, "light" is about all there was.  If you look out into the heavens (with a radio telescope), that 'light' is still there in the form of the Cosmic Background Radiation.

You misunderstood. Notice the bolded "said."

The implication was that God did not actually use spoken language. 

Of course not.  That would be stupid.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:I read

FurryCatHerder wrote:
I read an English translation of what she had to say and she's completely wrong about what "bara" means.

You found an english translation of the whole 27 pages of it ? Pretty please, can I have a link ?

FurryCatHerder wrote:
So, I'm voting she's just plain wrong no matter how it's sliced.

Well, she is an expert with some quite impressive credentials, but there could be loads of those, all with different translations, I wouldn't know.

Still, she did say in an interview that she would start a discussion about this with creationists and other fundie types, but I guess that's happening behind closed doors, as I haven't heard or read anything about it.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Do you post a reply to each

Do you post a reply to each paragraph so you can increase your post count and number of points?

Vastet wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
"The vast majority of the entire post is either about Christianity, Christian interpretations of non-Christian originated texts, or the interpretation of philosophies from a Christian-based perspective."

Irrelevant. You are not being asked to answer questions that do not apply to you.

I like to answer questions about why Christianity is a made-up religion, based on Greek and Roman mythology.  Especially since attacking Christianity is what most atheists do in order to prop themselves up.  It's like picking on the handicapped -- really easy to do, and if picking on the weak makes you feel good, probably good for your ego.

Vastet wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
"So, yeah, just because there's a couple of questions about Islam from a non-Qur'anic perspective doesn't mean that it's pretty much a post about "Why Christianity is Stupid"."

Just because the majority of questions deal with the religion that holds the majority in the locations of almost every poster on these forums does not mean that it isn't a post on why theism in general is stupid.

Considering that you think you've got this "Logic" thing down cold, you might want to consider the logical fallacy you've just made.

The existence of an "X" such that some statement about that specific "X" is true does not imply that the same statement is true for all "X".  About the best you can get is that saying no "X" has that property is false.  Study "Existential Instantiation" and "Universal Generalization" and why they aren't the same.

Vastet wrote:
Clearly you don't understand the term omnipotence very well. Until you demonstrate that you do, by example not definition, then I consider you incapable of seeing your failure and it is a waste of my time to continue debate on this point.

Oh, believe me -- I understand what puppet-master-god worshipers believe "omnipotent" means.  I also don't worship puppet-master-god, so you might want to take that into consideration when generalizing over the set of all theists.

Vastet wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
"Does love exist?  Can love be put into a bottle?  No, therefore it can be measured.  Please show me your Love-O-Meter.  No such thing?  Then I guess "Love" doesn't exist either."

This is where you go wrong again. Love as defined is an emotional response to stimilae, which is controlled by chemical reactions (to keep it simple), which can indeed be measured. Because there is not a testing machine on every corner suggests nothing more than that it is too complicated a test to be administered in ten seconds after popping in a quarter.

Okay, so "Love" exists because you have the mistaken belief that you could somehow measure "Love" with a machine.  Do you have one of those machines handy, because I'm not buying it.  And don't get all "biological" with me -- I'm not a 20-something year old kid you can impress with made-up science.

Vastet wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
"It happened simultaneously in reality?

No, I'm sorry, it did not happen "simultaneously" in the most current understandings of early "Big Bang Existence".  To begin with, "time" didn't even exist -- time requires mass (see Einstein), and the earliest "stuff" was mass-less energy.  See earlier comment about putting wristwatches on photons.  Not that photons even existed at the beginning of the "Big Bang"."

Alright, now lets see you justify your holy books description with what we observe in reality.

Uh, I thought I just did that.  Or is it that you don't realize that in addition to creating the universe, G-d also created time ("In the beginning" not "This week's story ..." )?

Vastet wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
"You've never debated religion with a Jew, have you?"

Nope, but I'm not impressed yet either. Though I might be amused when you run into exnihlio, the most hardcore christian I've seen in awhile.

Neither am I impressed by you.  So far I have the image of a former Christian who doesn't like the way the universe works or the words that some people use to describe things.  That and you have no grasp of formal systems of logic.

But, yeah, I'll attract Christians fairly soon.  They love nothing more than a good debate with a Jew.  They get extra heaven-points for telling us lies and trying to suck us in.

Vastet wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
"G-d is not whatever attributes you ascribe to G-d."

Define god.

That would be against my religious beliefs.

"Defining god" leads to people making up their own little gods and goddesses, which usually results in them inventing gods and goddesses that meet their own particular needs.

I suspect this is why so many atheists get fixated on "omnipotence" -- the gods you invented didn't give you a pony or toy firetruck, and now you're pissed.  My advice -- stop inventing gods you get to be upset with.  You might also try working through whatever residual anger you have with your parents for not giving you that pony or toy firetruck.

Vastet wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
"And perhaps the Greek and Roman man-god concepts that underpin Christian really have affected your ability to enter into this discussion on either side."

Not at all. They were simply the first I rejected.

Good, because people really shouldn't run around inventing gods and worshiping them.

Vastet wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
"If you want to have a thread titled "Why doesn't Christianity make sense?" I'd be all for that.  Just don't pretend that it's actually an Atheist / Theist debate.  Because it isn't."

Don't pretend it isn't, because it is.

No, I'm sorry, but it really just isn't.  All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.  You cannot generalize about all theistic beliefs because one of them is a smooshed together collection of Greek and Roman mythology and political bullsh1t meant to eradicate an annoying bunch of political rebels with monotheistic beliefs.

I'm a theist and I reject almost all of the questions as dumb questions about things I don't even believe.  It's the giant Strawman argument about why there is no G-d.

 

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse

Anonymouse wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:
I read an English translation of what she had to say and she's completely wrong about what "bara" means.

You found an english translation of the whole 27 pages of it ? Pretty please, can I have a link ?

No, not all 27 pages.  Just the meat-and-potatoes of her argument.

Anonymouse wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
So, I'm voting she's just plain wrong no matter how it's sliced.

Well, she is an expert with some quite impressive credentials, but there could be loads of those, all with different translations, I wouldn't know.

Still, she did say in an interview that she would start a discussion about this with creationists and other fundie types, but I guess that's happening behind closed doors, as I haven't heard or read anything about it.

Sigh.  To quote from the Bible -- "Vanity, vanity, all is vanity."

She invented a bogus interpretation of a word that is central to the Creation Narrative and she thinks she's going to use it in a discussion with Creationists?  The same Creationists who can't accept "The Big Bang and Evolution are just HOW G-d did it." because Creationists think they know more about creating a Universe than G-d?

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3609
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:You've

FurryCatHerder wrote:


You've never debated religion with a Jew, have you?

   Do you debate religion with Jews, as well ?  Is there currently a consensus among the Orthodox, Conservative and Reformed branches of Judaism ?  

   My aunt is Jewish ( Frankel ) and she chose to bypass the whole confusing religious mish-mash by remaining a life-long atheist.  Is she doomed according to your interpretation ?

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:No, not

FurryCatHerder wrote:
No, not all 27 pages.  Just the meat-and-potatoes of her argument.

The dutch version had quite a lot of meat and potatoes, I recall.

Anyways, even a link to a partial translation, anything more substantial than the article, would be very helpful. People keep asking me for a translation, and what with all the linguistic terminology in her arguments, I don't trust my own translation to be accurate enough.

FurryCatHerder wrote:
The same Creationists who can't accept "The Big Bang and Evolution are just HOW G-d did it." because Creationists think they know more about creating a Universe than G-d?

Couldn't agree more. The whole creationist debate seems like such an incredible waste of time and energy to me. All the theists I know are just fine with evolution.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10537
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Do you post a reply to each

"Do you post a reply to each paragraph so you can increase your post count and number of points?"

No, I'm constrained by a text limit per post.

"I like to answer questions about why Christianity is a made-up religion, based on Greek and Roman mythology."

Irrelevent to the topic. All religions are made up. If you want to bash christianity specifically, there's plenty of topics doing so. In fact, you could even make your own. You should, especially since I don't recall seeing a jew attack christian mythology here yet.

"Especially since attacking Christianity is what most atheists do in order to prop themselves up.  It's like picking on the handicapped -- really easy to do, and if picking on the weak makes you feel good, probably good for your ego."

If your religion was predominant here, it would be yours ridiculed and strung out across the forum. You attribute to atheists a quality that doesn't exist. I didn't grow up learning about jews and wiccans and moslems through TV and school.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10537
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Considering that you think

"Considering that you think you've got this "Logic" thing down cold, you might want to consider the logical fallacy you've just made.The existence of an "X" such that some statement about that specific "X" is true does not imply that the same statement is true for all "X".  About the best you can get is that saying no "X" has that property is false.  Study "Existential Instantiation" and "Universal Generalization" and why they aren't the same."

Clearly you could do some study on logic yourself. I made no fallacy. You did. Fallacy of composition. And perhaps biased sample could be applicable too.

"Oh, believe me -- I understand what puppet-master-god worshipers believe "omnipotent" means.  I also don't worship puppet-master-god, so you might want to take that into consideration when generalizing over the set of all theists."

As per my previous post, you aren't being asked to answer questions that do not apply to you. You're just whining because your religion is smaller than the competition.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10537
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Okay, so "Love" exists

"Okay, so "Love" exists because you have the mistaken belief that you could somehow measure "Love" with a machine.  Do you have one of those machines handy, because I'm not buying it.  And don't get all "biological" with me -- I'm not a 20-something year old kid you can impress with made-up science."

Biology is make believe? Rofl. Obviously you aren't qualified to discuss love anymore than you are omnipotence.

"Uh, I thought I just did that.  Or is it that you don't realize that in addition to creating the universe, G-d also created time("In the beginning" not "This week's story ..." )?"

Nope. You simply asserted that because the universe, light, and time began to exist, and because your god claims to have created them, that the events prove your god. Which is a load of bs.

"Neither am I impressed by you.  So far I have the image of a former Christian who doesn't like the way the universe works or the words that some people use to describe things.  That and you have no grasp of formal systems of logic."

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10537
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
*Snort*

*Snort*
Now look who's making hasty assumptions. I was never a theist, of any kind. And your logic is so poor that your claim of mine being wrong is actually a compliment.

"That would be against my religious beliefs."

Then you have no argument to support the existence of god. Occam's razor rules it out, and you worship a being from a poorly written fantasy novel.

"I suspect this is why so many atheists get fixated on "omnipotence" -- the gods you invented didn't give you a pony or toy firetruck, and now you're pissed."

I don't invent gods, I make fun of them. You sure like to lie don't you?

"You might also try working through whatever residual anger you have with your parents for not giving you that pony or toy firetruck."

Yet another foolish comment. You're so fixated on this I must begin to wonder if you're projecting. Did you not get the pony you wanted?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10537
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Good, because people really

"Good, because people really shouldn't run around inventing gods and worshiping them."

Goes for you too.

"No, I'm sorry, but it really just isn't."

Yes, it really is. And now that a jew has come, I'm sure a number of new questions will be added.

"You cannot generalize about all theistic beliefs because one of them is a smooshed together collection of Greek and Roman mythology and political bullsh1t meant to eradicate an annoying bunch of political rebels with monotheistic beliefs."

Maybe you have a learning disability. Lets try cruise control:
YOU ARE NOT BEING ASKED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT DO NOT APPLY TO YOU. Get that through your thick skull.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:

You've never debated religion with a Jew, have you?

   Do you debate religion with Jews, as well ?  Is there currently a consensus among the Orthodox, Conservative and Reformed branches of Judaism ? 

Of course.  Religious debate is part of the RELIGION.  Two Jews, three opinions.

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

My aunt is Jewish ( Frankel ) and she chose to bypass the whole confusing religious mish-mash by remaining a life-long atheist.  Is she doomed according to your interpretation ?

Doomed to what?

Jews don't do "Doomed".  "Doomed" is more a Christian and Muslim concept.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

FurryCatHerder wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:

You've never debated religion with a Jew, have you?

   Do you debate religion with Jews, as well ?  Is there currently a consensus among the Orthodox, Conservative and Reformed branches of Judaism ? 

Of course.  Religious debate is part of the RELIGION.  Two Jews, three opinions.

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

My aunt is Jewish ( Frankel ) and she chose to bypass the whole confusing religious mish-mash by remaining a life-long atheist.  Is she doomed according to your interpretation ?

Doomed to what?

Jews don't do "Doomed".  "Doomed" is more a Christian and Muslim concept.

 

Doomed. To eat bacon! 

 

 

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

 

I can't quit you, bacon.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:FurryCatHerder

Vastet wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
"Do you post a reply to each paragraph so you can increase your post count and number of points?"
No, I'm constrained by a text limit per post.

Constrained by ... what?  Like, maybe you need to get a new computer or something.  Perhaps if you pray to puppet-master-god you could get one?  You could go find Jesus for a few hours and tell them you need a new computer to debate someone who's exposing modern Christianity as a fabricated Greek and Roman mythology.  Might even work.

Vastet wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
"I like to answer questions about why Christianity is a made-up religion, based on Greek and Roman mythology."

Irrelevent to the topic. All religions are made up. If you want to bash christianity specifically, there's plenty of topics doing so. In fact, you could even make your own. You should, especially since I don't recall seeing a jew attack christian mythology here yet.

Fallacy of "Proof by Repeated Assertion".  You've not proven that Judaism is made up.  For that matter, you've also not proven that Christianity or any other religion are made up.  All you've done is make fun of them.  Do you understand Logic well enough to know that you can't prove (or disprove) a religion?  That's part of the fun of debating them -- it's impossible to win or lose!

Vastet wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
"Especially since attacking Christianity is what most atheists do in order to prop themselves up.  It's like picking on the handicapped -- really easy to do, and if picking on the weak makes you feel good, probably good for your ego."

If your religion was predominant here, it would be yours ridiculed and strung out across the forum. You attribute to atheists a quality that doesn't exist. I didn't grow up learning about jews and wiccans and moslems through TV and school.

And your point is?  The subject of this topic is "Questions about God... theists answer these!"  I'm a theist, I'm answering the questions.  I'd be happy to answer more of them, but again -- my experience of debating atheists is that most of the ones who complain about "theism", especially the ones who want to tell theists how stupid we are, have some pretty serious emotional and mental hang-ups about their own invented gods as well as psychological hang-ups related to how their parents did or didn't meet all their greedy little childhood needs.

Here's the opening paragraph --

List of questions about God, religion and the supernatural have been compiled by IG over the years as well as some interesting ones by readers.

I don't see where it says anything about not answering questions that don't apply to me.

Vastet wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
"Considering that you think you've got this "Logic" thing down cold, you might want to consider the logical fallacy you've just made.The existence of an "X" such that some statement about that specific "X" is true does not imply that the same statement is true for all "X".  About the best you can get is that saying no "X" has that property is false.  Study "Existential Instantiation" and "Universal Generalization" and why they aren't the same."

Clearly you could do some study on logic yourself. I made no fallacy. You did. Fallacy of composition. And perhaps biased sample could be applicable too.

Fallacy of Composition?  No, I pointed out that YOU have used a related fallacy.  You cannot generalize from one theistic belief system to all theistic belief systems just because one of them holds some belief.

I'm not so ignorant of religions (or logic) that I'd make the kinds of assertions about any one religious belief system, or all religious belief systems, that I see made here.  I'm also not a 20 year old kid you're going to get to impress or snow-job by throwing around the names of logical fallacies.

Vastet wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
"Oh, believe me -- I understand what puppet-master-god worshipers believe "omnipotent" means.  I also don't worship puppet-master-god, so you might want to take that into consideration when generalizing over the set of all theists."

As per my previous post, you aren't being asked to answer questions that do not apply to you. You're just whining because your religion is smaller than the competition.

You might want to start a thread of your own.  Something like "Christians -- explain these really idiotic questions we made up about your religion."  I'd be happy to join you there -- but I'm going to be poking fun at you as well because a lot of atheists have zero comprehension of Christianity as well.

Vastet wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
Okay, so "Love" exists because you have the mistaken belief that you could somehow measure "Love" with a machine.  Do you have one of those machines handy, because I'm not buying it.  And don't get all "biological" with me -- I'm not a 20-something year old kid you can impress with made-up science."

Biology is make believe? Rofl. Obviously you aren't qualified to discuss love anymore than you are omnipotence.

Okay, I'm going to call your bluff -- show me the "Love-O-Meter".  For that matter, show me the peer-reviewed journal article -- in a respectable journal -- which describes how this "Love-O-Meter" works.

Vastet wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
"Uh, I thought I just did that.  Or is it that you don't realize that in addition to creating the universe, G-d also created time("In the beginning" not "This week's story ..." )?"

Nope. You simply asserted that because the universe, light, and time began to exist, and because your god claims to have created them, that the events prove your god. Which is a load of bs.

No, I've not claimed that the Creation Narrative proves the existence of G-d.  I'm not so stupid as to believe that G-d's existence can be proven or disproven.  All I've done is used the texts to show that the inconsistencies that permeate Christianity, as well as many atheists own conceptualizations of "Christianity" and theism, aren't found in the source texts.

Vastet wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
"Neither am I impressed by you.  So far I have the image of a former Christian who doesn't like the way the universe works or the words that some people use to describe things.  That and you have no grasp of formal systems of logic."

 

Now look who's making hasty assumptions. I was never a theist, of any kind. And your logic is so poor that your claim of mine being wrong is actually a compliment.

Do you look up fallacies on a list of "fallacies I can use to deflect the fact that I don't know what "Universal Generalization" and "Existential Instantiation" mean"?  Because usually when I see someone say "Fallacy of composition!" and "Sample bias!" it's like you're reading from a Bingo card.

The CORRECT response when someone says "You are making an incorrect generalization" is "I'm sorry -- we don't get many Jews here and I don't know that much about Judaism.  Do you believe all those crazy things Christians do?" and then the Jew says "So'kay, most people have never debated religion with a religious Jew, so I understand you don't know much about us.  And no, we don't believe all those crazy things."

And we can stop discussing your inadequate religious education and non-existent knowledge of formal logic systems whenever you want.  Then we can get into the "My unprovable beliefs about gods and goddesses are better than yours!" aspect of the discussion.  Because I especially love to debate atheists who practice self-worship as a form of idolatry, and you've got that in spades.

Vastet wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
"That would be against my religious beliefs."

Then you have no argument to support the existence of god. Occam's razor rules it out, and you worship a being from a poorly written fantasy novel.

Excuse me?  How does "My religion teaches that 'defining G-d' is mistaken" lead you to "You have no argument to support the existence of god"?  Could you show the logical proof which gets from A to B?  You'd also have to show that I presented an argument to support the existence of G-d.  Which I didn't do.  On account of that would be pointless and stupid.

However, as a "generally good idea", the reason "defining G-d" is a bad idea is because it projects HUMAN beliefs onto G-d.  Like "My god has a penis, which is why we call him 'He' all the time" or "My god can give me a pony if I pray really hard!" or "My god is going to help me kill you if you don't start believing in Him".  Defining G-d is a form of idolatry -- the whole "Don't go making any graven images of me!" commandment.  It flips around the entire "G-d created us in His image" and turns it into "We created god in our own image to meet whatever needs to justify treating people like dirt we can dream up."

Vastet wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
"I suspect this is why so many atheists get fixated on "omnipotence" -- the gods you invented didn't give you a pony or toy firetruck, and now you're pissed."

I don't invent gods, I make fun of them. You sure like to lie don't you?

No, you've definitely invented gods that you like to worship.  It's a paradox about atheists -- you claim to not believe in G-d, but you sure can tell people all about them.  I don't believe extraterrestrials have visited Earth.  About the best you're going to get out of me is "I've never seen proof that they have.  Perhaps you could bring me some?"  If you would stick to that approach I might accuse of you of idolatry a lot less.

Vastet wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
"You might also try working through whatever residual anger you have with your parents for not giving you that pony or toy firetruck."

Yet another foolish comment. You're so fixated on this I must begin to wonder if you're projecting. Did you not get the pony you wanted?

Uh, I don't believe G-d is a puppet-master deity, nor do I believe G-d does magic tricks, nor do I believe G-d gives away free ponies.  You're the one who is fixated on what that does or doesn't mean about the validity of a religion.

Vastet wrote:
Yes, it really is. And now that a jew has come, I'm sure a number of new questions will be added.

Could be lots of fun!

Vastet wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
"You cannot generalize about all theistic beliefs because one of them is a smooshed together collection of Greek and Roman mythology and political bullsh1t meant to eradicate an annoying bunch of political rebels with monotheistic beliefs."

Maybe you have a learning disability. Lets try cruise control:
YOU ARE NOT BEING ASKED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT DO NOT APPLY TO YOU. Get that through your thick skull.

Are you able to read the subject of this thread?  Have you ever read the first paragraph of this thread?

I'm a theist, I'm answering the questions.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:You

FurryCatHerder wrote:
You might as well just admit you are a theist and be done with it, except that instead of worshiping a god contained within some religious text, you worship the gods you've invented.

Oh.....

Such as?

FurryCatHerder wrote:
Right, they worship puppet-master-god.  But what does one group worshiping a puppet master have to do with another group of theists who don't?

As I said, if you want to have a debate about why Christianity is stupid, that's fine by me.  The title of this thread is not "Why Christianity is Stupid", so obviously you've got an axe to grind with theists who aren't Christians as well as those who are.

Right, but most of the questions in the opening post assume a Christian God or at least an Abrahamic-faith-type-God-thing....If it doesn't apply to you, then you don't have to respond to it.

FurryCatHerder wrote:
In addition to being upset that G-d didn't answer whatever magical prayers you expected puppet-master-god to answer,

Upset? If God only didn't answer my selfish prayers, then I might be upset. However, there's no evidence that God answers any prayers. That doesn't make me mad; it makes me think he's nonexistent.  

FurryCatHerder wrote:
you are upset that divine revelations include the use of metaphorical language rather than tedious descriptions of how divine revelation was experienced.

Not just divine revelation, but it seems to apply to God belief in general. Myths and supernatural events are never precisely explained. In fact, I've never even seen an attempt at explaining how God made the universe, if he did. Everything in religion seems to go *poof*.

FurryCatHerder wrote:
Of course not.  That would be stupid.

Yeah, so it's obviously a metaphor. 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:And

FurryCatHerder wrote:
And don't get all "biological" with me -- I'm not a 20-something year old kid you can impress with made-up science."

Sigh......Creationist?

FurryCatHerder wrote:
It's a paradox about atheists -- you claim to not believe in G-d, but you sure can tell people all about them.

.......how is that a paradox?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle

butterbattle wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:
You might as well just admit you are a theist and be done with it, except that instead of worshiping a god contained within some religious text, you worship the gods you've invented.

Oh.....

Such as?

Your "self".  "Atheism".  The "anti-Christian-god-concept" god that drives most of the ego-posturing that goes on around here with the likes of Vaslet.

butterbattle wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
Right, they worship puppet-master-god.  But what does one group worshiping a puppet master have to do with another group of theists who don't?

As I said, if you want to have a debate about why Christianity is stupid, that's fine by me.  The title of this thread is not "Why Christianity is Stupid", so obviously you've got an axe to grind with theists who aren't Christians as well as those who are.

Right, but most of the questions in the opening post assume a Christian God or at least an Abrahamic-faith-type-God-thing....If it doesn't apply to you, then you don't have to respond to it.

It's the "Abramaic-faith-type-God-thing" that has me answering, because Judaism is very much an "Abrahamic-faith-type-God-thing" (Father of Isaac, who was the father of Jacob, also known as Israel ...)  and most of what is attributed to the Christian god-concept and ASSUMED to also be true of Judaism, isn't.

Die and go to hell for eating bacon?  We don't even believe in hell!

butterbattle wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
In addition to being upset that G-d didn't answer whatever magical prayers you expected puppet-master-god to answer,

Upset? If God only didn't answer my selfish prayers, then I might be upset. However, there's no evidence that God answers any prayers. That doesn't make me mad; it makes me think he's nonexistent.

It also might make Judaism a lot more reasonable since one of the beliefs in Judaism -- the whole "don't go making vain prayers" commandment -- is that we aren't the boss of G-d.

Right?

If G-d knows everything we need, praying for something we don't have is a bit like telling G-d he's stupid.

butterbattle wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
you are upset that divine revelations include the use of metaphorical language rather than tedious descriptions of how divine revelation was experienced.

Not just divine revelation, but it seems to apply to God belief in general. Myths and supernatural events are never precisely explained. In fact, I've never even seen an attempt at explaining how God made the universe, if he did. Everything in religion seems to go *poof*.

Do you understand enough of the Physics to understand how any of this even happened from a SCIENCE point of view?  I was very comfortable with "*poof*" until about age 11 or 12.  The less comfortable I got with "*poof*" the more I studied Science.

FurryCatHerder wrote:
Of course not.  That would be stupid.

Yeah, so it's obviously a metaphor.

Yup.  In addition to not having a penis, G-d also doesn't have a mouth or vocal cords.  But "G-d said 'Let there be light!'" is a lot easier than explaining all the Physics behind the Big Bang.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle

butterbattle wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:
And don't get all "biological" with me -- I'm not a 20-something year old kid you can impress with made-up science."

Sigh......Creationist?

G-d forbid!

No, Vaslet is trying to bluff me with science he's made up.

FurryCatHerder wrote:
It's a paradox about atheists -- you claim to not believe in G-d, but you sure can tell people all about them.

.......how is that a paradox?

I mean "You sure can make up beliefs!"  A significant number of the questions here have nothing to do with the source texts.  Jihadists get 72 virgins when the blow themselves up?  Not in the Qur'an.  All the mythologies about Heaven and Hell?  Not in the Jewish source texts.  But ask an atheist on a forum such as this -- boy, howdy, are they ever going tell us about the gods they've rejected!  It's like some people here have a Pantheon of rejected gods, and that strikes me as very un-Atheist.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10537
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Constrained by ...

"Constrained by ... what? "

A text limit per post. You really have a problem with simple concepts don't you?

"Like, maybe you need to get a new computer or something."

Would be nice. Care to fund it? I'm working on a PS3, which works, but not as well as I'd like.

"Perhaps if you pray to puppet-master-god you could get one?"

Yeah, cause prayers are so effective.

" You could go find Jesus for a few hours and tell them you need a new computer to debate someone who's exposing modern Christianity as a fabricated Greek and Roman mythology.  Might even work."

You know jesus? He gives out computers? Where is he then?

"Fallacy of "Proof by Repeated Assertion".  You've not proven that Judaism is made up."

False. All religions are made up. Occam's razor cuts your religion, and all others, out of the picture. Unless you can demonstrate that your religion adds to our understanding of the universe?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10537
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
" For that matter, you've

" For that matter, you've also not proven that Christianity or any other religion are made up."

Yes, I have. But you're new here, so you'll learn.

"All you've done is make fun of them."

That comes after.

"Do you understand Logic well enough to know that you can't prove (or disprove) a religion?  That's part of the fun of debating them -- it's impossible to win or lose!"

Incorrect. It is logically impossible to prove or disprove a negative, but when god is defined, it is no longer a negative. Most theists are quite happy to define god, making it ridiculously easy to disprove them.

"I'm a theist, I'm answering the questions."

No, you're bitching about how some questions don't apply to you, instead of ignoring them as inapplicable.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10537
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"I'd be happy to answer more

"I'd be happy to answer more of them, but again -- my experience of debating atheists is that most of the ones who complain about "theism", especially the ones who want to tell theists how stupid we are, have some pretty serious emotional and mental hang-ups about their own invented gods as well as psychological hang-ups related to how their parents did or didn't meet all their greedy little childhood needs."

Lets see if you can figure out the fallacy you just committed.

"I don't see where it says anything about not answering questions that don't apply to me."

I don't see anything saying you have to answer any questions at all, let alone ones that don't apply to you.

"Fallacy of Composition?  No, I pointed out that YOU have used a related fallacy."

You were guilty of the fallacy of composition before I even posted. My response pointed that out without referring directly to the fallacy you committed.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10537
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"You cannot generalize from

"You cannot generalize from one theistic belief system to all theistic belief systems just because one of them holds some belief."

Noone except yourself has generalised anything. You're looking at the list of questions as a whole, when the first ten alone could not be answered by any single specific theist. Fallacy of composition.

"I'm not so ignorant of religions (or logic) that I'd make the kinds of assertions about any one religious belief system, or all religious belief systems, that I see made here.  I'm also not a 20 year old kid you're going to get to impress or snow-job by throwing around the names of logical fallacies."

Fallacy of composition.

"You might want to start a thread of your own.  Something like "Christians -- explain these really idiotic questions we made up about your religion."  I'd be happy to join you there -- but I'm going to be poking fun at you as well because a lot of atheists have zero comprehension of Christianity as well."

Good luck with that.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10537
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Okay, I'm going to call

"Okay, I'm going to call your bluff -- show me the "Love-O-Meter".  For that matter, show me the peer-reviewed journal article -- in a respectable journal -- which describes how this "Love-O-Meter" works."

Proving your ignorance of biology.

"No, I've not claimed that the Creation Narrative proves the existence of G-d." 

That's not what I said.

"I'm not so stupid as to believe that G-d's existence can be proven or disproven."

Good. I've gotten too used to absolutists. Though we'll accomplish nothing. The debate ends with both sides admitting they don't know. Not nearly as fun, but it's good to strech old muscles every now and then.

"Do you look up fallacies on a list of "fallacies I can use to deflect the fact that I don't know what "Universal Generalization" and "Existential Instantiation" mean"?  Because usually when I see someone say "Fallacy of composition!" and "Sample bias!" it's like you're reading from a Bingo card."

Project much? Unable to refute? No surprise. Ad hom: the favoured tool.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10537
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"The CORRECT response when

"The CORRECT response when someone says "You are making an incorrect generalization" is "I'm sorry -- we don't get many Jews here and I don't know that much about Judaism.  Do you believe all those crazy things Christians do?" and then the Jew says "So'kay, most people have never debated religion with a religious Jew, so I understand you don't know much about us.  And no, we don't believe all those crazy things.""

See, I might have done that if your first posts didn't drip with a combination of fallacy, condescention, lies, and unfounded accusations. You reap what you sow.

"And we can stop discussing your inadequate religious education and non-existent knowledge of formal logic systems whenever you want."

More projection. If you can't defend yourself, noone is making you click reply.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10537
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Then we can get into the

"Then we can get into the "My unprovable beliefs about gods and goddesses are better than yours!" aspect of the discussion.  Because I especially love to debate atheists who practice self-worship as a form of idolatry, and you've got that in spades."

I give that appearance to piss off theists. Thanks for noticing.

"Excuse me?  How does "My religion teaches that 'defining G-d' is mistaken" lead you to "You have no argument to support the existence of god"? "

If you can't even define god, how do you expect anyone to believe in it? It's rather simple.

"However, as a "generally good idea", the reason "defining G-d" is a bad idea is because it projects HUMAN ~ treating people like dirt we can dream up."

But you have nothing without a definition. No substance to discuss. What is god? You dodge the question, nothing left to discuss.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10537
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"No, you've definitely

"No, you've definitely invented gods that you like to worship.  It's a paradox about atheists -- you claim to not believe in G-d, but you sure can tell people all about them."

I don't worship anything. The only time I even mention some form of religion is when someone makes it up and presents it.

"I don't believe extraterrestrials have visited Earth.  About the best you're going to get out of me is "I've never seen proof that they have.  Perhaps you could bring me some?"  If you would stick to that approach I might accuse of you of idolatry a lot less."

That's my default. But when god is defined, I can contrast god with reality, and prove or disprove based on correlation. Or, remain ambiguous. Though that rarely happens.

"Uh, I don't believe G-d is a puppet-master deity, nor do I believe G-d does magic tricks, nor do I believe G-d gives away free ponies"

I don't believe god at all.

"Are you ~ this thread?"

Back to composition you go.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:FurryCatHerder

Vastet wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
"Constrained by ... what? "

A text limit per post. You really have a problem with simple concepts don't you?

No, that's "Constrained by the fact that I'm using a video game console to post".  There is no "text limit per post" constraint, it's a video game constraint.

Vastet wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
"Like, maybe you need to get a new computer or something."

Would be nice. Care to fund it? I'm working on a PS3, which works, but not as well as I'd like.

Okay, so you think you know more than someone who's actually studied (and uses) formal Logic systems in her daily work (no, really, I make a living with logic), you're trying to bluff me with science, and you use a PS3 gaming console to post.

No, my advice is to finish your education, at whatever level of school your still in, learn to respect your elders (and people smarter than you), and quit being an arrogant pr1ck.

Vastet wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
"Perhaps if you pray to puppet-master-god you could get one?"

Yeah, cause prayers are so effective.

Didn't say they were!  Also don't believe in Hell!  Or puppet-master-god!

Vastet wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
" You could go find Jesus for a few hours and tell them you need a new computer to debate someone who's exposing modern Christianity as a fabricated Greek and Roman mythology.  Might even work."

You know jesus? He gives out computers? Where is he then?

No, you go find a CHURCH and tell the people at the CHURCH you need a computer so you can debate me.  But to be honest, you aren't worth arguing with because you are trying to impress me with your non-existent knowledge of Religion and formal Logic.

Quick -- you're a non-Jew.  Heaven or Hell for you?

Vastet wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
"Fallacy of "Proof by Repeated Assertion".  You've not proven that Judaism is made up."

False. All religions are made up. Occam's razor cuts your religion, and all others, out of the picture. Unless you can demonstrate that your religion adds to our understanding of the universe?

Oh, G-d Bless.  Occam's Razor is NOT NOT NOT a proof any more than Proof By Repeated Assertion is a proof.  Occam's Razor is a way of approaching problems so you don't chase down convoluted solutions (or proofs) because it is more likely that a SIMPLER explanation / solution / proof is correct, compared to a more COMPLEX one.

You cannot prove gods do or don't exist because the "Faith" argument always gets in the way.  If you had faith, you'd know, since you lack faith you cannot know.  You can argue it's a stupid requirement (yeah, it's a stupid requirement -- no argument by me), but any religion which asserts "If you'd just believe!" cannot be falsified because if you don't believe, no "evidence" has to be provided to you.  And if you do "believe", oh well -- you believe and then it becomes Special Pleadings.

And if you'd like to know what Judaism contributed to our understanding of the Universe -- check "per capita religion of Nobel Prize winners".  We're not a big religion, but we've done some pretty big things.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

My bacon argument goes unrefuted.

 

Bacon is delicious.

 

 

Bacon can even wrap things, like shrimp.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10537
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"No, that's "Constrained by

"No, that's "Constrained by the fact that I'm using a video game console to post".  There is no "text limit per post" constraint, it's a video game constraint."

No, it's a text limit for text boxes within the PS3 browser. Which has nothing to do with the game functionality of the system. You may as well call all PC's game consoles with your poor understanding.

"Okay, so you think you know more than someone who's actually studied (and uses) formal Logic systems in her daily work (no, really, I make a living with logic), you're trying to bluff me with science, and you use a PS3 gaming console to post.No, my advice is to finish your education, at whatever level of school your still in, learn to respect your elders (and people smarter than you), and quit being an arrogant pr1ck."

Right back at you kid.

"Didn't say they were!  Also don't believe in Hell!  Or puppet-master-god!"

You insinuated that I believe prayer works, which is one of the dumbest things you could say.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10537
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
But you're pretty dumb, so

But you're pretty dumb, so I'm not surprised you went there.

"No, you go find a CHURCH and tell the people at the CHURCH you need a computer so you can debate me."

I don't need an actual PC to whip your ass, my PS3 has done well enough so far. Also, what do you think the church would say once they found out I consider them as delusional as yourself?

"But to be honest, you aren't worth arguing with because you are trying to impress me with your non-existent knowledge of Religion and formal Logic."

Impressing you is the least of my concerns. I'm quite satisfied with exposing you for the idiot that you are. Whether you respond or not is irrelevant.

"Quick -- you're a non-Jew.  Heaven or Hell for you?"

There is no heaven or hell. There is oblivion. For us both.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.