Author Topic: Most True Christians Are Sadists  (Read 13277 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline fishjie

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 242
  • Darwins +12/-0
Re: Most True Christians Are Sadists
« Reply #174 on: November 18, 2011, 02:17:32 PM »
Funny a lot of retarded fundies use the "first cause" argument that something had to have caused the universe to come into existence.    Well if they buy into that stupidity, then that means God is the CAUSE of our sin.    Cause he created Satan, and then he created us.   So far neither of these two fundies has addressed this point.

he should be burning himself in hell for creating such sinful beings in the first place.   I mean he is so holy, yet he pooped out such a sinful race of beings.    tsk tsk.

also, if his ways are so above our own, why does he want us to prostrate ourselves before him and essentially suck his dick for all eternity?    that's all worship is.     sounds pretty base to me.   my ways are far above that of the ants, but I could care less if ants worshipped me.    I would find it humorous if I stomped on a few and they justified it by saying "HUMAN WAYS ARE ABOVE OUR WAYS HE MUST HAVE A GOOD REASON FOR DOING SO"

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Most True Christians Are Sadists
« Reply #175 on: November 18, 2011, 03:19:52 PM »
“consider” = opinion. An opinion is not an acceptable form of evidence to prove a point. In order to validate your ‘point’  that God’s plan was flawed, you would have to know what would have occurred in the world had the evil not been destroyed. You are stating that the plan did not work but you cannot prove that.

No. It is now your job to argue the point by showing how my opinion is wrong. I provided a justification for why it's flawed. Now you have to show why it's not.

I am stating that the plan did not work because it did not accomplish what you said it was supposed to accomplish.

Either you can now show that it did accomplish that, or you can refute what I said with an argument of your own. Just saying that it's my opinion is not a refutation in this case, because we're dealing with a subjective subject in which real evidence can not be provided.

I have made a logical statement that shows his plan did not work. Can you actually refute it or not?

That is not adequate proof of anything. While I have little doubt that the youth drowned along with everyone else, you are still speculating and cannot provide the proof. Period.

First off, why? You just admitted I was right. "While I have little doubt that the youth drowned along with everyone else". Remember this? You just said it. This was the claim that you asked me to prove before. That god drowned the babies. You have just agreed that what I said was the truth, so why should I bother proving it at this point.

Idiot.

More to the point, you can't provide otherwise. The issue is can you actually refute the point with a reasoned argument. Clearly you can't.

As Jamie pointed out, unless you can actually prove that god exists, we cannot prove what god did in the real world unless. Hence the discussion remains entirely hypotetical based on what is said in the bible and cannot be objectively evidenced. It is however still fully supported by logic and reason, which I even diagramed out for you. As far as that goes, I did prove that god drowned the babies because the narrative says that he drowned all of humanity (which would include the babies). Until you can make a logical argument that refutes it, the point remains.


More speculation absent any proof. Prove to all of us that God placed/inflicted original sin on us as opposed to us placing it on ourselves.

Again, just saying "speculation" is not an argument against anything that I said.

I laid out the entire reasoning above. Can you actually point out any flaws in the reasoning or make a reasoned counter-argument or not?

You're still dodging.

A blatant dodge. Please answer my question and provide what I requested.

It's not a dodge, your post was a Strawman that had nothing to do with what was said and presented claims that I did not make.

However, to give the dog a bone, the answer is no. I cannot show either of those things. Though neither can you, and none of that has any bearing on what was being said at that time. It's still a Strawman on your part.

Now that I've given into your insipid demand, how about actually responding to what was said with something that isn't a fallacy.

No. You specifically said that I “simply don't care”….along with “You show no concern or caring for the suffering and agonies that others experience nor any consequences. Or what may happen to others. All you ever show concern for is the will of your god.”

You are making specific accusations about my character as a whole indicating that I am not capable of caring or showing concern for the agonies of others. Stop dodging and prove it. Prove that I am incapable of EVER caring and showing concern.

I did. I demonstrated that you have shown none of those attributes. Not once have you, I gave you reasons for it. That you don't like it doesn't change that fact. Now perhaps you are different in your real life. However that doesn't actually matter at the moment, because what I have to work with is the behaviour that you show to me. Show me where you have behaved as you say and you can easily refute everything I said there.

Now we’re getting somewhere. You admit that you are judging God according to human standards. Thank you.

I never said otherwise. Again, that was your Strawman. What you have yet to do is provide a single justification for why we shouldn't. You ignored that point a couple of posts ago.

Another blatant dodge.

No, a truth. I did, you ignored it, remember.

Are you not reading what I am writing or just purposely ignoring it? I explained what I said….there is no proof. I used the word “seems.”

And I asked you to justify the statement. How does it seem this way.


I have. You have dodged my questions and failed to provide the proof that I requested. You continue to offer nothing but opinions and observations.

Then justify it. Tear my arguments down. just shrugging your shoulders and going "opinion" does not destroy anything that I've said, even if that were true. Without evidence of gods existence, all we are left with using as a basis is what is written and claimed by theists about god. There is no way to offer objective proof, without proving god first.

So any refutation has to be based on the quality of the arguments made and the reasoning behind them. Did I commit a fallacy? Was there a flaw in my logic? Did I misread what the bible says? These are the things that you should be focusing on to refute my arguments.

As it stands nothing you have said refutes any point made. My logic holds, my arguments hold, and still remain unchallenged by you.

« Last Edit: November 18, 2011, 06:56:33 PM by Alzael »
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline sfsy1

Re: Most True Christians Are Sadists
« Reply #176 on: November 19, 2011, 06:13:37 AM »
Hi, thanks again for replying.

I've read through the replies selectively and I just thought that there is a major difference between believing in God (meaning putting my trust in God) and believing in the existence of God. The former is under the assumption of the latter obviously.

And for me, I don't believe in God because I don't think he even exist, so it's not a matter of willing to accept God or to reject him. If tangible evidence of God is provided to me, then I would be unable to believe that God doesn't exist. So my problem is, if convincing evidence truly exist and prayers really work (I believe all Christians will agree), they why don't Christians present those evidences or devote their lives (which are insignificant to the eternal lives in heaven) to pray for us?

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Most True Christians Are Sadists
« Reply #177 on: November 19, 2011, 07:24:13 AM »
So my problem is, if convincing evidence truly exist and prayers really work (I believe all Christians will agree), they why don't Christians present those evidences or devote their lives (which are insignificant to the eternal lives in heaven) to pray for us?

Technically they do provide convincing evidence, or at least what they view as convincing evidence. The problem is that most of them don't quite understand that their evidence only counts as convincing if you start off from the position of belief. If you look at their evidence from a position of logic, reason, or science, then what they call evidence is nothing of the sort. However they look at in terms of belief, fuzzy feelings, vague unexplained experiences, and their own bias regarding how they wish the world actually worked.

Unfortunately, they fail to realize that by those standards everything can be construed as evidence. Which is where faith comes in. You know that you are right because it's what you believe in, and you believe in it because you know that it's right.
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Most True Christians Are Sadists
« Reply #178 on: November 19, 2011, 01:11:55 PM »
I am stating that the plan did not work because it did not accomplish what you said it was supposed to accomplish.

Either you can now show that it did accomplish that, or you can refute what I said with an argument of your own. Just saying that it's my opinion is not a refutation in this case, because we're dealing with a subjective subject in which real evidence can not be provided.

I have made a logical statement that shows his plan did not work. Can you actually refute it or not?
My original comment was that “He removed the evil which had almost completely destroyed all of mankind and preserved the only living humans who still recognized Him as the one and only God.” I did not say that He destroyed it permanently….as you seem to be concluding. In a manner of speaking, what I clearly indicated is that He wiped the slate clean. For me to even suggest that God’s actions removed any inclination whatsoever for Noah and his family (or any of their descendents for that matter) to ever sin again sin would make me every bit the moron you accuse me of being. The fact that sin prevails even to this day is self evident.

Why you infer that my comments imply that God permanently destroyed all evil is a mystery. You are arguing against something I never said. Your accusations that God’s plan failed are, therefore, based on a poor interpretation of what I indicated.

If you insist on continuing to contend that His plan failed, you are going to have to demonstrate it with more than an assumption. Assumptions lead to incorrect conclusions as someone once said:
The problem is that more often than not, starting with assumptions leads to incorrect conclusions. Also it wastes a lot of time and effort that could be expended on better questions.

Let's move on..........

Quote
Quote
No. You specifically said that I “simply don't care”….along with “You show no concern or caring for the suffering and agonies that others experience nor any consequences. Or what may happen to others. All you ever show concern for is the will of your god.”

You are making specific accusations about my character as a whole indicating that I am not capable of caring or showing concern for the agonies of others. Stop dodging and prove it. Prove that I am incapable of EVER caring and showing concern.
I did. I demonstrated that you have shown none of those attributes. Not once have you, I gave you reasons for it. That you don't like it doesn't change that fact. Now perhaps you are different in your real life. However that doesn't actually matter at the moment, because what I have to work with is the behaviour that you show to me. Show me where you have behaved as you say and you can easily refute everything I said there.
So, in other words, you do not really know that I am this vile human being that you attempt to portray me as. You just assume I am because of some of the comments I have made in this forum? I’m sure you know what assumption leads to:
The problem is that more often than not, starting with assumptions leads to incorrect conclusions. Also it wastes a lot of time and effort that could be expended on better questions.

That’s a really sad way to go about characterizing someone that you do not even know. Your answer, then, is that you really don’t know if I am as vile you say I am, you’re just assuming that.


Now we’re getting somewhere. You admit that you are judging God according to human standards. Thank you.
I never said otherwise. Again, that was your Strawman. What you have yet to do is provide a single justification for why we shouldn't. You ignored that point a couple of posts ago.

Did you miss this?:
I do not understand all that God has done or is presently doing in this world, I accept my place in HIS creation and concede to His power and might. I am in no position to judge that which CREATED ME nor do I claim to know a better way to fulfill His plan. That, to me, is arrogance and absurdity of the highest order. You and others may question and/or find fault in certain interpretations you have made with respect to God's actions but you are incapable of determining what the outcome would have been had those specific events never occurred. 

And this:
you are NOT God. You did not create the universe, our planet, the water, the sand, the sun, the moon, the animals, plants, or any of us. Your mind is incapable of grasping the enormity and complexity of  the vastness of God's existence or any of His creation. Therefore, until you can do such things, you are in a no position to dictate the manner in which they should function.
You must have just overlooked it, right?......that I had made a ‘point’ as to why we should not judge God by human standards? So, AGAIN, please explain why we should.


Continuing on.....

And I asked you to justify the statement. How does it seem this way.
Oh, word games? No, you specifically asked that I “prove” this not “justify” it. There is a difference there. So, what would you like…..proof (that I admitted does not exist) or justification. Kindly do not change words in your efforts to dodge when they have different meanings.

Another blatant dodge.

No, a truth. I did, you ignored it, remember.
Nope. I don’t remember. Please refresh my memory instead of referring to something that is so apparent. I asked that you prove that I have lied about anything (which you accused me of doing) and I am still waiting for you to respond. And, please, don’t just assume that I have lied about something, prove it….because we know that, according to you, assuming things leads to incorrect conclusions.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2011, 01:14:09 PM by BibleStudent »

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Most True Christians Are Sadists
« Reply #179 on: November 19, 2011, 02:22:20 PM »
So my problem is, if convincing evidence truly exist and prayers really work (I believe all Christians will agree), they why don't Christians present those evidences or devote their lives (which are insignificant to the eternal lives in heaven) to pray for us?

Technically they do provide convincing evidence, or at least what they view as convincing evidence. The problem is that most of them don't quite understand that their evidence only counts as convincing if you start off from the position of belief. If you look at their evidence from a position of logic, reason, or science, then what they call evidence is nothing of the sort. However they look at in terms of belief, fuzzy feelings, vague unexplained experiences, and their own bias regarding how they wish the world actually worked.

Unfortunately, they fail to realize that by those standards everything can be construed as evidence. Which is where faith comes in. You know that you are right because it's what you believe in, and you believe in it because you know that it's right.

Are philosophical arguments worthy of consideration? You didn't really allude to how that form affects whether something could be true or not. For example, do ‘logic’ and ‘reason’ have no place in basing a belief on a combination of philosophical arguments and the complexity of living things that science has revealed? How about intuition?

Offline ungod

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 580
  • Darwins +15/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Most True Christians Are Sadists
« Reply #180 on: November 19, 2011, 02:32:49 PM »
So, in other words, you do not really know that I am this vile human being that you attempt to portray me as. You just assume I am because of some of the comments I have made in this forum? I’m sure you know what assumption leads to:
It is NOT an assumption, it is BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION. YOU claim belief in the Holy Bible, which has this to say ABOUT YOU......

"I was sinful at birth, filled with sin from the time my mother conceived me" (Psalm 51:5).

"There is no one righteous, not even one . . . there is no one who does good, not even one" (Psalm 14:1–3).

"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23).

"The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately corrupt" (Jeremiah 17:9).

So there you are, exposed, for the dirty rotten no good deceitful sinner you are.

Unless, of course, you'd like to deny your Bible belief.

Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

"What good fortune for those in power that people do not think." - Hitler

Offline ungod

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 580
  • Darwins +15/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Most True Christians Are Sadists
« Reply #181 on: November 19, 2011, 02:39:46 PM »
Are philosophical arguments worthy of consideration?

Get a degree in philosophy and go job hunting. See if it qualifies you for anything other than teaching philosophy. Oh, and, as an afterthought, you might point out whatever contributions philosophy has made to the human condition.
 :laugh:
Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

"What good fortune for those in power that people do not think." - Hitler

Offline ungod

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 580
  • Darwins +15/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Most True Christians Are Sadists
« Reply #182 on: November 19, 2011, 02:47:08 PM »
For example, do ‘logic’ and ‘reason’ have no place in basing a belief on a combination of philosophical arguments and the complexity of living things that science has revealed?

Logic and reason are based on demonstrable repeatable evidence, NOT "beliefs". If you don't know that, you're a moron. If you do know it, but are attempting to convince us otherwise, you're a liar.
Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

"What good fortune for those in power that people do not think." - Hitler

Offline ungod

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 580
  • Darwins +15/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Most True Christians Are Sadists
« Reply #183 on: November 19, 2011, 02:51:49 PM »
You must have just overlooked it, right?......that I had made a ‘point’ as to why we should not judge God by human standards? So, AGAIN, please explain why we should.
Perhaps his task of explanation might be made easier if you would first tell us by exactly WHAT STANDARDS we are to judge God by, since you have obviously claimed knowledge thereof!
 :police:
Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

"What good fortune for those in power that people do not think." - Hitler

Offline ungod

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 580
  • Darwins +15/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Most True Christians Are Sadists
« Reply #184 on: November 19, 2011, 02:59:08 PM »
The fact that sin prevails even to this day is self evident.

"Sin" is anything that pisses off God. Of course, if there is no God, then it is a totally meaningless concept. Since no one has ever presented any credible evidence for the existence of this fabled being, then any discussion of what pisses him off is as ridiculous as a debate over what colour Russell's teapot is.
So, before we proceed, do tell us what evidence you have for the existence of this fabulous creature you call "God".
Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

"What good fortune for those in power that people do not think." - Hitler

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Most True Christians Are Sadists
« Reply #185 on: November 19, 2011, 03:00:09 PM »
For example, do ‘logic’ and ‘reason’ have no place in basing a belief on a combination of philosophical arguments and the complexity of living things that science has revealed?

Logic and reason are based on demonstrable repeatable evidence, NOT "beliefs". If you don't know that, you're a moron. If you do know it, but are attempting to convince us otherwise, you're a liar.

Which form of reasoning are you referring to ? There is deductive, inductive, abstract, logical, residual, modal, comparative, effects-to-cause, etc. Which one do we use to establish the absolute truth and fact?

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Most True Christians Are Sadists
« Reply #186 on: November 19, 2011, 03:03:13 PM »
The fact that sin prevails even to this day is self evident.

"Sin" is anything that pisses off God. Of course, if there is no God, then it is a totally meaningless concept. Since no one has ever presented any credible evidence for the existence of this fabled being, then any discussion of what pisses him off is as ridiculous as a debate over what colour Russell's teapot is.
So, before we proceed, do tell us what evidence you have for the existence of this fabulous creature you call "God".

What type of evidence would you like? There is circumstantial, eyewitness, direct, physical, etc etc. What type of evidence would satisfy your request ?

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Most True Christians Are Sadists
« Reply #187 on: November 19, 2011, 03:10:40 PM »
Are philosophical arguments worthy of consideration?

Get a degree in philosophy and go job hunting. See if it qualifies you for anything other than teaching philosophy. Oh, and, as an afterthought, you might point out whatever contributions philosophy has made to the human condition.
 :laugh:

So, philosophical reasoning has no place in atheism? If not, then how do you conclude there is no God? Science and logic do not prove it.

Offline RaymondKHessel

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1914
  • Darwins +73/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Born with insight, and a raised fist.
Re: Most True Christians Are Sadists
« Reply #188 on: November 19, 2011, 03:22:12 PM »
So, in other words, you do not really know that I am this vile human being that you attempt to portray me as. You just assume I am because of some of the comments I have made in this forum? I’m sure you know what assumption leads to:
It is NOT an assumption, it is BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION. YOU claim belief in the Holy Bible, which has this to say ABOUT YOU......

"I was sinful at birth, filled with sin from the time my mother conceived me" (Psalm 51:5).

"There is no one righteous, not even one . . . there is no one who does good, not even one" (Psalm 14:1–3).

"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23).

"The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately corrupt" (Jeremiah 17:9).

So there you are, exposed, for the dirty rotten no good deceitful sinner you are.

Unless, of course, you'd like to deny your Bible belief.

Ugh. That shit is SO depressing. How much more negative of a worldview can you have? And yet so many of them run around going "Ahhh! I wudn't want 2 LIV in a wirld wif no GAWD!"

Well why the hell not? No Christian deity, congrats! You're not a doomed piece of shit, you might actually be allowed to think of yourself as a decent human being, worthy of good things!

Not only is it sad that they view the world as cursed, they actually get bamboozled into going to their local priest and telling him all the personal, embarassing stuff that goes on in their lives. You just know that whatever ancient clergyman thought THAT one up was patting himself on the back for years.

Sitting around in some ancient cathedral reading the same terrible book over and over must have been boring as hell. Not only can you keep the local populace subjucated by getting them to confess all their stuff, but you just know it's gotta be entertaining as hell listening to people.  :P
Born with insight, and a raised fist.

Offline ungod

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 580
  • Darwins +15/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Most True Christians Are Sadists
« Reply #189 on: November 19, 2011, 03:23:41 PM »
Are philosophical arguments worthy of consideration?

Get a degree in philosophy and go job hunting. See if it qualifies you for anything other than teaching philosophy. Oh, and, as an afterthought, you might point out whatever contributions philosophy has made to the human condition.
 :laugh:

So, philosophical reasoning has no place in atheism? If not, then how do you conclude there is no God? Science and logic do not prove it.

Since when do atheists have an obligation to prove there is no god? Prove you don't owe me ten thousand dollars!
Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

"What good fortune for those in power that people do not think." - Hitler

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Most True Christians Are Sadists
« Reply #190 on: November 19, 2011, 03:25:42 PM »
So, in other words, you do not really know that I am this vile human being that you attempt to portray me as. You just assume I am because of some of the comments I have made in this forum? I’m sure you know what assumption leads to:
It is NOT an assumption, it is BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION. YOU claim belief in the Holy Bible, which has this to say ABOUT YOU......

"I was sinful at birth, filled with sin from the time my mother conceived me" (Psalm 51:5).

"There is no one righteous, not even one . . . there is no one who does good, not even one" (Psalm 14:1–3).

"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23).

"The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately corrupt" (Jeremiah 17:9).

So there you are, exposed, for the dirty rotten no good deceitful sinner you are.

Unless, of course, you'd like to deny your Bible belief.

Just so I know what type of atheist I am dealing with, could you tell me where you fall in this list.

Are you a:

- Weak atheist
- Strong atheist-
- God hater
- Weirdoe
- Fortean
- Rationalist
- Pure
- Radical

???

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Most True Christians Are Sadists
« Reply #191 on: November 19, 2011, 03:29:11 PM »
Are philosophical arguments worthy of consideration?

Get a degree in philosophy and go job hunting. See if it qualifies you for anything other than teaching philosophy. Oh, and, as an afterthought, you might point out whatever contributions philosophy has made to the human condition.
 :laugh:

So, philosophical reasoning has no place in atheism? If not, then how do you conclude there is no God? Science and logic do not prove it.

Since when do atheists have an obligation to prove there is no god? Prove you don't owe me ten thousand dollars!

I didn't say you have to "prove" anything. I'm just asking how you came to the conclusion that there is no God absent a philosophical argument?

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Most True Christians Are Sadists
« Reply #192 on: November 19, 2011, 03:33:35 PM »
My original comment was that “He removed the evil which had almost completely destroyed all of mankind and preserved the only living humans who still recognized Him as the one and only God.” I did not say that He destroyed it permanently….as you seem to be concluding. In a manner of speaking, what I clearly indicated is that He wiped the slate clean. For me to even suggest that God’s actions removed any inclination whatsoever for Noah and his family (or any of their descendents for that matter) to ever sin again sin would make me every bit the moron you accuse me of being. The fact that sin prevails even to this day is self evident.

Except he didn't actually wipe the slate clean. It's more accurate to say that he just hit the reset button. Wiping the slate clean implies that he got rid of evil, which he didn't. He just killed all of the people he thought were doing it. Noah's family start doing things directly after the flood ends. Once the flood ends we get god making his covenant, followed directly into the story about Noahs son seeing him naked and being cursed to slavery. God drowned all of humanity and stopped evil.....for about a day.

You are claiming that god did this to clear the way for the Messiah to come. Evil came back in full force long before the Messiah ever came. Seriously god wipes out how many cities and civilizations for being evil between the flood and Jesus?

The "kill everything" plan did not work. It didn't get rid of Satan (the actual source of the evil and the one who's plans you say he was trying to foil).  The supposedly perfect and god-worshipping people he let live took it back up again immediately without pause. Not to mention that god had to try it over and over again between the flood and the Messiah.

It did not accomplish any of the goals that you said it was supposed to accomplish. Except for the goal of killing people.

Let's not forget that it was also completely unnecessary. An omnipotent being has no need to do anything unless it wants to. The only justification for the flood happening is that god just felt like killing everyone that day.

So, in other words, you do not really know that I am this vile human being that you attempt to portray me as. You just assume I am because of some of the comments I have made in this forum? I’m sure you know what assumption leads to:

*sigh* No moron, it isn't an assumption.

An assumption is a proposition that is taken for granted, as though it were true based upon presupposition without consideration of the facts.

I clearly laid out the reasons for the conclusion that I made. I showed why I reached those conclusions and demonstrated the behaviours on your part that led me to it. Such as your claim that god can do whatever he wants to do with his creations (I am paraphrasing, of course), and other thigns you have said done. I even invited you to provide evidence that you have displayed the exact traits I accused you of not having. You didn't. All the evidence you have provided so far supports my conclusion.

That’s a really sad way to go about characterizing someone that you do not even know. Your answer, then, is that you really don’t know if I am as vile you say I am, you’re just assuming that.

No, I'm going by the behaviour that you have presented. Feel free to show otherwise if you wish.

You must have just overlooked it, right?......that I had made a ‘point’ as to why we should not judge God by human standards? So, AGAIN, please explain why we should.

*double sigh* No dumbass, I didn't overlook it. To quote from about fifty posts back.


Also, you are NOT God. You did not create the universe, our planet, the water, the sand, the sun, the moon, the animals, plants, or any of us. Your mind is incapable of grasping the enormity and complexity of  the vastness of God's existence or any of His creation. 

We don't have to be god in order to judge him. Remember your own bible? We know good and evil as god does, we have the knowledge from the tree. If we have the same understanding of good and evil then we should be able to judge him on those terms, and gods actions are clearly that of an evil being.

Even if we didn't have that knowledge though, it doesn't matter. Even if we can't grasp these things as you say, it doesn't make god a good being. It makes god an ambiguous entity, which still brings us right back to the point that your belief that god is good is based on nothing more than your own desire to believe it.

Furthermore if we can't understand whether god is good or evil, why should we follow him if he behaves in a way that we perceive to be evil? True, god may be bucthering children and it may actually be ultimately for a good reason. However if from our limited perspective everything we can understand about god shows that he is evil and a monster, why shouldn't we believe that's what god actually is? Should we actually just assume that he's doing the good thing just because he tells us he is?

That's insanely stupid, BS. Even you must realize that.

I do not understand all that God has done or is presently doing in this world, I accept my place in HIS creation and concede to His power and might. I am in no position to judge that which CREATED ME nor do I claim to know a better way to fulfill His plan. That, to me, is arrogance and absurdity of the highest order. You and others may question and/or find fault in certain interpretations you have made with respect to God's actions but you are incapable of determining what the outcome would have been had those specific events never occurred. 

You realize that your justification here is essentially that you're too stupid to understand and too lazy to question, right?

Oh, word games? No, you specifically asked that I “prove” this not “justify” it. There is a difference there. So, what would you like…..proof (that I admitted does not exist) or justification. Kindly do not change words in your efforts to dodge when they have different meanings.

.............*triple sigh*.

From Websters

Justify "1a : to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable "

So prove or show how you are right. Or are you admitting that what you said was just intended as a slight? Exactly what you complaining to me about doing.

Nope. I don’t remember. Please refresh my memory instead of referring to something that is so apparent. I asked that you prove that I have lied about anything (which you accused me of doing) and I am still waiting for you to respond. And, please, don’t just assume that I have lied about something, prove it….because we know that, according to you, assuming things leads to incorrect conclusions.

Don't try to use my own words against me. You don't even know what those words mean. Go back to the first post I made in the thread and start following those links. You'll have all the proof you need.

So, philosophical reasoning has no place in atheism? If not, then how do you conclude there is no God? Science and logic do not prove it.

Philosophy has a place in everything. It's the creator of both logic and the scientific method.

If you knew anything about logic, science, or philosophy you would know that the atheist does not have to prove god. Disbelief is the baseline. It is up to the people making the positive claim (the ones who say god exists) to prove what they say is true. If they cannot provide evidence to support that (which is what happens) then the only logical, scientific, and philosophically correct approach is to reject the claim until it can be proven.


I didn't say you have to "prove" anything. I'm just asking how you came to the conclusion that there is no God absent a philosophical argument?

The absence of evidence is the philosophical argument against gods existence.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2011, 03:47:20 PM by Alzael »
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline curiousgirl

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
  • Darwins +22/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Inquisitive agnostic atheist
Re: Most True Christians Are Sadists
« Reply #193 on: November 19, 2011, 03:41:17 PM »

So, philosophical reasoning has no place in atheism?

Hi, BibleStudent. What makes you say that (above)? Are you familiar with "Russell's teapot"? My bolding below:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

Quote
Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot, cosmic teapot or Bertrand's teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate the idea that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion.

If you want atheists to think God exists, you would need to provide some logical arguments and some scientific evidence.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."-Carl Sagan

Offline curiousgirl

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
  • Darwins +22/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Inquisitive agnostic atheist
Re: Most True Christians Are Sadists
« Reply #194 on: November 19, 2011, 03:45:00 PM »
Your logic is flawed. Alzael must assume the possibility of God's existence in order to opine on His character or His actions. No proof of God is necessary since the possibility has already been implicitly conceded to by Alzael. If what you contend were true, then everything that Alzael has said about God is completely irrelevant and utter nonsense. In other words, his only reply would have to be: "God does not exist, therefore, there is nothing to judge or comment on."

Nonsense. Anyone can comment on a fictional character that does not truly exist. Alzael need not assume God exists to have an opinion.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."-Carl Sagan

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4935
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Most True Christians Are Sadists
« Reply #195 on: November 19, 2011, 03:55:15 PM »
I do not have to assume the possibility of Ursula's existence (from Disney's The Little Mermaid) in order to comment on her character or actions, or Darth Vader's existence (from Star Wars), or Link's existence (from The Legend of Zelda), or any other fictional character for that matter.  Therefore, it is illogical to conclude that someone cannot comment on a being's character or actions unless they assume that there is a possibility of that being existing, because they can and do without ever assuming that such a being might truly exist.  Your statement that his only position can be "God does not exist, therefore, there is nothing to judge or comment on" is therefore both illogical and nonsensical.  A fictional character can exist in the realm of the imagination without ever existing in the real world, and a real person can comment on that fictional character without anyone assuming that the fictional character is in fact real.

To get back to the point, Alzael can comment on the things written in the Bible while assuming those things are fictional in nature.  It is true that he cannot, for example, physically demonstrate the existence of the tree of knowledge that the Bible, in Genesis 2:9, specifically states that God made grow out of the ground.  But he does not have to, because he is not assuming that that part of the Bible describes a real event.  If you want to prove that they are not fictional and therefore truthful, you must provide evidence for God's existence, and further, evidence to show that God actually did the various things attributed to him in the Bible.  You cannot sidestep that need to provide evidence by using sophistry to claim that Alzael already "admitted the possibility of God's existence".
When you have a moment, BibleStudent, I would like to hear your response to this post.

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Most True Christians Are Sadists
« Reply #196 on: November 19, 2011, 04:15:32 PM »
In deference to BS and his limited mental capacity I'll start this back from the beginning so that he can follow along.

In regards to BS lying.

Here's BS.

For the record, I vehemently reject my being sentenced to the ER. To this day, I do not know 'why' I was even placed there because I was never afforded even one shred of evidence for whatever accusations were being made.

Here is myself.

Really, you actually need it explained? Becuase the conversations still exist. We can go over the cliff notes anytime you want.

Here's Lady from your ER thread.

"I'll give you a few examples out of many: Reply #149 in the topic Why is evolution more plausible than evolution?

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,17764.msg395430.html#msg395430
Disregarding other posters, and making posts that were not contributing to discussion. Reply #150, by Alzael, elaborates on what happened.

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,17764.msg396741.html#msg396741
Not BibleStudent, but Alzael in Reply #163 re-clarifies as to why there is a problem to begin with.

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,17764.msg396991.html#msg396991
JeffPT telling it how it is in Reply #172, because BibleStudent keeps repeating the same mistakes.

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,17764.msg397166.html#msg397166
BibleStudent trying to say something ENTIRELY different, plus other topics of discussion in Reply #179

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,17764.msg397179.html#msg397179
Omen dissecting above post because BibleStudent was not doing it right.

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,17764.msg397413.html#msg397413
Reply #189, BibleStudent making ONE of many claims, which then disappear into the abyss and never discusses the claim again.

Completely disacknowledges my information about adaptation, along with other posters' information as well, then goes on to create ANOTHER claim which he can't back up, and then leaves it. It goes on and on and on...

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,17764.msg397569.html#msg397569
Here is Alzael making the observation, AGAIN, that BibleStudent keeps disacknowledging posts.

This is only a few examples, BibleStudent. I don't want you to go into the ToE and Creationism. We just want you to work with us and not disacknowledge posts, keep making base-less claims, or claims that you do not know enough about, then suddenly leave them, along with not getting the point of/completely ignoring counter-posts against said claims."


Lady again.

"Oh my. What a job to try to go as far back as possible, since your official return, to see where you are at fault.

If you want the most recent proper start-point (Alzael making the point of you to already go back to address everyone properly:

Starting at Page 6 of Why is evolution more plausible than evolution? http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,17764.145.html

Just go page by page and look at how frustrated we are with you because you aren't grasping basic material, and disacknowledging sources and trying to guide you to understand some concepts better. From the very start, BibleStudent, you could keep your Creationism and your belief in God, but the goal was to not keep your misinformation on the sciences and how the ToE works.

If you wanna go further back (remember this?):

The beginning of Why is evolution more plausible than creationism? http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,17764.0.html

And the infamous How Do Adherents Explain Evolution? http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,17176.522.html

That topic was a disaster. And you failed to acknowledge much evidence as we tried to guide you along, but then you decided to go ahead and ignore, after trying to lie and making too many claims that you can't back up, and didn't even bother discussing your claims nearly enough!

Furthermore, here is me, making it clear to you (in the early stages of the topic Why is evolution more plausible than creationism?) that it would be wonderful if you acknowledged the recent topic (at that time, How Do Adherents Explain Evolution) from whence you came from:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,17764.87.html

And you never did.

Side-note: This was never about evolution to begin with; it is as to how he presents his understanding of everything that has been said many times in other topics and see if he has done proper analysis regarding his reading of users' posts.

Edit: Also would like to add that I already was aware of what was going on before. The above statement is not just blabber. It was the whole point of the past topic, too, and the reason as to how you ended up moderated. I thought you would have learned by now. Here is the link to the other topic, in which I state the same thing I said above, after you being moderated and going away:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,17176.812.htm

Believe it or not, despite you being in the ER, you were capable of civil discussion. I remember moments in which that was indeed going on:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,17764.203.html

See? Isn't that nice? We were working and discussing with you. It's not that we don't like what you have to say. It's just that you kept making empty, baseless claims at points, which was inappropriate, especially because we expected you to back it up, as well as discuss what you think so as to continue civil discussion. Unfortunately, the discussion didn't go on for long because you kept leaving. And then you came back, and it was as if nothing happened, as if the posts were all irrelevant, or didn't contain enough substance, plus you barely bothered to discuss.
"

Me.


And if you would have spent another ten minutes Googling the rebuttals to each of the ten alleged potential 'falsifiers', you would have discovered just how silly they are. You intentionally sought out a "list" without actually considering whether the items in your "list" were legitimate or not.
 

Actually I did. They were all stupid creationist arguments. I notice that you didn't bother to use them to make your own arguments against them. You know, actually study the "rebuttals" and then use them to form a thought. Granted I realize that thinking puts a great deal of stress on your brain, but still. Instead all you manage to do is scratch your mental crotch and spout out something empty as usual.

In fact, you didn't actually respond to a single point made in my last two posts. All you managed was a "Nuh-uh" and to put your hands over your ears (or I suppose eyes in this case). You still fail to answer any questions that might actually require you to put some thought into it.

So just to sum up, you still can't demonstrate any knowledgde of the topic, or that you're even remotely capable of having this conversation, or that you're even actually paying attention to what's being said, or that you're genuinely capable of an original thought. Well I suppose that even though you're vaccuous, uneducated, and immensely stupid, at the very least you're consistent about it.

Now why don't you go back to #293 and #295 and actually use some semblance of thought this time like a good little dancing-monkey. Or respond to Emergence and try to show that you aren't actually as mentally deficient as you constantly demonstrate yourself to be.

Mod warning.


And if you would have spent another ten minutes Googling the rebuttals to each of the ten alleged potential 'falsifiers', you would have discovered just how silly they are. You intentionally sought out a "list" without actually considering whether the items in your "list" were legitimate or not.
 


You should be rebutting them, using evidence, as opposed to just claiming they are silly.  All scientific theories must be falsifiable, and evolution is no exception.  You are being reported again for avoiding direct replies.  Keep in mind that you stepped into this thread for some reason, at which time everyone expects you to participate honestly.  Denying that evolution can easily be falsified is not being honest.

Jetson[/b]


Let's not forget when you were asked to produce even a single peer-reviewed paper written by an actual scientist in the field that proved creationism.

You came up with two written by engineers, one written by a philosopher, some by lawyers etc.

Then tried to argue for several pages how it was unreasonable to request that you cite a paper by someone who was actually qualified to talk about evolution.

Seriously BS, I have several threads of evidence for the accusations, mod warnings, evidence presented against you that you ignored/dodged/etc. We can go down this road if you want, or you can stop trying to pretend. Because this tactic of yours is not going to work out well for you. Anymore than your admittance that you would rather surrender a Jewish family to the Nazis than lie to protect them worked out for you before.

Or the bit about children having to submit to their parents will, even if it meant dying or committing immoral crimes.

We can go down all those roads again, if you want. Or you can try to be at least semi-honest.

Personally, I'm not holding my breath.
[/quote]

So after being confronted with all of this evidence. What did BS say?

Wrong again. Those so-called 'points' or 'evidence' show ABSOLUTELY NOTHING of the sort. I wonder if you've even read them and/or can even understand them. I marvel at how you continue to blabber such slop and embarrass yourself. You, sir, rank as the biggest imbecile I have encountered on this board or any other....and that's a fact.





This is essentially as close as he ever comes to any actual refutation of the evidence presented against his actual claim.

Some other highlights from the ER thread.

From Lady


You are in the ER:


Quote from: LadyAmorosaLuckyDulce on March 02, 2011, 09:22:33 PM
Because your arguments were half-assed and sloppy, and made no coherent rational sense, dear.

From the last topic you were present in. Plus, we did do all we can to get you on the right path, which is to address all our posts with rebuttals, and also gave you a chance to prove that evolution is less plausible than Creationism. You didn't, even though we gave you a chance to do so. And then you come back, don't acknowledge additional and educative information, don't address Emergence, and make very vacant arguments, all which make NO sense.


From Myself

These issues have been brought up over and over again, BS.

You show no interest in having an intelligent conversation. You refuse to put any effort into making an actual reply to anything. Instead we keep getting wave after wave of useless posts from you.

From my last post in the thread:

"This is not an argument. You were asked by me to show that you had actual rebuttals, that you yourself could articulate. You could not and would not do this."

and

"You claimed that you easily found rebuttals to this, but could not produce them. You failed to even show that you understood the points being made.

Your answers were sloppy. Your thoughts barely-formed. You put no effort into understanding or comprehending the subject matter at all. This is the same level of thinking that you've displayed throughout this thread."

Notice the bolded parts. It has been brought up over and over again to you that you clearly have no knowledge of the subject. Nor do you even try to understand the subject. Everyone takes the time to provide the information, and you respond with nothing more than a half-assed paper copied from the web that you can't discuss or debate on it's own merits.

The closest thing you've offered to substance so far is the work of other people, you have done no work yourself to learn the subject matter of which you are trying to argue.

Emergence even gave you something easy to look at and asked you to look at it and show that you actually understand it, in order to give us a point to start from. You ignored that. You've ignored a lot of valid points and haven't even made an effort to give decent responses to the things that you actually do respond to.

Read the thread. The complaints have been made over and over again. They haven't changed. It's just that now you're being forced to address them, instead of being allowed to run from them


From Karl.

Don't you get it? You are being asked to provide evidence for your statements and to answer questions that people ask you regarding the things you state. You say that you have prove that evolution is less plausible than Creationism. If you say "I believe so" then that is your way of seeing it, that's it and the discussion is closed.

However here you are dealing with people who take it serious. If you want to prove by events, the analyses of them by means of science in order to prove that your opinion is true then you'll have to follow the scientific way. It seems you don't know how that works. Not a problem, lots of people don't. But they don't come here and try to make their point. You do, so you should find out how science works and review what you have said (or not have said). It is not your believe that is being criticized, at least not by me whilst I don't share it. It is the fact that you claim that your believe has scientific evidence. There you fail and do not seem to be aware of it.


From Lady Velkyn

BS,

what I see as your basic difficulty here on the forum is that you make claims and willfully refuse to back them up, all the while claiming that well-supported theories are worthless.  This is quite hypocritical and indicates a desire to remain willfully ignorant. 

Alzael has brought up that you cite other people's work rather than giving your own understandings and opinions.  This indicates to me that you do not understand the things you attempt to attack, but only are parroting what you think are good arguments from others.  They aren't and you are then reflected by their inadequacies.  For example, you have cited creationists who are trying to quote-mine and twist the valid research of an honest scientist into something that he would never agree with.  This is dishonest and does not reflect well upon someone who claims to follow a book that describes a god that hates liars. 

You need to research your claims, find out what makes the valid or not, and then present them here.  Simply gainsaying people is worthless.  Knowledge of a field and evidence are what's important.


Here is an aside from BS and Velkyn.

BS
If many of you would be honest with yourselves, you would admit that you do the exact same thing in defending the ToE…..and the vast majority of the research papers and other publications make it very evident that the science behind evolution is doing the same thing…..working backwards to validate the ToE. 

Velkyn
Again, a baseless claim.  You have not shown that this is the case.  You make vague accusations, nothing more.  Show that research papers do anything like your claims above and we'll talk.  But you don't.  We just get the vile practice of quote-mining foisted upon us as if we can't read the actual source ourselves and find out otherwise.     

In a discussion, one is expected to support their claims.  You have not.  You lie, you try to spread mis-information and you ignore valid points, only to return to your baseless claims again and again.  You wish this to be a soapbox for you and your creationism, not to be countered or criticized only blindly accepted.  That won't happen here.  It would be nice if we could have an actual discussion, but that requires give and take from both sides.  Ignoring evidence, intentionally twisting words, etc isn't part of an honest discussion.   I have seen it consistantly from creationists.  I find it rather depressing that it is part and parcel of their technique, from Answers in Genesis to the Discovery Institute.  I know it is probably very hard for Christians to accept that their fellow believers would lie to them but that is the case.  You need to do some research of your own, BS, not accept someone's claim as the inalterable truth just because they wear a cross. 


Myself again.

BS, this is not the place for you to be continuing this discussion. This is the place for you to be addressing the behaviour that got you here.

Which is your inability and unwillingness to actually learn about the subjects that you are talking about. Thus forcing us to waste time trying to explain them. While you go on and ignore them,continuing to make stupid statement after stupid statement and ignoring the issues raised. Which is what you are doing here again.

The issue is your inability to support anything you say and your ineptitude at forming your own arguments, because you clearly don't even understand what is being said and have no desire to learn about the subject matter. Even by the creationists you quote you clearly do not understand what they are saying. You are simply parroting them.

You can't even articulate in your own words why you don't agree with evolution. All you managed to say was "there are gaps in the knowledge". Yet you could not describe these gaps, or why they proved evolution wrong. Much as you cannot back up anything you say.

Again, do you have anything of substance to say?

This is why you are in the ER. You refuse to actually think and post anything of substance. You are a liar, and a very pitiful one,BS.


Let's go with one more for fun.

Lady Velkyn again.

Unfortunately for you, many of the things you have claimed have indeed been lies and can be demonstrated to be factually so.  I do so despise quote-mining.

Again, you demonstrate that you are not interested in even trying to understand evolutionary theory.  You attack something that doesn't even exist, only your fantasy.  If you could at least attack the actual theory, then you might have some purpose here but you seem to be here just to spread nonsense. 

So what was it that BS said before? Let's review.

For the record, I vehemently reject my being sentenced to the ER. To this day, I do not know 'why' I was even placed there because I was never afforded even one shred of evidence for whatever accusations were being made.

He does not know why he was placed there, huh? He did not get any evidence.

I would like to point out for those following along that everything I quoted was only from the first page of his ER thread, and only a few of the posts. I didn't even get into the actual threads the discussions were going on in (But I will just for fun).

Sorry for the length guys, but I would just like to ask BS one thing.

Are you ready to stop pretending that you aren't a liar, yet?
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Most True Christians Are Sadists
« Reply #197 on: November 19, 2011, 04:18:23 PM »
My original comment was that “He removed the evil which had almost completely destroyed all of mankind and preserved the only living humans who still recognized Him as the one and only God.” I did not say that He destroyed it permanently….as you seem to be concluding. In a manner of speaking, what I clearly indicated is that He wiped the slate clean. For me to even suggest that God’s actions removed any inclination whatsoever for Noah and his family (or any of their descendents for that matter) to ever sin again sin would make me every bit the moron you accuse me of being. The fact that sin prevails even to this day is self evident.

Except he didn't actually wipe the slate clean. It's more accurate to say that he just hit the reset button. Wiping the slate clean implies that he got rid of evil, which he didn't.

Okay. Fine. I’ll go along with that.

The "kill everything" plan did not work. It didn't get rid of Satan (the actual source of the evil and the one who's plans you say he was trying to foil). 
Who said getting rid of Satan was part of the plan?

The supposedly perfect and god-worshipping people he let live took it back up again immediately without pause. Not to mention that god had to try it over and over again between the flood and the Messiah.
Agreed. So, what’s your point?

It did not accomplish any of the goals that you said it was supposed to accomplish. Except for the goal of killing people.
I didn’t say that it was “supposed” to accomplish anything. I merely stated what was behind (in part) God’s decision.
Let's not forget that it was also completely unnecessary. An omnipotent being has no need to do anything unless it wants to. The only justification for the flood happening is that god just felt like killing everyone that day.
How do you know what an omnipotent being has or has no need of?

No, I'm going by the behaviour that you have presented. Feel free to show otherwise if you wish.
That’s because you are cherry picking with a singular intent to discredit. If you really wanted to make a fully informed decision about whether I am this vile, disgusting person, then you would go back through ALL 800+ of my posts and see if there is anything that counters the impression you have. Futhermore, if what I do in my personal life might have swayed you in another direction, don’t you think it would be common courtesy to ask for that BEFORE you make such harsh accusations?

We don't have to be god in order to judge him. Remember your own bible? We know good and evil as god does, we have the knowledge from the tree. If we have the same understanding of good and evil then we should be able to judge him on those terms, and gods actions are clearly that of an evil being.
Therefore, if there does exist a supreme being that created all of us, you are going to tell Him how he Is to conduct Himself….whether His conduct makes sense to you or not? In other words, is it not possible that He possesses the ability to make decisions and carry out plans via a wisdom and understanding that you cannot comprehend. This is one of the things I find most startling. If you are willing to concede that there might just be an all powerful Creator (that created the heavens, earth, universe, plants, animals, and you and I), then it only goes to reason that He is in possession of a wisdom that far exceeds yours.

Even if we didn't have that knowledge though, it doesn't matter. Even if we can't grasp these things as you say, it doesn't make god a good being. It makes god an ambiguous entity, which still brings us right back to the point that your belief that god is good is based on nothing more than your own desire to believe it.
There you go, again….making assumptions about me.

 I work from 8:30-4:30 five days a week. For while, I was getting up in the morning and spending 1-2 hours every day reading and reviewing material. I was spending my lunch hour everyday continuing the endeavor. Upon my arrival home for the day, I was spending anywhere from 5-7 more hours gobbling up everything I could find. I am no longer near as obsessed as I once was but I do still continue to seek out answers.

What I can tell you is this: right now, I feel better than I can ever remember feeling about the reality of God that I see.

Point being, don’t presume to know how I got to where I am and accuse me of believing something out of “desire.” You haven’t the faintest clue how I arrived where I am.

You realize that your justification here is essentially that you're too stupid to understand and too lazy to question, right?

My answer to this is the same as the one I just gave above.

.............*triple sigh*.

From Websters

Justify "1a : to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable "

You want to argue “words” then we can keep going until the sun burns up, chief.
I feel like I keep repeating myself but, AGAIN, I used the word “seems”, which means:
1. To give the impression of being; appear:
2. To appear to one's own opinion or mind:
3. To appear to be true, probable, or evident:

That means I have the impression that you are doing what I said it “seems” you are doing. Do you really want me to list all of the insults you have leveled against me….or are you willing to concede that there have been numerous occasions when you have done so?

Don't try to use my own words against me. You don't even know what those words mean. Go back to the first post I made in the thread and start following those links. You'll have all the proof you need.
You’re dodging. Prove that I have lied or concede that you have lied in making the accusation.


Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Most True Christians Are Sadists
« Reply #198 on: November 19, 2011, 04:22:29 PM »
(reply #196 snipped to preserve space)
So, where is the lie ? You do know what it means to lie, don't you? You cut and pasted an awful lot of material (perhaps for effect) but you have not demonstrated one iota that I lied.

And, what is up with all of that red font??

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Most True Christians Are Sadists
« Reply #199 on: November 19, 2011, 04:29:19 PM »
Your logic is flawed. Alzael must assume the possibility of God's existence in order to opine on His character or His actions. No proof of God is necessary since the possibility has already been implicitly conceded to by Alzael. If what you contend were true, then everything that Alzael has said about God is completely irrelevant and utter nonsense. In other words, his only reply would have to be: "God does not exist, therefore, there is nothing to judge or comment on."

Nonsense. Anyone can comment on a fictional character that does not truly exist. Alzael need not assume God exists to have an opinion.

You are making the same mistake. Yes, you can comment on a fictional character but it is not logical to ask for proof of same and that is where the logic is flawed. That's the part that I just can't seem to get across. In order to make the comments/accusations that are being made against God, there is an element of concession that He does possibly exist....which, logically precludes his status from being fictional in the discussion.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Most True Christians Are Sadists
« Reply #200 on: November 19, 2011, 04:30:38 PM »
I do not have to assume the possibility of Ursula's existence (from Disney's The Little Mermaid) in order to comment on her character or actions, or Darth Vader's existence (from Star Wars), or Link's existence (from The Legend of Zelda), or any other fictional character for that matter.  Therefore, it is illogical to conclude that someone cannot comment on a being's character or actions unless they assume that there is a possibility of that being existing, because they can and do without ever assuming that such a being might truly exist.  Your statement that his only position can be "God does not exist, therefore, there is nothing to judge or comment on" is therefore both illogical and nonsensical.  A fictional character can exist in the realm of the imagination without ever existing in the real world, and a real person can comment on that fictional character without anyone assuming that the fictional character is in fact real.

To get back to the point, Alzael can comment on the things written in the Bible while assuming those things are fictional in nature.  It is true that he cannot, for example, physically demonstrate the existence of the tree of knowledge that the Bible, in Genesis 2:9, specifically states that God made grow out of the ground.  But he does not have to, because he is not assuming that that part of the Bible describes a real event.  If you want to prove that they are not fictional and therefore truthful, you must provide evidence for God's existence, and further, evidence to show that God actually did the various things attributed to him in the Bible.  You cannot sidestep that need to provide evidence by using sophistry to claim that Alzael already "admitted the possibility of God's existence".
When you have a moment, BibleStudent, I would like to hear your response to this post.

See my reply to 'curiousgirl' above.

Offline curiousgirl

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
  • Darwins +22/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Inquisitive agnostic atheist
Re: Most True Christians Are Sadists
« Reply #201 on: November 19, 2011, 04:33:10 PM »
You are making the same mistake. Yes, you can comment on a fictional character but it is not logical to ask for proof of same and that is where the logic is flawed. That's the part that I just can't seem to get across. In order to make the comments/accusations that are being made against God, there is an element of concession that He does possibly exist....which, logically precludes his status from being fictional in the discussion.

I am saying the character is fictional, therefore I am in a position of skepticism to its actual existence, and I have every right to ask for proof when you claim it exists. If YOU make the claim that God is real and not fictional, YOU need to provide proof for that. If you don't have any proof, just say so.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."-Carl Sagan

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Most True Christians Are Sadists
« Reply #202 on: November 19, 2011, 04:34:11 PM »

So, philosophical reasoning has no place in atheism?

Hi, BibleStudent. What makes you say that (above)? Are you familiar with "Russell's teapot"? My bolding below:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

Quote
Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot, cosmic teapot or Bertrand's teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate the idea that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion.

If you want atheists to think God exists, you would need to provide some logical arguments and some scientific evidence.

Why is the inference always that I am asking for proof that God does not exist? I am not asking that. I am asking how you can reach that conclusion absent a philosophical argument?