Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10
General Religious Discussion / Re: Hell and the end of life
« Last post by dloubet on Yesterday at 07:48:57 PM »
Are you saying you would do it if Judas decided not to?


So you would not help your god to achieve what it set out to do with the whole Jesus thing?

Good. You're more moral than your god.

The important point is to think about the cause that you were wrong. How were you led astray?

I have found out the reasoning behind the atheists' motivation to be good.
However, this does not still mean that you guys' reasons are objective. They sound nice and reasonable, but that is different from being objective.

Perhaps, but the simple one-line explanation I offered for my reason to be nice is completely objective. If I observe that others are more likely to be nice when I am nice, and more likely to be rude when I am rude, then that is a pretty objective result. I'm not guessing, or expressing faith in people, I'm acting on observed results.

But here you are treating "nice and reasonable" like you thought it was a good thing, but when faced with nice and reasonable, you resort to spinning the result in a, "You're only nice because you expect niceness in return!" manner. So which is it? Is nice and reasonable good or bad?

...And you're complaining that our (inherently) subjective views on morality are not objective? That's literally like complaining that green isn't red.

So your moral ideas are subjective? This means they are not true all the time. Slavery and racism used to be OK, but not anymore. Subjective. Obviously you can't say slavery and racism was ALWAYS wrong, then.

Yes, they are subjective. No, they can be true all the time. Mine are true all the time, for me. Slavery was always wrong, for me.

You don't seem to know what subjective means, because you insist on trying to apply an individual's subjective opinion onto everyone all the time, and then act surprised then everyone, with their own subjective opinion, disagrees.

An individual can construct a perfectly consistent subjective moral code that is always true for them. The fact that other times and other individuals hold different moral codes is utterly irrelevant.

MailBag / Re: Jesus loves you! [#2821]
« Last post by Nam on Yesterday at 07:18:04 PM »
I went to the website against my better judgement, and this page alone says, "We are a Christian hate website. Oh, and though we mention many other things, we are mainly against the gay see this link for proof: -- oh, and AIDS are caused by gay sex, and nothing else."

Yeah, hatesite.

But woe is you for using Esther Rolle as a crate to stand on to preach your hate, "I really hope she made it into heaven but blacks don't go to heaven because they're dark, and only light gets in."

I know you didn't say that but it seemed implied by all your other hate speeches. Like Tiger Woods: he's going to hell because other people placed him on a pedestal. That's a black/asian guy for ya -- taking other peoples punishments. Wait! Is Tiger Woods Jesus? He must be, according to you.

Oh, and the whole thing on Mark McGuire -- really? Have you read the Bible? Apparently not because if you had you'd know that every single Christian who does those things are sinning, and are going to hell. Mark McGuire is going to Heaven because he follows Matthew 6:5-6 -- hypocrite much?

This is why I try to stay away from bullshit websites like yours: you are a hateful hypocrite; and the thing is: you probably don't realize it.


General Religious Discussion / Re: JW visited
« Last post by nogodsforme on Yesterday at 07:03:36 PM »
According to this site,'s_Witnesses,

key point: look at the references.  Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. Our Kingdom Ministry.  Watchtower.  Awake!

Jst has no grounds to argue with it.

I'm not arguing with it.  And it doesn't show a dying religion.

What is your evidence that the religion is not dying? Remember, you have to explain what a non-dying religion would look like. You have to give us some numbers that make sense, and that would support your contention about the JW's. Maybe the JW's are growing, maybe the religion is dying. I will accept whatever the evidence shows.

My hypothesis is that the religion is dying (percentage of people who belong in each country is falling) when you look at the numbers worldwide and control for global population increase.
A parent has two children. One child gives the other a pretty flower and a kiss on the cheek. The parent is more powerful than the child. Do we give the parent the credit for one child doing something nice for the other? Or do we just say sometimes children are nice and parents have nothing to do with it?

You see, skeptic, you want to have it both ways. You want to give god credit for the good in the world; sweet children, pretty flowers, kisses on the cheek. But then you want to take god out of the equation whenever anything bad comes along; starving children, ebola, punches to the face.

If god is really in charge, is all powerful and super-duper nice, well, yeah, that accounts for sweet children, pretty flowers, kisses on the cheek. Humans have nothing to do with the good things that happen. It is all because of that super duper nice, powerful god. But what, then, accounts for ebola, staving children and punches to the face? If god is all powerful and super nice, and human have nothing to do with anything good, why blame humans for all the bad and let god off the hook?

It is like having Superman standing by with his arms folded watching while Lex Luthor beats up an elderly grandma. Superman could stop Lex Luthor, but doesn't. We know Lex Luthor is bad, but if Superman could easily stop it, and does not, is he good?

With god it is even more egregious, because Superman did not create Lex Luthor, knowing he would beat up the grandma. God knows how many babies will starve, how many people will die from ebola next year, how many children will punch their brothers.

Most people, if they had god's super powers, would do something to stop ebola right now. But not god. Sooner or later human beings will treat and eventually cure ebola. Just like with smallpox, leprosy, syphilis and the plague. God never cured those diseases--people did it using science, and with no help at all from god. Obviously, if people don't cure ebola, it will not happen. Why even add god to the situation if he is not going to help?

Either he is incompetent--and not able to stop ebola, or he can do it, but doesn't want to, with would make him uncaring about people's suffering. [1] Just like he didn't want to stop leprosy, the plague or smallpox.

So, which is it? Incompetent, or uncaring? And why would you want to worship this guy either way?
 1. Surely because hundreds of people dying while bleeding from the eyes is part of his mysterious wonderful plan that he won't let any of us in on.
Science / Re: What's your stance on climate change?
« Last post by jaimehlers on Yesterday at 06:07:15 PM »
That article isn't far from what I was trying to get across, although I was trying to emphasize the fact that human-caused change could have a greater impact than we'd expect from the degree of change we cause.
General Religious Discussion / Re: Archbishop of Canterbury - doubt?
« Last post by JeffPT on Yesterday at 05:50:19 PM »
It is fine to doubt God's existence if God has not yet revealed Himself to you. Since God has revealed Himself to me, I do not doubt anymore.

I have come to realize that maybe the atheists do have a legitimate reason to be atheist: God never revealed Himself to them yet. No wonder there is a lot of doubt. It is the same way that single people don't understand monogamy because they have never been in love.

Really? Biblegod physically appeared before you and proved he both existed and which god he was?

...or did you 'interpret signs' and conclude that these signs came from a supernatural character your mum and dad told you about?

He did not show up and speak to me like He did to Paul, but it was close enough.

Sorry skeptic... No matter how strong you feel that God revealed himself to you, it's not believable.  It's just not.  I really don't need to hear your story, because it's not going to be good enough.  I know this because we've heard a bunch of stories about how God revealed himself to people and they're all dumb.  If you'd like to share it, please feel free, but you're gonna lose here. 

In order for it to be believable, you would have to provide evidence to back it up.  And that evidence would have to be so strong as to overcome the far more believable position that you're either lying (less likely), or (much more likely) that you are simply interpreting something(s) in a way you were taught to interpret it with the background of God belief, which almost every religious person in the world does. 

Really, he didn't reveal himself to you.  No, he didn't.  God isn't real.  And even if you still stick with the idea that he did, we get no further in the discussion.  It's no different than you saying God is real, and us saying no, he's not.  Only this time you're saying God showed me he was real, and me saying, no he didn't. 

It's fake skeptic.  All fake. 
MailBag / Re: Jesus loves you! [#2821]
« Last post by Nick on Yesterday at 05:37:43 PM »
Actually, He did make them that way (well, He did if He exist.)
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10