whywontgodhealamputees.com

Main Discussion Zone => General Religious Discussion => Topic started by: skeptic54768 on November 25, 2013, 02:28:37 AM

Title: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 25, 2013, 02:28:37 AM
First of all, I would like to issue an apology to the atheists. I am sorry for behaving in ways that you guys deem to be bad behavior. I am going to try very hard to not speak in ways that might be considered insulting.

With that said, I would like this thread to be about various religious discussion about Christianity and God. If you have a question for me, please ask it in this thread. Or if I come up with a topic to discuss, I will post it. This will save space on the board so I don't get accused of hijacking every thread and trolling the board.

Please guys, let's have a serious discussion in this thread.  :)
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Anfauglir on November 25, 2013, 04:24:49 AM
Sure, I have a question.

Assuming that demons exist, and are clever......

Suppose a very clever demon was responsible for orchestrating the collation of the Bible.  His reason for doing this was to accurately report 99% of Yahweh's work, BUT to include within that Bible a few apparently minor but actually extremely important falsehoods.  Those falsehoods would be accepted by believers (because they were contained within a Bible that otherwise seemed unimpeachable), but the nature of those falsehoods would mean that nobody accepting them could acheive salvation.

The question is: how can we tell whether this scenario is correct?  How can we test it and prove it to be wrong?

- - - - -

Skeptic, you may find yourself getting multiple questions on this thread.  If it begins to prove unmanageable, we can set them up as individual debates if you wish - that way you would have one question (and one questioner) per thread.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Zankuu on November 25, 2013, 04:44:36 AM
"I'm sorry if I have insulted you" is an apology. "I'm sorry if you think I have insulted you" is a non-apology apology. Your apology is the same as the latter; you aren't recognizing and apologizing for a behavior you consider insulting, you're apologizing on behalf of those that view your non-insulting behavior as insulting. But anyway, I don't feel as though I'm owed an apology...just wanted to point that out.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Fiji on November 25, 2013, 06:15:22 AM
^^ Apparently, such is called fartbagging

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qc_XWlqURTg
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: relativetruth on November 25, 2013, 06:50:09 AM
If there has only ever being ONE true God (who also created the universe and is all-loving and all-knowing) why does this god allow soo many different interpretations of his nature?

Let's say, for the purposes of argument, that Christians are actually closer to reality then anybody else why does this god continue to allow the majority of the world populations (past and present) (Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddists, ancient Egyptians, ancient Greeks,atheists, ... etc) to be deluded in their beliefs? Especially those that had never heard of Jesus Christ?

There are hundreds of thousands of mutually exclusive creation myths in existence. Only ONE can be correct or they are ALL wrong. If there is ONE correct version of the creation then THIS version had to be told to mankind by THIS god (Man could not have witnessed our own creation).

Why did THIS god decide to tell only a relatively small group of people in around the East Mediterranean  the REAL TRUE story?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: 12 Monkeys on November 25, 2013, 10:21:15 AM
Why was the garden of Eden not a "perfect" place? Evil in the garden and all !
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: median on November 25, 2013, 11:45:42 AM
First of all, I would like to issue an apology to the atheists. I am sorry for behaving in ways that you guys deem to be bad behavior. I am going to try very hard to not speak in ways that might be considered insulting.

With that said, I would like this thread to be about various religious discussion about Christianity and God. If you have a question for me, please ask it in this thread. Or if I come up with a topic to discuss, I will post it. This will save space on the board so I don't get accused of hijacking every thread and trolling the board.

Please guys, let's have a serious discussion in this thread.  :)

I'm not going to ask any of the typical "why" questions regarding your theology b/c I am all too familiar with the spin and rationalizations that you will concoct in order to try and justify them in spite of all evidence to the contrary. If your past on this board is any indication of how you will answer then there is really no point in discussing "why God did X" b/c there is absolutely nothing that could be pointed out to you in that book that could persuade you that your interpretations are in error (since obviously you are committed to it's confirmation - which is confirmation bias - by hook or by crook). Your view is unfalsifiable. Just like the astrologers or Scientology, you are wholly committed to your dogma. Instead of being open-minded and willing to change your view (if shown to be in error or using illogical arguments) you have glued yourself to the assumption you made at the outset. "The bible is the word of God!" you proclaimed, and then began searching for things to confirm. Well Skep, that is 100% backwards to an honest search for truth.

So, my question to you is this: When did you first come to be exposed to Christian teaching (in any form) and how did you first come to believe in 'Jesus'? What is your "testimony"? Give us a detailed history. Please keep in mind that if you leave out any important details to the story you will (according to your own doctrine) be Bearing False Witness. 
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Aaron123 on November 25, 2013, 02:07:43 PM
Is there anything you strongly disagree with god on?

Often, it's said that "the word of god" is simply the theist projecting their own ideas and opinions onto a "god being" of some sort.  Whatever their beliefs, god also "happens" to agree with them.  Can you demonstrate to the contrary?  I don't mean a minor nitpick.  I mean something significant that you strongly, I mean strongly disagree on.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Nam on November 25, 2013, 08:54:49 PM
Skeptic,

Ever been laid?

-Nam
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 25, 2013, 11:21:38 PM
Sure, I have a question.

Assuming that demons exist, and are clever......

Suppose a very clever demon was responsible for orchestrating the collation of the Bible.  His reason for doing this was to accurately report 99% of Yahweh's work, BUT to include within that Bible a few apparently minor but actually extremely important falsehoods.  Those falsehoods would be accepted by believers (because they were contained within a Bible that otherwise seemed unimpeachable), but the nature of those falsehoods would mean that nobody accepting them could acheive salvation.

The question is: how can we tell whether this scenario is correct?  How can we test it and prove it to be wrong?

- - - - -

Skeptic, you may find yourself getting multiple questions on this thread.  If it begins to prove unmanageable, we can set them up as individual debates if you wish - that way you would have one question (and one questioner) per thread.

The bold question is easily answered by saying that you made up this fact based on nothing but your imagination. There is no book saying that the Bible is a word of a demon.

Where do you get your knowledge of demons?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 25, 2013, 11:24:16 PM
If there has only ever being ONE true God (who also created the universe and is all-loving and all-knowing) why does this god allow soo many different interpretations of his nature?

Let's say, for the purposes of argument, that Christians are actually closer to reality then anybody else why does this god continue to allow the majority of the world populations (past and present) (Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddists, ancient Egyptians, ancient Greeks,atheists, ... etc) to be deluded in their beliefs? Especially those that had never heard of Jesus Christ?

There are hundreds of thousands of mutually exclusive creation myths in existence. Only ONE can be correct or they are ALL wrong. If there is ONE correct version of the creation then THIS version had to be told to mankind by THIS god (Man could not have witnessed our own creation).

Why did THIS god decide to tell only a relatively small group of people in around the East Mediterranean  the REAL TRUE story?

I can not tell you why God does the things He does. I can only say that He does them. I do believe that God wants us to come to Christianity out of study and an open mind. The other religions are a test to see who falls for the demons of the other religions and who can identify the demons and come to embrace Christianity and all it's beauty and glory.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: ParkingPlaces on November 25, 2013, 11:25:57 PM
The christian religion appears to be based on two basic kinds of "truths". One, that relevant observable phenomena is consistent with whichever creation story/general explanations  the believer adheres to and two, that a whole bunch of unobserved things are exceedingly true. Being saved, the power of prayer, the requirement of faith, that JC died for our sins, and even sins themselves, for example.

For a believer to participate in that POV, they have to learn and then accept all of the parameters and guidelines. And they have to accept them.  And while the process itself is probably no different than the one we use to learn table manners or our native language, the effect it has on such believers is, to one degree or another, unusually powerful.

That being said, if one is to try to draw an accurate conclusions from the small sampling of christians or alleged christians we have had visit us on on this site, no two end up having identical thoughts and/or beliefs on the subject.  In other words, each believer has been whopped up side the head, so to speak, with a powerful message, but it never takes the same form from inside their skull. Well, maybe not never, but seldom. Even members of tight knit religious groups differ on various details of doctrine or ceremony. Members of the same congregation can busy themselves backbiting each other over tiny details, all the while happily labeling the entire group as being a unified christian this or christian that.

In other words, the message being passed down is powerful, but not powerful (or perhaps accurate) enough to provide coherency or consistency amongst believers. In more oppressive times, such as when the catholic church held dominion over virtually all followers of the christian god and Jesus, there may have been less variation, but Martin Luther hammering a nail in the church door 500 years ago demonstrates that it wasn't all puppy dogs and kittens then either.

Within christianity, there is generic agreement, yes, but specific agreement? No.

A good example would be the myriad versions of heaven and/or hell that we've been told about here on the site. Some will come here and insist that all who fail to accept Jesus will surely burn in hell forever. Others tell us that we are all going to heaven, because there really isn't a hell. Or the hell will be a temporary landing spot. And then some tell us how wonderful heaven will be while others say that very little is known about heaven and that they are just hoping it is as nice as promised.

Some come here insisting that the bible is literal and that the world is 6,000 years old, while others concede evolution, but insist that god started it all

I think that individual believers are following the god that they have been told about, but that they are also following the god that they want. And that such customization is the logical result of generic beliefs haphazardly slapped together and inconsistency passed on. It is a story told thousands of years ago by individuals unable to foresee the future that would be caused by their localized and made up little tales, which were initially intended to either explain or control. And that view helps explain why those stories don't have the coherence necessary to create a consistency one might expect were it all true.

So here is (are) my question(s). Why is the word of your god the source for so many variations? Why is the christian religion, and religions claiming to be christian (but not christian by your standards), so varied? And how could a person interested in becoming a christian find the right version, especially if they made the mistake of asking two different christians for proper instruction/advise?

And don't give me some answer that involves a persons "feelings". That's the prime cause of these variations in the first place. If loving Jesus and getting to heaven are high priorities, doing it right seems relevant. Feelings shouldn't mean a thing.

(And do keep in mind that I am probably the only atheist on the site who has not given you a negative karma. You haven't pissed me off enough. Which means you can either appreciate my civility and answer sincerely or eagerly seek a 100% disapproval rating. Like with religion, that choice is yours.)
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 25, 2013, 11:26:17 PM
Why was the garden of Eden not a "perfect" place? Evil in the garden and all !

This is just a lack of Biblical knowledge. ignorance can be cured though. Eden was never a perfect place. God just said that it was very good, which is not perfect.

By the way, how do you know what perfection is if God does not exist? There is obviously an objective standard of perfection (God) that we use when examining whether or not something is perfect.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 25, 2013, 11:27:36 PM
Is there anything you strongly disagree with god on?

Often, it's said that "the word of god" is simply the theist projecting their own ideas and opinions onto a "god being" of some sort.  Whatever their beliefs, god also "happens" to agree with them.  Can you demonstrate to the contrary?  I don't mean a minor nitpick.  I mean something significant that you strongly, I mean strongly disagree on.

I may disagree with some things like a child disagrees with the parent but still loves them with their whole heart and soul.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 25, 2013, 11:30:15 PM
Skeptic,

Ever been laid?

-Nam

Yes, Nam. I discussed this in my other threads. I was a wild one back in the day before I came to Christ. Now, I am celibate by choice until I get married.

Nothing but Jesus could have changed my life. There's no reason to change if there's no God. God is obviously real. There's absolutely no feeling the world like the Holy Spirit flowing through you. Once someone experiences this, no amount of rational argument can dissuade you from the Eternal King.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 25, 2013, 11:32:15 PM
ParkngPlaces,

Your question was answered in reply #10
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: MadBunny on November 26, 2013, 12:08:44 AM
Skeptic54768,

Pardon me for asking this, but what particular sect of Christianity is it that you have placed your faith with?

I have simple follow up questions, so I'll wait till I find out.
If you become overwhelmed by others I will understand.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: ParkingPlaces on November 26, 2013, 01:09:06 AM
ParkngPlaces,

Your question was answered in reply #10

No, I was talking about variation in christianity. Answer #10 was about variations among all religions. I'm asking why one bible, on religion, comes in so many flavors. And why those differences go beyond denominations and go so far as to be absolutely individual interpretations in some cases. Yours, for instance.

Nor did you answer how someone interested in becoming a christian can pick the right version.

My long screeds don't go away that easily.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 26, 2013, 01:19:41 AM
ParkngPlaces,

Your question was answered in reply #10

No, I was talking about variation in christianity. Answer #10 was about variations among all religions. I'm asking why one bible, on religion, comes in so many flavors. And why those differences go beyond denominations and go so far as to be absolutely individual interpretations in some cases. Yours, for instance.

Nor did you answer how someone interested in becoming a christian can pick the right version.

My long screeds don't go away that easily.

It's very simple. You read Jesus' words and you follow them and believe He is your savior and repent of your sins. There's lots of false prophets out there that deceive people into believing stuff that isn't found in the Bible.

As a simple example, nothing about Catholicism is in the Bible. You can see it for yourself. Don't take my word for it.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Aaron123 on November 26, 2013, 01:24:06 AM
I may disagree with some things like a child disagrees with the parent but still loves them with their whole heart and soul.

You didn't answer the question.  Here it is again.


Is there anything you strongly disagree with god on?

Often, it's said that "the word of god" is simply the theist projecting their own ideas and opinions onto a "god being" of some sort.  Whatever their beliefs, god also "happens" to agree with them.  Can you demonstrate to the contrary?  I don't mean a minor nitpick.  I mean something significant that you strongly, I mean strongly disagree on.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 26, 2013, 01:25:54 AM
I may disagree with some things like a child disagrees with the parent but still loves them with their whole heart and soul.

You didn't answer the question.  Here it is again.


Is there anything you strongly disagree with god on?

Often, it's said that "the word of god" is simply the theist projecting their own ideas and opinions onto a "god being" of some sort.  Whatever their beliefs, god also "happens" to agree with them.  Can you demonstrate to the contrary?  I don't mean a minor nitpick.  I mean something significant that you strongly, I mean strongly disagree on.

Strongly? Then, no.
Just minor simple things I might have done differently.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 26, 2013, 01:28:44 AM
ParkngPlaces,

Your question was answered in reply #10

No, I was talking about variation in christianity. Answer #10 was about variations among all religions. I'm asking why one bible, on religion, comes in so many flavors. And why those differences go beyond denominations and go so far as to be absolutely individual interpretations in some cases. Yours, for instance.

Nor did you answer how someone interested in becoming a christian can pick the right version.

My long screeds don't go away that easily.

They are there because of the false prophets. God wants us to think for ourselves instead of being spoonfed the information in a "bible for dummies" type of way. What's the point of having a brain if God won't let us use it?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: ParkingPlaces on November 26, 2013, 01:51:38 AM
ParkngPlaces,

Your question was answered in reply #10

No, I was talking about variation in christianity. Answer #10 was about variations among all religions. I'm asking why one bible, on religion, comes in so many flavors. And why those differences go beyond denominations and go so far as to be absolutely individual interpretations in some cases. Yours, for instance.

Nor did you answer how someone interested in becoming a christian can pick the right version.

My long screeds don't go away that easily.

They are there because of the false prophets. God wants us to think for ourselves instead of being spoonfed the information in a "bible for dummies" type of way. What's the point of having a brain if God won't let us use it?

Have you been so kind as to make a list of all the false prophets, and of course, a list of the unfalse prophets, so that those around you who want to do christianity right can have something to work with?

What's the point of having a brain if god can't provide clear enough info to be useful. You do realize that many who tell us that they are christian would also tell us that you are being led by a false prophet. I'm just wondering whose criteria I should use.

What makes you sure that you've got it right? How can you tell? Is it just your brain saying "Yup, this is it!". And how can those who listen to false prophets and whose brains say "Yup, this is it!" be provided with corrective information by you, the enlgihtened one?

Its kind of ironic. Those of us who don't listen to any of the prophets aren't really the source of your biggest problem. There are millions who think they believe in your god but they have it wrong, and you, as a true christian, know that they have it wrong, and you could, if you had a way of passing on the special information you have received and accepted, save the whole lot. And here you sit, concentrating on a whole frickin' boatload of atheists who won't ever listen anyway. Wouldn't your time be better spent taking correcting the good intentioned errors of those who think they are christian but are not rather than us, who you couldn't convince if we were standing at the entrance to hell and hearing all the screams?

My friend George, who thinks he is a true christian, who has taught himself Greek so he can read parts of the bible in the original language, thinks that there is no hell with brimstone. Instead, hell is being separated from god for an eternity. I'm talking a wild-assed guess and thinking that you disagree with him on that. But at least he acknowledges, or tries to acknowledge, the same god you believe in. There are millions out there like him. What the fuck are you doing here, where you haven't made a trillionth of an inch of progress in the "saving souls" department.

Go find those like George in your neighborhood. Because with people like him, you have a chance. You will never have the amount of energy required to instill even the slightest doubt in anyone here. And I'm pretty sure I speak for all of us non-believers. If I don't, those who disagree can correct me. But as one the demons have never bothered fucking with, I'm pretty sure I'm right on this one.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Nam on November 26, 2013, 02:01:24 AM
Skeptic,

Ever been laid?

-Nam

Yes, Nam. I discussed this in my other threads. I was a wild one back in the day before I came to Christ. Now, I am celibate by choice until I get married.

Nothing but Jesus could have changed my life. There's no reason to change if there's no God. God is obviously real. There's absolutely no feeling the world like the Holy Spirit flowing through you. Once someone experiences this, no amount of rational argument can dissuade you from the Eternal King.

What was his name?

-Nam
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 26, 2013, 02:09:30 AM
What was his name?

-Nam

Please, Nam. Let the big boys talk. No need for 3rd grade level insults.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Aaron123 on November 26, 2013, 02:26:31 AM
Strongly? Then, no.
Just minor simple things I might have done differently.

So you and god agree on pretty much everything.   Keep in mind part of my original post.


Quote
Often, it's said that "the word of god" is simply the theist projecting their own ideas and opinions onto a "god being" of some sort.  Whatever their beliefs, god also "happens" to agree with them.

So what's the difference between your opinion, and that of god?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Add Homonym on November 26, 2013, 02:49:50 AM
There's absolutely no feeling the world like the Holy Spirit flowing through you. Once someone experiences this, no amount of rational argument can dissuade you from the Eternal King.

How do you know it's the Holy Spirit flowing through you, and not something pretending to be the Holy Spirit?

If I join your sect, do I have to believe that the world is 6000 years old, even though it obviously is a lot older? To what extent am I required to lie, to keep up appearances?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Add Homonym on November 26, 2013, 03:21:30 AM
What the fuck are you doing here, where you haven't made a trillionth of an inch of progress in the "saving souls" department.

2.5 Deconversion Personal Relationship (Part 1)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-q8WZ1Ibso

Evid3nc3 deals with why Christians tangle with atheists. It's because their faith is failing.

Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: relativetruth on November 26, 2013, 03:48:44 AM
If there has only ever being ONE true God (who also created the universe and is all-loving and all-knowing) why does this god allow soo many different interpretations of his nature?

Let's say, for the purposes of argument, that Christians are actually closer to reality then anybody else why does this god continue to allow the majority of the world populations (past and present) (Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddists, ancient Egyptians, ancient Greeks,atheists, ... etc) to be deluded in their beliefs? Especially those that had never heard of Jesus Christ?

There are hundreds of thousands of mutually exclusive creation myths in existence. Only ONE can be correct or they are ALL wrong. If there is ONE correct version of the creation then THIS version had to be told to mankind by THIS god (Man could not have witnessed our own creation).

Why did THIS god decide to tell only a relatively small group of people in around the East Mediterranean  the REAL TRUE story?

I can not tell you why God does the things He does. I can only say that He does them. I do believe that God wants us to come to Christianity out of study and an open mind. The other religions are a test to see who falls for the demons of the other religions and who can identify the demons and come to embrace Christianity and all it's beauty and glory.
If you don't know why your god does the things he does, how do you know that he is telling you the truth?

Your blind faith leaves you very vulnerable to manipulation by very powerful aliens or demons who make you feel good about yourself by messing with your mind.  You could just be being groomed by lulling you into a false sense of security with promises of heaven in the afterlife.

If a very powerful alien appeared to me from the sky amongst thunder and lightning and then proceded to show me all sorts magical tricks that seem to defy the laws of physics I would be amazed and be in awe. If this alien then showed compassion by restoring broken limbs of aninmals I would be impressed. If this alien further told me that he created the universe and he is all-good.
Why should I believe him? Why should I not believe him?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Ataraxia on November 26, 2013, 03:56:46 AM
Can you provide an example of something that exists that can't be evidence for God?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Nam on November 26, 2013, 04:18:11 AM
What was his name?

-Nam

Please, Nam. Let the big boys talk. No need for 3rd grade level insults.

I was being serious. Was it a huge breakup? Is that what drove you to the insanity you are now in?

Seriously?

If a woman, which I doubt, same question.


-Nam
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Jonny-UK on November 26, 2013, 04:39:42 AM
Quote
sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.”
"“…

I guess you still have not sold your computer then.

But if you give so much away that you are poor and the poor are given so much that they stop being poor, do they then have to give it back again to return to being poor and so on and so on?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: relativetruth on November 26, 2013, 04:44:14 AM
By the way, how do you know what perfection is if God does not exist? There is obviously an objective standard of perfection (God) that we use when examining whether or not something is perfect.
How would you describe a perfect umbrella? i.e one that is perfect for you.
Would your description be the same as my description? That's very unlikely.

What about an absolutely perfect umbrella one that is perfect for everybody? Could you describe it? Could I?

You might say that although we don't know the criteria to make an absolutely perfect umbrella we would both recognise it as perfect from our own perspective if we ever encountered one.

If something is absolutely perfect it must be perfect from every point of view.

The perfect god that you seem to be describing in all your posts does not seem to be perfect to me. My description of a perfect god is entirely different to yours. So an absolutely perfect god might still to be possible but it certainly is not yours because yours fails the universality test
i.e. it is not perfect to me.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Anfauglir on November 26, 2013, 07:31:21 AM
The question is: how can we tell whether this scenario is correct?  How can we test it and prove it to be wrong?


The bold question is easily answered by saying that you made up this fact based on nothing but your imagination. There is no book saying that the Bible is a word of a demon.

What an absolutely stunning sidestep.  "It just can't be", is your answer.  So in other words you have NO way of knowing whether that scenario is true, you just won't think about it. 

Well, at least I've confirmed that this thread of yours will just be the usual evasions.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Anfauglir on November 27, 2013, 03:26:46 AM
Skeptic.  This thread has been opened, on the understanding that you will give considered and non-trivial answers to the questions you are asked.  The ostensible reason for this thread is to allow you to answer the questions posed.

Failure to answer questions in a non-trivial way, and simply to cite your theology without genuine discussion, will be regarded as preaching, which as I am sure you will know is against forum rules.

I will not be engaging further in this thread as a participant, but will be keeping a close eye on the depth of the answers you give.

You asked for serious discussion.  Let's see one.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Nam on November 27, 2013, 04:41:42 AM
Well, I guess that counts me out. I mean, one can't talk seriously to someone who starts out not speaking seriously.

;)

-Nam
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: 12 Monkeys on November 27, 2013, 10:15:09 AM
If there has only ever being ONE true God (who also created the universe and is all-loving and all-knowing) why does this god allow soo many different interpretations of his nature?

Let's say, for the purposes of argument, that Christians are actually closer to reality then anybody else why does this god continue to allow the majority of the world populations (past and present) (Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddists, ancient Egyptians, ancient Greeks,atheists, ... etc) to be deluded in their beliefs? Especially those that had never heard of Jesus Christ?

There are hundreds of thousands of mutually exclusive creation myths in existence. Only ONE can be correct or they are ALL wrong. If there is ONE correct version of the creation then THIS version had to be told to mankind by THIS god (Man could not have witnessed our own creation).

Why did THIS god decide to tell only a relatively small group of people in around the East Mediterranean  the REAL TRUE story?

I can not tell you why God does the things He does. I can only say that He does them. I do believe that God wants us to come to Christianity out of study and an open mind. The other religions are a test to see who falls for the demons of the other religions and who can identify the demons and come to embrace Christianity and all it's beauty and glory.
Who says God is anything more than the God of the Jews? Jesus did not form or create Christianity,neither did God. Some dude named Paul and a few other dudes created Christianity,first of you still have to prove God is interested in peoples other than Jews
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Jag on November 27, 2013, 11:29:23 AM
Skep I have a question that I sincerely want an answer to, and you tend to be a bit hard to pin down. It's posted right here: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25908.msg585684.html#msg585684

I genuinely want to know your answer.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: median on November 27, 2013, 01:35:20 PM
Skep, please respond in length to my post on page #1. Note: This requires you to actually read the whole thing.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: jdawg70 on November 27, 2013, 01:54:45 PM
Which version of the bible are you talking about whenever you bring it up?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Anfauglir on November 28, 2013, 03:52:07 AM
Okay chaps - that's sufficient questions for Skeptic to address for now please.  Let's hear his considered answers before we throw any more out there.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Nam on November 28, 2013, 04:34:39 AM
Okay chaps - that's sufficient questions for Skeptic to address for now please.  Let's hear his considered answers before we throw any more out there.

I doubt he's coming back to this topic. His last comment was two days ago, he's clearly been logged in and made comments elsewhere.

-Nam
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Anfauglir on November 28, 2013, 08:04:29 AM
I doubt he's coming back to this topic. His last comment was two days ago, he's clearly been logged in and made comments elsewhere.

I would expect he is giving careful consideration to the questions being posed, and carefully composing detailed replies rather than off-the-cuff superficial responses.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: 12 Monkeys on November 28, 2013, 10:16:04 AM
Why was the garden of Eden not a "perfect" place? Evil in the garden and all !

This is just a lack of Biblical knowledge. ignorance can be cured though. Eden was never a perfect place. God just said that it was very good, which is not perfect.

By the way, how do you know what perfection is if God does not exist? There is obviously an objective standard of perfection (God) that we use when examining whether or not something is perfect.
Care to back the statement up with quotes or passages from the Bible,I dont remember reading how God said he created imperfection anywhere.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 28, 2013, 12:19:08 PM
Quote
sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.”
"“…

I guess you still have not sold your computer then.

But if you give so much away that you are poor and the poor are given so much that they stop being poor, do they then have to give it back again to return to being poor and so on and so on?

You don't understand. You can have riches. You just can't be obsessed with them to the point where they are the #1 focus of your life.

There are a lot of professional athletes that are Christians with enormous wealth but they always give credit to God first and foremost.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Nam on November 28, 2013, 02:55:10 PM
Quote
sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.”
"“…

I guess you still have not sold your computer then.

But if you give so much away that you are poor and the poor are given so much that they stop being poor, do they then have to give it back again to return to being poor and so on and so on?

You don't understand. You can have riches. You just can't be obsessed with them to the point where they are the #1 focus of your life.

There are a lot of professional athletes that are Christians with enormous wealth but they always give credit to God first and foremost.

"Thank you Jesus for all the millions you gave me for the hard work I do. Thank you Jesus to my wife who spends it all but still suks my dick like I like it! Thank you Jesus! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you![1]

-Nam
 1. for my mistress who also goes down on my wife!
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Jonny-UK on November 28, 2013, 03:11:42 PM
sell all that thou hast
You don't understand. You can have riches. You just can't be obsessed with them to the point where they are the #1 focus of your life.
You are right, I don't understand.
Perhaps you could list what someone that wanted to get to heaven would actually have to do.
A sort of summary of the key points, as you see it.
I appreciate you are getting a lot of questions fired at you but a clear list of the can and can't do might stop a lot of the same points being asked.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Jonny-UK on November 28, 2013, 04:13:18 PM
There are a lot of professional athletes that are Christians with enormous wealth but they always give credit to God first and foremost.
I cannot see any valid point to this statement. There are a lot of athletes that are not christians that also have enormous wealth and who do not need to give credit to a god. What are the christian athletes giving credit for?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: median on November 28, 2013, 07:16:51 PM

You don't understand. You can have riches. You just can't be obsessed with them to the point where they are the #1 focus of your life.

There are a lot of professional athletes that are Christians with enormous wealth but they always give credit to God first and foremost.

This is called SPIN. It isn't at all what the bible actually says. Taken 'in context' it says quite clearly that you must sell all of your possessions and follow Jesus, that it is basically impossible for a rich man to "enter into the kingdom of heaven". Again, taking "into context" the fact that YOU are commanded to be "Christlike" (which means to mimic Jesus and his example here on earth), then you are not supposed to have 'a place to lay your head', that you should not be 'storing up your treasures on earth' (aka - no savings, no investment - only what 'the Lord' provides today).

This is just another example, in the long line of examples, of how you (like most Christians) cherry-pick the bible passages that you want it to be saying and ignore (or SPIN) the others to fit the context that you want. It's called inventing your own version of Christianity to suit your desires. And rich professional athletes are no exception. They are storing up treasures here on earth (as are you if you have a bank account, a house, a computer, or other common conveniences).

Sorry, by the words of your own 'master' you are not a true follower of that master.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: MadBunny on November 29, 2013, 01:30:41 AM
I still have no idea what sect of Christianity Skeptic54768 claims to be a part of.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Nam on November 29, 2013, 01:38:18 AM
I still have no idea what sect of Christianity Skeptic54768 claims to be a part of.

No one does. But nogodsforme, and myself think he's a JW.

-Nam
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 29, 2013, 02:56:35 AM
I still have no idea what sect of Christianity Skeptic54768 claims to be a part of.

No one does. But nogodsforme, and myself think he's a JW.

-Nam

No, I am not a JW. They are false prophets.

I am non-denominational. All I do is read the Bible and try my best to live like my Savior. That's all that's required. Your own body is the Church, the metaphorical body of Christ.

It's not even a religion, to be honest. it's more of a philosophy.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Nam on November 29, 2013, 03:39:16 AM
I still have no idea what sect of Christianity Skeptic54768 claims to be a part of.

No one does. But nogodsforme, and myself think he's a JW.

-Nam

No, I am not a JW. They are false prophets.

I am non-denominational. All I do is read the Bible and try my best to live like my Savior. That's all that's required. Your own body is the Church, the metaphorical body of Christ.

It's not even a religion, to be honest. it's more of a philosophy.

It's not a philosophy. Philosophies don't punish you. They don't have laws. They don't say when you die you will go to a kind or horrible place. Etc.,

Philosophy is only about the learning of something revolving reality and knowledge. That's it.

Try again.

-Nam
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: median on November 29, 2013, 04:01:26 AM

No, I am not a JW. They are false prophets.

I am non-denominational. All I do is read the Bible and try my best to live like my Savior. That's all that's required. Your own body is the Church, the metaphorical body of Christ.

It's not even a religion, to be honest. it's more of a philosophy.

This is more of you making up your own version of Christianity to suit yourself. I can point you to Christian scholars and pastors who would show you this. Have you even studied Christian history, the history of Christian doctrine, the old creeds, the canonization, or the writings of the fathers of Christendom? The bible itself in James ch 1 states that you have a religion, and it does not say that your body is the church. You need to keep reading. Perhaps pickup Systematic Theology from Wayne Grudem (a renowned bible scholar and teacher of theology at Westminster Seminary). These things you keep claiming are just not accurate. 
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Anfauglir on November 29, 2013, 05:01:46 AM
Quote
sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.”
"“…

I guess you still have not sold your computer then.

But if you give so much away that you are poor and the poor are given so much that they stop being poor, do they then have to give it back again to return to being poor and so on and so on?

You don't understand. You can have riches. You just can't be obsessed with them to the point where they are the #1 focus of your life.

There are a lot of professional athletes that are Christians with enormous wealth but they always give credit to God first and foremost.

Matthew 25: "Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?  When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?  Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?  And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. "

I do not understand how there can be people with nothing, while people have plenty, and those people with plenty believe they will still go to heaven.  It seems to directly contradict the direct words of Christ.

Indeed, the whole philosophy of "god gave me riches, so its okay" doesn't seem to fit with the words of Christ.  My understanding would be - "yes, god DID give you riches - so that you could use them ALL to bring good to the world, not so you could have three cars and a 42" TV".
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Jonny-UK on November 29, 2013, 07:28:41 AM
The next question must be how much wealth can a person actually be allowed to keep?  How would you know if you had kept too much? Can you give too much to the poor so that they are then in a position of needing to give some away?

The point I am making is that if someone is required to give away all that they have to get to heaven then surely that must mean that nobody else can accept it as you may then be stopping the poor from getting to heaven.
I could accept that pehaps the meaning is that everyone should have just what they need but that is not what it says.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: 12 Monkeys on November 29, 2013, 10:40:23 AM
Can a gay couple,who are Christian and love Jesus be accepted by God? Do the OT rules Jesus fulfilled with his sacrifice still apply in this case?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 29, 2013, 11:28:49 AM
Quote
sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.”
"“…

I guess you still have not sold your computer then.

But if you give so much away that you are poor and the poor are given so much that they stop being poor, do they then have to give it back again to return to being poor and so on and so on?

You don't understand. You can have riches. You just can't be obsessed with them to the point where they are the #1 focus of your life.

There are a lot of professional athletes that are Christians with enormous wealth but they always give credit to God first and foremost.

Matthew 25: "Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?  When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?  Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?  And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. "

I do not understand how there can be people with nothing, while people have plenty, and those people with plenty believe they will still go to heaven.  It seems to directly contradict the direct words of Christ.

Indeed, the whole philosophy of "god gave me riches, so its okay" doesn't seem to fit with the words of Christ.  My understanding would be - "yes, god DID give you riches - so that you could use them ALL to bring good to the world, not so you could have three cars and a 42" TV".

No, riches are not bad. Abraham had riches. Job had riches. When Job passed the test, God gave him even more riches.

You know why? Because they were men of God first and foremost.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: median on November 29, 2013, 11:33:45 AM

No, riches are not bad. Abraham had riches. Job had riches. When Job passed the test, God gave him even more riches.

You know why? Because they were men of God first and foremost.

But that was under the "old covenant" see. We are supposed to be under the "new" now right? So the OT doesn't apply right? God changes the rules all the time right? In the OT he slaughtered millions. Then he came down, sacrificed himself to himself and became a "turn the other cheek" guy who wiped away the old law, right?

See the inconsistency? This theology is bankrupt.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 29, 2013, 11:34:01 AM
Can a gay couple,who are Christian and love Jesus be accepted by God? Do the OT rules Jesus fulfilled with his sacrifice still apply in this case?

That is something I am not sure about. While they can certainly ask God to forgive them of their sinning lifestyle, they do it repeatedly every day by engaging in the relationship.

I would hope God forgives him and allows them into Heaven because I love gay people and want them in paradise. But, i can't say for sure.

Sorry. :(
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: median on November 29, 2013, 11:36:46 AM

That is something I am not sure about. While they can certainly ask God to forgive them of their sinning lifestyle, they do it repeatedly every day by engaging in the relationship.

I would hope God forgives him and allows them into Heaven because I love gay people and want them in paradise. But, i can't say for sure.

Sorry. :(

You aren't reading your bible dude. Galatians ch 5, 1 Corinthians ch 6, and Revelation 21. They will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Jesus even says that "few there be that find it". So even most professing Christians are going to this 'hell' according to that book.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 29, 2013, 11:37:37 AM

No, riches are not bad. Abraham had riches. Job had riches. When Job passed the test, God gave him even more riches.

You know why? Because they were men of God first and foremost.

But that was under the "old covenant" see. We are supposed to be under the "new" now right? So the OT doesn't apply right? God changes the rules all the time right? In the OT he slaughtered millions. Then he came down, sacrificed himself to himself and became a "turn the other cheek" guy who wiped away the old law, right?

See the inconsistency? This theology is bankrupt.

No, there's a story in John where Jesus use expensive perfume. the disciples ask him, "Can't this bottle be sold for a lot of money and give to the poor?" Jesus responded by saying, "The poor will always be with you but I will not always be with you."

If absolutely no riches were allowed, Jesus would have sold it.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 29, 2013, 11:38:48 AM

That is something I am not sure about. While they can certainly ask God to forgive them of their sinning lifestyle, they do it repeatedly every day by engaging in the relationship.

I would hope God forgives him and allows them into Heaven because I love gay people and want them in paradise. But, i can't say for sure.

Sorry. :(

You aren't reading your bible dude. Galatians ch 5, 1 Corinthians ch 6, and Revelation 21. They will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Jesus even says that "few there be that find it". So even most professing Christians are going to this 'hell' according to that book.

yes, if they don't ask for forgiveness they won't be there.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: median on November 29, 2013, 11:40:42 AM

No, there's a story in John where Jesus use expensive perfume. the disciples ask him, "Can't this bottle be sold for a lot of money and give to the poor?" Jesus responded by saying, "The poor will always be with you but I will not always be with you."

If absolutely no riches were allowed, Jesus would have sold it.

Wrong again. Under Christian doctrine the 'oil' was used to 'anoint' him prior to death. You really need to read your bible more.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: median on November 29, 2013, 11:43:29 AM

yes, if they don't ask for forgiveness they won't be there.

Asking for forgiveness is found nowhere in those passages. If they 'practice' sin they will not enter. That's what it says. It also says faith without works is dead. Of course, I don't believe any of this nonsense b/c it's clearly fiction but the bible clearly teaches that the overwhelming majority of professing Christians (not just people) will not enter heaven!

Real loving!
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 29, 2013, 11:45:32 AM

yes, if they don't ask for forgiveness they won't be there.

Asking for forgiveness is found nowhere in those passages. If they 'practice' sin they will not enter. That's what it says. It also says faith without works is dead. Of course, I don't believe any of this nonsense b/c it's clearly fiction but the bible clearly teaches that the overwhelming majority of professing Christians (not just people) will not enter heaven!

Everyone practices sin! The key is trying to stop instead of engaging in it over and over again like a revolving door.

If committing even one sin put you in Hell, then nobody would ever be in Heaven.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 29, 2013, 11:46:34 AM
I have to go to work guys. I will be back later.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: median on November 29, 2013, 11:55:13 AM

Everyone practices sin! The key is trying to stop instead of engaging in it over and over again like a revolving door.

If committing even one sin put you in Hell, then nobody would ever be in Heaven.

Then you have now one more place where the bible contradicts itself. Anyone who practices sin will not 'enter the kingdom', and everyone practices sin. But some people (who practice sin) will enter. Remember, Paul is writing to Christians, not non-believers and he's telling them that anyone among them that practices sin will not enter! I'm sorry, this theology is bunk dude.

CONTRADICTION:

All practice sin
Anyone who practices sin will not enter
There are a select few that will enter
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: MadBunny on November 29, 2013, 12:10:07 PM
I still have no idea what sect of Christianity Skeptic54768 claims to be a part of.

No one does. But nogodsforme, and myself think he's a JW.

-Nam

No, I am not a JW. They are false prophets.

I am non-denominational. All I do is read the Bible and try my best to live like my Savior. That's all that's required. Your own body is the Church, the metaphorical body of Christ.

It's not even a religion, to be honest. it's more of a philosophy.


I see.  Thank you for responding to this.

Are you familiar with the concept of S.P.A.G?

Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Nam on November 29, 2013, 02:03:14 PM

No, riches are not bad. Abraham had riches. Job had riches. When Job passed the test, God gave him even more riches.

You know why? Because they were men of God first and foremost.

But that was under the "old covenant" see. We are supposed to be under the "new" now right? So the OT doesn't apply right? God changes the rules all the time right? In the OT he slaughtered millions. Then he came down, sacrificed himself to himself and became a "turn the other cheek" guy who wiped away the old law, right?

See the inconsistency? This theology is bankrupt.

That's also skeptic's inconsistency since he's said the OT doesn't apply to him or other Christians. So, when he references it he contradicts his own statement about it unless he can show that it is mentioned in the NT.

-Nam
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Nam on November 29, 2013, 02:07:10 PM

No, riches are not bad. Abraham had riches. Job had riches. When Job passed the test, God gave him even more riches.

You know why? Because they were men of God first and foremost.

But that was under the "old covenant" see. We are supposed to be under the "new" now right? So the OT doesn't apply right? God changes the rules all the time right? In the OT he slaughtered millions. Then he came down, sacrificed himself to himself and became a "turn the other cheek" guy who wiped away the old law, right?

See the inconsistency? This theology is bankrupt.

No, there's a story in John where Jesus use expensive perfume. the disciples ask him, "Can't this bottle be sold for a lot of money and give to the poor?" Jesus responded by saying, "The poor will always be with you but I will not always be with you."

If absolutely no riches were allowed, Jesus would have sold it.

So, Jesus responded selfishly? He wanted the expensive perfume while not wanting to feed the poor?

lol!

-Nam
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: ParkingPlaces on November 29, 2013, 02:23:32 PM
No, riches are not bad. Abraham had riches. Job had riches. When Job passed the test, God gave him even more riches.

You know why? Because they were men of God first and foremost.

Ah, well, that explains the success of the five richest men in the world today: Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Larry Ellison, Carlos Slim Helu and Amancio Ortega. They must be close to god, like you said.

Lets see, Bill Gates, atheist, Warren Buffet, agnostic, Larry Ellison, Jewish by birth but agnostic, Carlos Slim Helu, demon catholic and Amancio Ortega, also a demon catholic.

Gee, that being close to god really works out well. You hit it right on the nose.

Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: G-Roll on November 29, 2013, 02:35:18 PM
I actually have a question.

Why does Satan hate mankind?
I had a drunken discussion with the wife the other night and she said “imagine if I came home with a baby and didn’t inform you about it or anything. I just showed up with it. Then I showered the baby with all our money and time and almost forgot all about you. Wouldn’t you be mad at the baby or blame the baby for your unhappiness?”
My reply was no. Id blame her because the kid had nothing to do with it.

So why does Satan hate mankind so much? To the point that if I worship him I don’t become a demon when I die. I don’t become a soldier in Satan’s army to fight in the battle described in revelations. No he just tortures me. That seems pretty stupid for the most sneakiest and most clever villain of all time. Even Genghis Khan knew that he could use more soldiers than what he started with.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: median on November 29, 2013, 02:50:57 PM
I actually have a question.

Why does Satan hate mankind?
I had a drunken discussion with the wife the other night and she said “imagine if I came home with a baby and didn’t inform you about it or anything. I just showed up with it. Then I showered the baby with all our money and time and almost forgot all about you. Wouldn’t you be mad at the baby or blame the baby for your unhappiness?”
My reply was no. Id blame her because the kid had nothing to do with it.

So why does Satan hate mankind so much? To the point that if I worship him I don’t become a demon when I die. I don’t become a soldier in Satan’s army to fight in the battle described in revelations. No he just tortures me. That seems pretty stupid for the most sneakiest and most clever villain of all time. Even Genghis Khan knew that he could use more soldiers than what he started with.

That's what happens when you try to turn fiction and superstition into an actual belief system.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: G-Roll on November 29, 2013, 03:00:15 PM
Yeah kind of like if Darth Vader forced choked the entire empire then wondered why the Rebels won the war.

In my wife’s defense she was playing devil’s advocate. And drunk… really drunk.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: OldChurchGuy on November 29, 2013, 06:08:02 PM
First of all, I would like to issue an apology to the atheists. I am sorry for behaving in ways that you guys deem to be bad behavior. I am going to try very hard to not speak in ways that might be considered insulting.

With that said, I would like this thread to be about various religious discussion about Christianity and God. If you have a question for me, please ask it in this thread. Or if I come up with a topic to discuss, I will post it. This will save space on the board so I don't get accused of hijacking every thread and trolling the board.

Please guys, let's have a serious discussion in this thread.  :)

Is the Bible (Hebrew Bible aka "The Old Testament" and The New Testament combined) the divinely inspired inerrant word of God?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: median on November 29, 2013, 06:11:17 PM

Is the Bible (Hebrew Bible aka "The Old Testament" and The New Testament combined) the divinely inspired inerrant word of God?

He has already answered this question, in other places, in the affirmative. Yes, he believes that.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: MadBunny on November 29, 2013, 09:52:26 PM
Skeptic, it seems is a Cafeteria Christian.  SPAG, in other words.  Funny how the bible always seems to align itself along his particular moral choices in life.

Nothing worse about that than most.  After all given the poor structure of the bible and it's contradicting elements it's effectively a given that cherry picking will commence.

Thank you Skeptic54768 for helping to clear this up.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Nam on November 29, 2013, 09:55:22 PM
I still have no idea what sect of Christianity Skeptic54768 claims to be a part of.

He stated "non-denominational" in reply to me today, or yesterday. I guess that makes him a "pure" Christian.

;)

-Nam
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 29, 2013, 10:25:34 PM
I actually have a question.

Why does Satan hate mankind?
I had a drunken discussion with the wife the other night and she said “imagine if I came home with a baby and didn’t inform you about it or anything. I just showed up with it. Then I showered the baby with all our money and time and almost forgot all about you. Wouldn’t you be mad at the baby or blame the baby for your unhappiness?”
My reply was no. Id blame her because the kid had nothing to do with it.

So why does Satan hate mankind so much? To the point that if I worship him I don’t become a demon when I die. I don’t become a soldier in Satan’s army to fight in the battle described in revelations. No he just tortures me. That seems pretty stupid for the most sneakiest and most clever villain of all time. Even Genghis Khan knew that he could use more soldiers than what he started with.

I am literally in shock at this response. I thought atheists were Biblical experts? I will explain again, then.

Satan hates us because we worship God. He knows that's the right choice. So, when he fools someone into following him, he's happy that you are going against God, but he's secretly laughing at you because you have just sealed your fate to Hell. Satan does not torture anyone. Satan will be tortured in Hell. He does not run Hell, which is a common misconception. He just wants to drag down as many people as he can with him.

Is this simple enough to understand?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: jynnan tonnix on November 29, 2013, 10:35:14 PM
So. Satan has absolutely no empathy? He was created as a completely evil entity with no thoughts other than his own satisfaction? Why, exactly, if he is (or will be, at any rate) in a situation of eternal torment, would it make him happy to know others are sharing in the agony?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 29, 2013, 10:41:12 PM
So. Satan has absolutely no empathy? He was created as a completely evil entity with no thoughts other than his own satisfaction? Why, exactly, if he is (or will be, at any rate) in a situation of eternal torment, would it make him happy to know others are sharing in the agony?

Satan was not created evil. He was in Heaven and chose to rebel and become pure evil. It's all in the Bible.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 29, 2013, 10:43:29 PM

No, riches are not bad. Abraham had riches. Job had riches. When Job passed the test, God gave him even more riches.

You know why? Because they were men of God first and foremost.

But that was under the "old covenant" see. We are supposed to be under the "new" now right? So the OT doesn't apply right? God changes the rules all the time right? In the OT he slaughtered millions. Then he came down, sacrificed himself to himself and became a "turn the other cheek" guy who wiped away the old law, right?

See the inconsistency? This theology is bankrupt.

That's also skeptic's inconsistency since he's said the OT doesn't apply to him or other Christians. So, when he references it he contradicts his own statement about it unless he can show that it is mentioned in the NT.

-Nam

Just because it doesn't apply to us today doesn't mean it was always irrelevant.

Cmon Nam, get your head in the game.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: natlegend on November 29, 2013, 10:45:42 PM
Skeptic, I asked this in another thread which you then apparently abandoned, and I think it may be applicable here to ask it again...

Quote
Skeptic, please define for me what you believe defines a OneTrueChristian.

Please use point form, and be as.  specific as possible. I will not accept vague answers, I want the truth from you and I want it now. If ALL other religions are wrong, please convince me that yours is the correct one, and give valid reasons why.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: ParkingPlaces on November 29, 2013, 10:48:13 PM
I'm absolutely shocked that you think that people influenced by demons would also have accurate knowledge about the history of your version of the bible.

But you go ahead and make a big issue out of this. That will give you a good excuse not to respond to our questions and comments on other, more pertinent matters. Ones that would require intellectual effort on your part. And we know how you feel about stuff like that.

Of course, there is probably a demon controlling you and keeping you from facing issues that we've brought up. Don't worry, we understand. It happens all the time around here.

Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: natlegend on November 29, 2013, 10:51:41 PM
Satan was not created evil. He was in Heaven and chose to rebel and become pure evil. It's all in the Bible.

Last I heard, heaven is an awesome.place. Why would this Satan fellow choose otherwise? There are literally billions of people on this planet who are doing what they think is the right thing to get into heaven. Satan already knew what heaven was like but he chose to rebel. Is there something about heaven that we don't know about?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Nam on November 29, 2013, 10:52:12 PM
Just because it doesn't apply to us today doesn't mean it was always irrelevant.

Cmon Nam, get your head in the game.

Oh, that makes sense. Sounds like you're backtracking. Either "God's Word" always applies or never applies. Can't have your cake and eat it, too.

-Nam
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: OldChurchGuy on November 29, 2013, 10:52:56 PM

Is the Bible (Hebrew Bible aka "The Old Testament" and The New Testament combined) the divinely inspired inerrant word of God?

He has already answered this question, in other places, in the affirmative. Yes, he believes that.

Thanks.  Does he see this as a matter of faith or a matter of fact?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Nam on November 29, 2013, 10:54:29 PM

Is the Bible (Hebrew Bible aka "The Old Testament" and The New Testament combined) the divinely inspired inerrant word of God?

He has already answered this question, in other places, in the affirmative. Yes, he believes that.

Thanks.  Does he see this as a matter of faith or a matter of fact?

Everything he believes is a matter-of-fact, even his faith.

If anyone disagrees with him, they are demons.

-Nam
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 29, 2013, 10:57:28 PM
Everything he believes is a matter-of-fact, even his faith.

If anyone disagrees with him, they are demons.

-Nam

They are not demons, Nam. They are being led BY demons. There is a difference.

I believe there are only 2 sides in this world.
 If you are not on God's side, which side is left?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: ParkingPlaces on November 29, 2013, 11:00:10 PM
Everything he believes is a matter-of-fact, even his faith.

If anyone disagrees with him, they are demons.

-Nam

They are not demons, Nam. They are being led BY demons. There is a difference.

I believe there are only 2 sides in this world.
 If you are not on God's side, which side is left?

And lucky you, you get to decide all the criteria and stuff. We're so envious.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Nam on November 29, 2013, 11:02:27 PM
Everything he believes is a matter-of-fact, even his faith.

If anyone disagrees with him, they are demons.

-Nam

They are not demons, Nam. They are being led BY demons. There is a difference.

I believe there are only 2 sides in this world.
 If you are not on God's side, which side is left?

Semantics.

-Nam
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: jynnan tonnix on November 29, 2013, 11:05:02 PM

Satan was not created evil. He was in Heaven and chose to rebel and become pure evil. It's all in the Bible.

That makes no sense, though...If he was not created evil, there is good in him somewhere, even if he chose to rebel. My question was about empathy. Why, even (or especially) if he is suffering eternal torture for his decision, would he take pleasure in reining in countless other souls to share in it? Or is he simply harvesting those souls which do not make the cut to join him whenever he DOES end up in the pit? In which case, the question still stands. Why would a being created "good" lose all sense of empathy and want only eternal torment for as many souls as he could garner? And in any case, where does it get him? Shouldn't he, knowing the wages of rebellion, rather be pointing the way for people to avoid that?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 29, 2013, 11:05:06 PM
And lucky you, you get to decide all the criteria and stuff. We're so envious.

I am confused. Do you think I wrote the Bible?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 29, 2013, 11:07:21 PM

Satan was not created evil. He was in Heaven and chose to rebel and become pure evil. It's all in the Bible.

That makes no sense, though...If he was not created evil, there is good in him somewhere, even if he chose to rebel. My question was about empathy. Why, even (or especially) if he is suffering eternal torture for his decision, would he take pleasure in reining in countless other souls to share in it? Or is he simply harvesting those souls which do not make the cut to join him whenever he DOES end up in the pit? In which case, the question still stands. Why would a being created "good" lose all sense of empathy and want only eternal torment for as many souls as he could garner? And in any case, where does it get him? Shouldn't he, knowing the wages of rebellion, rather be pointing the way for people to avoid that?

The same reason people recruit others to help them rob a store or anything else. They don't say, "Oh no don't rob it with me. It's too risky. You could get in trouble." They want to drag others down with them.

Ever heard the phrase, "If I'm going down, you're going down with me?"
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: magicmiles on November 29, 2013, 11:15:01 PM

Satan was not created evil. He was in Heaven and chose to rebel and become pure evil. It's all in the Bible.

That makes no sense, though...If he was not created evil, there is good in him somewhere, even if he chose to rebel. My question was about empathy. Why, even (or especially) if he is suffering eternal torture for his decision, would he take pleasure in reining in countless other souls to share in it? Or is he simply harvesting those souls which do not make the cut to join him whenever he DOES end up in the pit? In which case, the question still stands. Why would a being created "good" lose all sense of empathy and want only eternal torment for as many souls as he could garner? And in any case, where does it get him? Shouldn't he, knowing the wages of rebellion, rather be pointing the way for people to avoid that?

Just watch some of those black friday videos a few times to get a depressing insight into the behaviour that an intense selfishness can produce. In my view it simply isn;t possible to over-estimate the blackness and evil which can result from mankind thinking only of himself.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: jynnan tonnix on November 29, 2013, 11:16:12 PM
Why, even given the assumption that god exists, would there be only two ways to interpret any given thing in the world?

I keep going back to the list of "demonic" graphics that you posted a couple of weeks ago (which I can't seem to find now). I keep wondering why it is that, something totally innocuous, like, say, a crescent moon, which every human being with eyesight sees for a number of days of every month of their lives, or a doodle of a star, or a "swastika" (which is, frankly, just a nifty little graphic which might occur to anyone with a stick or finger to draw in the dirt with), to say nothing of something as simple as a cross, whether it is drawn with the crossbar toward the top, middle, or bottom could not be doodled, then picked up as something recognizable and "catchy" by any group in any geographical area without it needing to have any connection whatsoever to a similar graphic picked up by some other group somewhere else?

What it is that makes these symbols (or other ideas) part of some sort of definitive dichotomy of good vs. evil?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Nam on November 29, 2013, 11:19:35 PM

Satan was not created evil. He was in Heaven and chose to rebel and become pure evil. It's all in the Bible.

That makes no sense, though...If he was not created evil, there is good in him somewhere, even if he chose to rebel. My question was about empathy. Why, even (or especially) if he is suffering eternal torture for his decision, would he take pleasure in reining in countless other souls to share in it? Or is he simply harvesting those souls which do not make the cut to join him whenever he DOES end up in the pit? In which case, the question still stands. Why would a being created "good" lose all sense of empathy and want only eternal torment for as many souls as he could garner? And in any case, where does it get him? Shouldn't he, knowing the wages of rebellion, rather be pointing the way for people to avoid that?

Because you need a bad guy, though Biblegod  has done more bad, and condoned more bad in the Bible than Satan/Lucifer/The Devil combined.

-Nam
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: ParkingPlaces on November 29, 2013, 11:20:49 PM
And lucky you, you get to decide all the criteria and stuff. We're so envious.

I am confused. Do you think I wrote the Bible?

People just as sure as you. And just as confused. Also, just as wrong.

You still haven't explained how, other than getting an opinion from you, how to tell whether the words of others who identify as christians are under the spell of a demon. So far you have managed to assure us that you aren't, but otherwise, we are at your mercy when it comes to determining who, besides us atheists, is demonized.

Which means, at least so far, that you are the one deciding the criteria. How else could I put it? If others who think they are christians say something you disagree with, you are automatically going to tell them and/or us that they are being influenced by demons. There is nobody else who can tell us the demon state of another human besides you. So again, it is your criteria. Since you have not seen fit to explain how to tell. Other than ask you.

Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Nam on November 29, 2013, 11:21:04 PM
And lucky you, you get to decide all the criteria and stuff. We're so envious.

I am confused. Do you think I wrote the Bible?

Ah, but you have. You've rewritten it to agree with you. Like almost every other Christian in concern to themselves.

-Nam
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Nam on November 29, 2013, 11:22:22 PM

Satan was not created evil. He was in Heaven and chose to rebel and become pure evil. It's all in the Bible.

That makes no sense, though...If he was not created evil, there is good in him somewhere, even if he chose to rebel. My question was about empathy. Why, even (or especially) if he is suffering eternal torture for his decision, would he take pleasure in reining in countless other souls to share in it? Or is he simply harvesting those souls which do not make the cut to join him whenever he DOES end up in the pit? In which case, the question still stands. Why would a being created "good" lose all sense of empathy and want only eternal torment for as many souls as he could garner? And in any case, where does it get him? Shouldn't he, knowing the wages of rebellion, rather be pointing the way for people to avoid that?

The same reason people recruit others to help them rob a store or anything else. They don't say, "Oh no don't rob it with me. It's too risky. You could get in trouble." They want to drag others down with them.

Ever heard the phrase, "If I'm going down, you're going down with me?"

That saying is contributed AFTER-THE-FACT, not before.

Idiot.

-Nam
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: OldChurchGuy on November 29, 2013, 11:28:15 PM
First of all, I would like to issue an apology to the atheists. I am sorry for behaving in ways that you guys deem to be bad behavior. I am going to try very hard to not speak in ways that might be considered insulting.

With that said, I would like this thread to be about various religious discussion about Christianity and God. If you have a question for me, please ask it in this thread. Or if I come up with a topic to discuss, I will post it. This will save space on the board so I don't get accused of hijacking every thread and trolling the board.

Please guys, let's have a serious discussion in this thread.  :)

Trying to consolidate my questions:

I understand you see the Bible as being the divinely inspired inerrant word of God.  Is this understanding a matter of faith or a matter of fact?


Ever curious,

OldChurchGuy
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: OldChurchGuy on November 29, 2013, 11:31:56 PM
And lucky you, you get to decide all the criteria and stuff. We're so envious.

I am confused. Do you think I wrote the Bible?

I do not think you wrote the Bible.  I am curious, though, where the story about the fall of the Satan is found in the Bible.

Many thanks,

OldChurchGuy
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Nam on November 29, 2013, 11:31:59 PM
First of all, I would like to issue an apology to the atheists. I am sorry for behaving in ways that you guys deem to be bad behavior. I am going to try very hard to not speak in ways that might be considered insulting.

With that said, I would like this thread to be about various religious discussion about Christianity and God. If you have a question for me, please ask it in this thread. Or if I come up with a topic to discuss, I will post it. This will save space on the board so I don't get accused of hijacking every thread and trolling the board.

Please guys, let's have a serious discussion in this thread.  :)

Trying to consolidate my questions:

I understand you see the Bible as being the divinely inspired inerrant word of God.  Is this understanding a matter of faith or a matter of fact?


Ever curious,

OldChurchGuy

You get a straight answer from him, you'll be the first.

-Nam
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: jynnan tonnix on November 29, 2013, 11:32:43 PM

Just watch some of those black friday videos a few times to get a depressing insight into the behaviour that an intense selfishness can produce. In my view it simply isn;t possible to over-estimate the blackness and evil which can result from mankind thinking only of himself.

Granted, people can get that adrenaline rush which makes them behave like nuts over specific occasions...But I would be willing to bet that these same people, given an eternity to ponder their actions, would look back and realize that it wasn't all that important, and restgret having, for example, tripped a little old lady to grab the bargain before she could get to it (sorry, didn't watch the videos, so I don't know the specifics, but I imagine that's likely the sort of thing which might go on).

Why would Satan, knowing he had (for the sake of the story) led a rebellion which was doomed to failure and would result in everlasting torment for him and anyone not completely allied to the winning side, not at least want to spare the unbelievers eternal suffering? If I were him, knowing the outcome first hand, I'd probably want, at the most evil, to slink away and hide. And if I had anything like good left in me, I'd want to use the first-hand knowledge of what rebellion led to and try to warn others away.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: magicmiles on November 29, 2013, 11:36:39 PM

Just watch some of those black friday videos a few times to get a depressing insight into the behaviour that an intense selfishness can produce. In my view it simply isn;t possible to over-estimate the blackness and evil which can result from mankind thinking only of himself.

Granted, people can get that adrenaline rush which makes them behave like nuts over specific occasions...But I would be willing to bet that these same people, given an eternity to ponder their actions, would look back and realize that it wasn't all that important, and restgret having, for example, tripped a little old lady to grab the bargain before she could get to it (sorry, didn't watch the videos, so I don't know the specifics, but I imagine that's likely the sort of thing which might go on).

Why would Satan, knowing he had (for the sake of the story) led a rebellion which was doomed to failure and would result in everlasting torment for him and anyone not completely allied to the winning side, not at least want to spare the unbelievers eternal suffering? If I were him, knowing the outcome first hand, I'd probably want, at the most evil, to slink away and hide. And if I had anything like good left in me, I'd want to use the first-hand knowledge of what rebellion led to and try to warn others away.

If nothing else, jt, this appears to prove conclusively that you aren't the devil. We can all stop wondering. Jury is still out on Nam.  ;D

Sorry I have nothing more intelligent to add right at the moment.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Nam on November 29, 2013, 11:49:53 PM
mm,

I must scare skeptic to death.

;)

-Nam
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 29, 2013, 11:58:15 PM
Satan was not created evil. He was in Heaven and chose to rebel and become pure evil. It's all in the Bible.

Last I heard, heaven is an awesome.place. Why would this Satan fellow choose otherwise? There are literally billions of people on this planet who are doing what they think is the right thing to get into heaven. Satan already knew what heaven was like but he chose to rebel. Is there something about heaven that we don't know about?

All it proves is that Satan has a really low IQ and wants to be his own boss.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Nam on November 30, 2013, 12:02:14 AM
Satan was not created evil. He was in Heaven and chose to rebel and become pure evil. It's all in the Bible.

Last I heard, heaven is an awesome.place. Why would this Satan fellow choose otherwise? There are literally billions of people on this planet who are doing what they think is the right thing to get into heaven. Satan already knew what heaven was like but he chose to rebel. Is there something about heaven that we don't know about?

All it proves is that Satan has a really low IQ and wants to be his own boss.

Do you have a higher IQ than Satan? And if so, how do you scientifically measure that?

-Nam
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 30, 2013, 12:08:48 AM
Trying to consolidate my questions:

I understand you see the Bible as being the divinely inspired inerrant word of God.  Is this understanding a matter of faith or a matter of fact?


Ever curious,

OldChurchGuy

To me, it's solid fact. To the atheists, it's not.

Just like how evolution atheists is solid fact, but to me it's not solid fact and filled with flaws and holes.

Same evidence, different conclusions. But, the Bible said people wouldn't believe it and Christians would be persecuted so the Bible has evidence to back up its claims. Christians are living proof.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Nam on November 30, 2013, 12:14:30 AM
Trying to consolidate my questions:

I understand you see the Bible as being the divinely inspired inerrant word of God.  Is this understanding a matter of faith or a matter of fact?


Ever curious,

OldChurchGuy

To me, it's solid fact. To the atheists, it's not.

Just like how evolution atheists is solid fact, but to me it's not solid fact and filled with flaws and holes.

Same evidence, different conclusions. But, the Bible said people wouldn't believe it and Christians would be persecuted so the Bible has evidence to back up its claims. Christians are living proof.

Atheists don't persecute Christians. Christians persecute Christians[1].

-Nam
 1. both generalisations
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: ParkingPlaces on November 30, 2013, 12:22:40 AM
Trying to consolidate my questions:

I understand you see the Bible as being the divinely inspired inerrant word of God.  Is this understanding a matter of faith or a matter of fact?


Ever curious,

OldChurchGuy

To me, it's solid fact. To the atheists, it's not.

Just like how evolution atheists is solid fact, but to me it's not solid fact and filled with flaws and holes.

Same evidence, different conclusions. But, the Bible said people wouldn't believe it and Christians would be persecuted so the Bible has evidence to back up its claims. Christians are living proof.

Yea, you're the guy who said that there is less evidence for evolution than you expected, but you never explained how much you expected, or what it would look like or anything. You just made a blanket statement, backed it up with your street cred, and walked away.

Seven or eight hundred posts later and you still assume we know what you're talking about. You assume we understand what you're talking about even though if you were to start beating around the bush it would be a great improvement. Your idea of an intellectual conversation is one where you act smart and the rest of us shut up and listen.

OldChurchGuy consistently tells us what he thinks/believes and why he thinks/believes it, and he does it in a way that makes no claim of absolute truth. He merely states his side of the story in a civilized manner without taking on airs of incredible superiority.

We would love it if you would wind down enough to start taking only an air of incredible superiority. That would be such an improvement.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: natlegend on November 30, 2013, 12:59:20 AM
Skeptic, you've ignored my question TWICE now...

Quote
Skeptic, please define for me what you believe defines a OneTrueChristian.

Please use point form, and be as specific as possible. I will not accept vague answers, I want the truth from you and I want it now. If ALL other religions are wrong, please convince me that yours is the correct one, and give valid reasons why.

Please do not ignore me again. It's not only rude, it also serves to highlight your obvious ignorance.

Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 30, 2013, 03:32:39 AM
Trying to consolidate my questions:

I understand you see the Bible as being the divinely inspired inerrant word of God.  Is this understanding a matter of faith or a matter of fact?


Ever curious,

OldChurchGuy

To me, it's solid fact. To the atheists, it's not.

Just like how evolution atheists is solid fact, but to me it's not solid fact and filled with flaws and holes.

Same evidence, different conclusions. But, the Bible said people wouldn't believe it and Christians would be persecuted so the Bible has evidence to back up its claims. Christians are living proof.

Yea, you're the guy who said that there is less evidence for evolution than you expected, but you never explained how much you expected, or what it would look like or anything. You just made a blanket statement, backed it up with your street cred, and walked away.

Seven or eight hundred posts later and you still assume we know what you're talking about. You assume we understand what you're talking about even though if you were to start beating around the bush it would be a great improvement. Your idea of an intellectual conversation is one where you act smart and the rest of us shut up and listen.

OldChurchGuy consistently tells us what he thinks/believes and why he thinks/believes it, and he does it in a way that makes no claim of absolute truth. He merely states his side of the story in a civilized manner without taking on airs of incredible superiority.

We would love it if you would wind down enough to start taking only an air of incredible superiority. That would be such an improvement.

I'm not sure if it was you, but someone on this board said that all theists were illogical and childish. Ergo, they think OldChurchGuy is illogical and childish.

You may not smite him, but he knows what you guys think of him anyway.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: natlegend on November 30, 2013, 04:34:45 AM
Actually, I quite like conversing with OCG. He is a real gentleman, who is actually interested in discussing differing points of view, unlike yourself Skep, where you dodge dip and dive like a... dodgey-dippy-divey type. Still, you're a fun chew toy, but the novelty is really starting to wear thin.

So, when are you going to answer my twice-asked question about how YOU[1]know what a OneTrueChristian is? And what process you would use to determine if a Goddess was a demon or the real deal? And have you applied that same 'logic' to your belief in your own god? And do you truly believe you have the 'power' to cast a demon out? Cos matey, I reckon you need to start with yourself... just sayin'
 1. And apparently ONLY you, in the whole planet
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Jonny-UK on November 30, 2013, 04:52:50 AM
I'm not sure if it was you, but someone on this board said that all theists were illogical and childish. Ergo, they think OldChurchGuy is illogical and childish.
You may not smite him, but he knows what you guys think of him anyway.
That is a quite an assumption you are making- do you really know what OldChurchGuy thinks or knows?
You certainly have no right to assume you know what everyone thinks of someone.
You need to be careful here as it would be very easy to actually ask OldChurchguy what he thinks everyone here thinks of him and I am sure he would give a real and honest answer.
It is quite different to thinking you know what your idea of a god would say/do/think as we cannot physically ask them any questions and get a reply but OCG is real and on here.
It is quite rude for you to make those kind of assumptions about people.
S.P.A.OCG !
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Nam on November 30, 2013, 05:03:38 AM
Trying to consolidate my questions:

I understand you see the Bible as being the divinely inspired inerrant word of God.  Is this understanding a matter of faith or a matter of fact?


Ever curious,

OldChurchGuy

To me, it's solid fact. To the atheists, it's not.

Just like how evolution atheists is solid fact, but to me it's not solid fact and filled with flaws and holes.

Same evidence, different conclusions. But, the Bible said people wouldn't believe it and Christians would be persecuted so the Bible has evidence to back up its claims. Christians are living proof.

Yea, you're the guy who said that there is less evidence for evolution than you expected, but you never explained how much you expected, or what it would look like or anything. You just made a blanket statement, backed it up with your street cred, and walked away.

Seven or eight hundred posts later and you still assume we know what you're talking about. You assume we understand what you're talking about even though if you were to start beating around the bush it would be a great improvement. Your idea of an intellectual conversation is one where you act smart and the rest of us shut up and listen.

OldChurchGuy consistently tells us what he thinks/believes and why he thinks/believes it, and he does it in a way that makes no claim of absolute truth. He merely states his side of the story in a civilized manner without taking on airs of incredible superiority.

We would love it if you would wind down enough to start taking only an air of incredible superiority. That would be such an improvement.

I'm not sure if it was you, but someone on this board said that all theists were illogical and childish. Ergo, they think OldChurchGuy is illogical and childish.

You may not smite him, but he knows what you guys think of him anyway.

Oh, so one or more atheists agree with that therefore all atheists agree with that. I hate to break it to you but we're not all of one mind. We're not the Borg.

-Nam
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: natlegend on November 30, 2013, 05:34:58 AM
Dear dodgey-dippy-divey (aka Skeptic), you have just labelled all atheists as being the same. It would stand to reason then, that all Christians are the same. You are no longer the prescious butterfly you claim to be, you are now one of 'them', a disgusting perverted child molestor who preaches hell and brimstone, all the while taking from the collection plate so you can buy the latest computer in order to spew your demonic vomit on this website.

Not much fun being generalised, is it? Then don't generalise atheists. AND NEVER, EVER, GENERALISE OLDCHURCH GUY. He is a respected and intelligent member of this forum, and the people here will not take kindly to you slandering him.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: OldChurchGuy on November 30, 2013, 07:47:15 AM
Trying to consolidate my questions:

I understand you see the Bible as being the divinely inspired inerrant word of God.  Is this understanding a matter of faith or a matter of fact?


Ever curious,

OldChurchGuy

To me, it's solid fact. To the atheists, it's not.

Just like how evolution atheists is solid fact, but to me it's not solid fact and filled with flaws and holes.

Same evidence, different conclusions. But, the Bible said people wouldn't believe it and Christians would be persecuted so the Bible has evidence to back up its claims. Christians are living proof.

Yea, you're the guy who said that there is less evidence for evolution than you expected, but you never explained how much you expected, or what it would look like or anything. You just made a blanket statement, backed it up with your street cred, and walked away.

Seven or eight hundred posts later and you still assume we know what you're talking about. You assume we understand what you're talking about even though if you were to start beating around the bush it would be a great improvement. Your idea of an intellectual conversation is one where you act smart and the rest of us shut up and listen.

OldChurchGuy consistently tells us what he thinks/believes and why he thinks/believes it, and he does it in a way that makes no claim of absolute truth. He merely states his side of the story in a civilized manner without taking on airs of incredible superiority.

We would love it if you would wind down enough to start taking only an air of incredible superiority. That would be such an improvement.

I'm not sure if it was you, but someone on this board said that all theists were illogical and childish. Ergo, they think OldChurchGuy is illogical and childish.

You may not smite him, but he knows what you guys think of him anyway.

I have been called "delusional" and "childish" more than once.  I take no offense as, from view point of most atheists, that is a correct conclusion.  Yet, I also count the people on this site among my friends because we can differ yet stay civil.  I will argue there is more love here among the atheists than on some Christian websites I have participated in. 

Going back to the original question, if the idea that the Bible is the divinely inspired inerrant word of God and is a book of fact, how does that jive with the reality that the earliest complete manuscripts for the New Testament are about 300 years after the fact and for the Old Testament about 1,000 years after the fact?  Put another way, how can one treat this as a book of fact when the original manuscripts have not been found?  Would it not make more sense for the Bible to be a book of faith?

Ever curious,

OldChurchGuy0
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: G-Roll on November 30, 2013, 10:17:52 AM
All it proves is that Satan has a really low IQ and wants to be his own boss.

LMAO

I though the devil was the most clever being of all time… He fools your Christian friends into believing all those false gods right? And demons are fallen angels that followed Lucifer’s rebellion correct? And I don’t think that Satan or his demon friends are in hell yet until revelations takes place. As the story of Job shows where Satan just wonders around everywhere and even goes up to heaven to say hello. So god allows Satan to exist and do what he wants (free will for Satan) or Satan’s fate is predetermined and controlled by god to muck up and lead his creation astray.
So does Satan have free will like we humans (supposedly do) if his fate is spelled out in revelations? Is it possible to have an omnipotent god and free will when fate seals the final chapter of your bible? Is the book of revelations not fate if it is destined to happen? Can you stop it and save the world or are we all doomed to the American Death Cult?
The whole Satan concept is a mess and makes no sense. It is laughable that you would pass off that god is benevolent and demons/Satan are the reason for evil.  And that Satan is actually some idiot who has existed for who knows how long.  Your god either controls Satan or allows him to muck up your Christian world. So either Satan is a genius underdog with free will or your god doesn’t care enough about you to get rid of him. Or your god isn’t powerful enough to get rid of him. Or maybe it’s a secret love story and god still has a place in his heart for Lucifer.

I apologize for not being fully spun up in your Fable. I can’t name all the Lord of the Rings characters either. The dwarf always stumps me. Yet Tolkien nerds don’t get all bent out of shape about it.

The more I think of it the more I believe that the “actual” story of Satan was never written. All this nonsense was taken out of a book that cast him as the bad guy. He was an angel, he didn’t like his boss so he was fired and given the boot, then he received some kind of promotion and became some kind of pure evil super being, and his story will end one day in the book of fate you call revelations.  I would love to hear his side of the story.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: jaimehlers on November 30, 2013, 12:15:50 PM
I have been called "delusional" and "childish" more than once.  I take no offense as, from view point of most atheists, that is a correct conclusion.  Yet, I also count the people on this site among my friends because we can differ yet stay civil.  I will argue there is more love here among the atheists than on some Christian websites I have participated in.
At a guess, I would say it was the respect for differing ideas.  I would say most atheists don't simply assume their own ideas are correct and are thus willing to listen (and argue) about other people's ideas.  By and large, that isn't an attitude shared by many Christians.  Skeptic, for example, comes across as trying to prove his own beliefs are right and God-inspired and thus any other beliefs are wrong and demon-inspired.  That's not an attitude conducive to a reasonable discussion.  You appear to be an exception to that, and atheists respect that even if they don't think your beliefs are right.

Quote from: OldChurchGuy
Going back to the original question, if the idea that the Bible is the divinely inspired inerrant word of God and is a book of fact, how does that jive with the reality that the earliest complete manuscripts for the New Testament are about 300 years after the fact and for the Old Testament about 1,000 years after the fact?  Put another way, how can one treat this as a book of fact when the original manuscripts have not been found?  Would it not make more sense for the Bible to be a book of faith?
For that matter, we may never find the originals, especially if the stories were originally oral.  So assuming that the stories are literally true is unwise, to say the least.  People can believe that, and they can certainly tell other people that, but that's not the same thing as assuming they're true.  Assumptions don't leave room for doubt.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 30, 2013, 12:25:03 PM
At a guess, I would say it was the respect for differing ideas.  I would say most atheists don't simply assume their own ideas are correct and are thus willing to listen (and argue) about other people's ideas.  By and large, that isn't an attitude shared by many Christians.  Skeptic, for example, comes across as trying to prove his own beliefs are right and God-inspired and thus any other beliefs are wrong and demon-inspired.  That's not an attitude conducive to a reasonable discussion.  You appear to be an exception to that, and atheists respect that even if they don't think your beliefs are right.

I am curious about this.

Don't atheists think their own viewpoint is correct and everything else is wrong? You guys make fun of Christians for having "absolute truth" but you guys claim to have the "absolute truth" as well.

I'm sure I would get more respect if I came to your side and started saying things like, "Wow I was such an idiot! You guys are right! There is no God!"

I would probably be congratulated and become liked.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: jynnan tonnix on November 30, 2013, 01:51:18 PM
I think you would actually find, were you to really listen to them, that most atheists do not hold their own viewpoints as absolutes, and would be more than willing to listen to any tangible, measurable evidence of god's existence. Heck, there are probably quite a few who would love to be proven wrong--the notions of a loving creator and blissful afterlife are certainly tempting--but lacking this evidence, and finding that a bit of critical thinking seems to blow apart most religious stories at their poorly-stitched seams, they have come to an inescapable conclusion that even if there were to prove to be some sort of supreme being out there (which, all atheists not being equal, quite a good percentage of them will concede that it is, however unlikely, still possible), this being is not one which is accurately described by any single faith out there.

Old Church Guy is well-liked around here despite his religious beliefs because he will also concede that there is a possibility that he is wrong in his beliefs, but since they resonate for him, and he finds a personal comfort in them, he is not willing to jettison them on the off chance that they might prove false. He has never, to my knowledge, made any claim that someone not sharing his particular viewpoints is bound for hell.

As far as I know, he also doesn't seem to share your view regarding demons and their ubiquitous (according to you) meddling in all lives and religions, seeking constantly to lead us all astray.

Frankly, I think that this part of your theology is what rankles the most, since you are so absolutely convinced of the presence of these demons, and so adamant that only you and a seemingly very limited number of other people out there have managed to interpret the Bible correctly because of their interference, yet at the same time refuse to even consider that there is every chance that you might have, by the same definition, been led astray in some of your own interpretations of a book in which it is notoriously easy to find multiple interpretations. And that, again by the same definition, you would never know about it because they would have been successful in misguiding you.

You can't logically hold that world view and still be immune from it.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: 12 Monkeys on November 30, 2013, 02:12:12 PM

Satan was not created evil. He was in Heaven and chose to rebel and become pure evil. It's all in the Bible.

That makes no sense, though...If he was not created evil, there is good in him somewhere, even if he chose to rebel. My question was about empathy. Why, even (or especially) if he is suffering eternal torture for his decision, would he take pleasure in reining in countless other souls to share in it? Or is he simply harvesting those souls which do not make the cut to join him whenever he DOES end up in the pit? In which case, the question still stands. Why would a being created "good" lose all sense of empathy and want only eternal torment for as many souls as he could garner? And in any case, where does it get him? Shouldn't he, knowing the wages of rebellion, rather be pointing the way for people to avoid that?

Just watch some of those black friday videos a few times to get a depressing insight into the behaviour that an intense selfishness can produce. In my view it simply isn;t possible to over-estimate the blackness and evil which can result from mankind thinking only of himself.
So could we look at a religious rally the same way as a black friday sale? The westboroo Baptists,the Muslim's who protest a comic? the suicide bombers who kill people of the same religion? Mankind only thinking of himself in all the religious wars of the world? the starving in third world nations? I could go on and on
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: 12 Monkeys on November 30, 2013, 02:34:53 PM
Skeptic,can you tell the difference between a "true Christian" like you and one that has been duped by a Demon? Is it a class or a handbook? or is it as simple as those who agree with my Christian principles and POV are not demon influenced,those that disagree are(demon influenced)?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: natlegend on November 30, 2013, 05:52:53 PM
^^^ I've asked him something similar three times now, and I have been ignored on each occasion. I guess it's just too hard for him so he does the dodge dip and dive to avoid answering.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: ParkingPlaces on November 30, 2013, 07:02:32 PM
When you're living in a made up world, it is hard to plan for the contingencies created by the real one. People who think they have all the answers are forced to stop both asking and answering questions, because they have no other choice. To face the world directly takes courage that their fantasy cannot produce. Hence the propensity to hide behind hollow words, which, in their tiny world, look big enough to conceal reality.

Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Graybeard on November 30, 2013, 08:03:40 PM
If you have a question for me, please ask it in this thread.
I apologise, skeptic, you will have to do a bit of reading to answer the question, “What is the nature of Jesus?”
This is to help you answer:

Jesus was always there. As the Son of God He is as old as God. He, like God has no beginning and no end. He is part of the indivisible Trinity that is the One and Only True God and He always has been. And when I say "always" I mean "always"

This is from Jesus Himself:

John 17:5 “And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.”

And this is confirmation that Jesus really did say that:

2nd Timothy 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

The [wiki]Comma Johanneum[/wiki] is a comma (a short clause) in the First Epistle of John (1 John 5:7–8). This text is variously referred to as the Comma Johanneum, the Johannine Comma, the Heavenly Witnesses, 1 John 5:7 or 1 John v:7.

    "there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. "


And with this, Christians understood that there was created an Eternal Adult Christ who was born of a virgin. It created the difficulty of whether Christ was an immortal god at birth or became one after crucifixion.[1]

We may find an answer to Christ's nature in the Crucifixion and Resurrection:

But first, some necessary questions:
•   “Was there a Jesus Christ of the same identity as that Jesus Christ, whose existence (as opposed to concept) is described in The Bible?”
•   “Was Jesus Christ human?”

If the answer to the above is “Yes” then
•   “What is the definition of ‘death’”
•   “Did that Jesus die in the accepted sense?”

If the above is able to be answered “Yes” then,
•   “Given the climate and state of medical knowledge at the time, what length of time would be reasonable to say that such a death was normally irreversible?”
•   “Was there some point at which Jesus Christ was no longer able to be described as ‘Dead’?”
•   “At the point at which Jesus Christ was no longer able to be described as ‘Dead’, what state was Jesus Christ in? Was he ‘alive’ in the accepted sense or was he in another state, if so, which?”

If Jesus were human, death is the end. No humans come back from what, for emphasis, I will call, ‘final death.’ Those who die do not come back to earth.

If he were always deity or even a partial deity, then His Resurrection is nothing amazing: if gods are immortal there was never death – merely a convincing illusion.

So, to remind you, “What is the nature of Jesus?” Man or God?
 1. There was some sect or other who said that Christ just appeared on earth aged about 30 and that the virgin birth was fantasy. The sect were all slaughtered as heretics, so that solved the problem without actually solving it.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on November 30, 2013, 09:29:23 PM
I have a question.

Is, or is not the Flying Spaghetti monster the real god?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Nam on November 30, 2013, 10:45:32 PM
I have a question.

Is, or is not the Flying Spaghetti monster the real god?

Only with pasta sauce. Without...it's just noodles.

-Nam
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 30, 2013, 11:42:27 PM
I have a question.

Is, or is not the Flying Spaghetti monster the real god?

If atheists want to be taken seriously, they have to stop using this objection. It's rather pedestrian and immature.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 30, 2013, 11:44:08 PM
So, to remind you, “What is the nature of Jesus?” Man or God?

Graybeard, this is very simple.

Jesus is 100% man (the flesh) and 100% God (The eternal soul)

The spirit of God became flesh. The flesh can be killed but the immaterial spirit can not be killed and this spirit was God.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 30, 2013, 11:46:53 PM
^^^ I've asked him something similar three times now, and I have been ignored on each occasion. I guess it's just too hard for him so he does the dodge dip and dive to avoid answering.

I am sorry. You must have missed it:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25917.msg586219.html#msg586219
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on November 30, 2013, 11:49:40 PM
Skeptic, you did not answer my question.

Is, or is not the FSM the real god?

If so, why, or why not?

Have you not been touched by his noodley appendage?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on December 01, 2013, 12:18:43 AM
Skeptic, you did not answer my question.

Is, or is not the FSM the real god?

If so, why, or why not?

Have you not been touched by his noodley appendage?

Tell me something, please. How many people claim to be touched by the noodley appendage?

Now tell me how many people claim to be touched by Jesus.

Why do you suppose the huge discrepancy?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on December 01, 2013, 12:29:02 AM
It is obvious that the Jesus believers are corrupted by noodle demons.

Many claim to be touched by the FSM.

So, who is the real god?

How?

Why?

What evidence is there?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: jynnan tonnix on December 01, 2013, 12:35:10 AM
^^^ I've asked him something similar three times now, and I have been ignored on each occasion. I guess it's just too hard for him so he does the dodge dip and dive to avoid answering.

I am sorry. You must have missed it:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25917.msg586219.html#msg586219

I'm reading this, and still missing it.

The question is not how you rationalize to yourself that you are necessarily on the right path because you interpret certain things in a certain religious text a certain way.

The fact is that people all over the world do that with different conclusions. And each and every one of them also has "reasons".

We know you believe that they are being led astray by "demons". They might say the same about you.

And none of you are getting these things out of thin air. This is what you keep failing to understand. As clear as it is TO YOU that you are on the one true path, it is equally clear to them that they are. And to an outsider, either one of yet another faith, or of none at all, there is no way to distinguish the validity of one or the other. All are based on interpretations of religious texts, and the arguments for each can be equally convincing (or equally silly).

Yes, we get that you believe you have it right, but, as we keep pointing out to you, you would be just as convinced of it had a different interpretation, or different religion been the one which resonated with you. You would be trying to tell us that Islam, for instance, was clearly the only way, and that those who did not believe could not attain salvation. You would have all those texts and reasons at your fingertips, and it would be clear to you that others had been deceived.

You can't prove the validity of your claims with passages from the Bible, because there are conflicting passages in other books (as well as within the Bible itself). You cannot, if you believe that demons are capable of so blinding a person to the truth, be 100% sure that you are not a victim of their trickery also.

And this is the part of the question that you keep dodging.

Can you even understand that? I know I'm babbling a bit because it's getting late. I just keep feeling as though I need to make that part of the question clearer for you, and you never seem to address it without resorting to quotes from the Bible. Can you tell us, keeping in mind that other sects use the selfsame book with different conclusions, how it is that you know the demons have fooled other people, but have not fooled you.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on December 01, 2013, 12:35:58 AM
It is obvious that the Jesus believers are corrupted by noodle demons.

Many claim to be touched by the FSM.

So, who is the real god?

How?

Why?

What evidence is there?

Since we know spaghetti is material in nature, we know spaghetti can not be the cause of the universe. It's ridiculous to think so.

God is immaterial.

There is a difference. The Flying Spaghetti Monster has contingent qualities and properties.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 01, 2013, 12:39:18 AM
It is obvious that the Jesus believers are corrupted by noodle demons.

Many claim to be touched by the FSM.

So, who is the real god?

How?

Why?

What evidence is there?

Since we know spaghetti is material in nature, we know spaghetti can not be the cause of the universe. It's ridiculous to think so.

God is immaterial.

There is a difference. The Flying Spaghetti Monster has contingent qualities and properties.

Fuck you skeptic. All you can do is play these silly games talking trivial shit like this. You ignore long, serious posts from people, and get entangled in meaningless crap where you get to act all haughty and shit. I suggest to all members that we give this asshole a wide berth. Quit trying to talk to him, because he has no interest in any meaningful conversation. He only wants to waste as much bandwidth as he can with his ego.

Screw you, Septic. Take a flying fucking leap.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on December 01, 2013, 12:46:57 AM
It is obvious that the Jesus believers are corrupted by noodle demons.

Many claim to be touched by the FSM.

So, who is the real god?

How?

Why?

What evidence is there?

Since we know spaghetti is material in nature, we know spaghetti can not be the cause of the universe. It's ridiculous to think so.

God is immaterial.

There is a difference. The Flying Spaghetti Monster has contingent qualities and properties.

Fuck you skeptic. All you can do is play these silly games talking trivial shit like this. You ignore long, serious posts from people, and get entangled in meaningless crap where you get to act all haughty and shit. I suggest to all members that we give this asshole a wide berth. Quit trying to talk to him, because he has no interest in any meaningful conversation. He only wants to waste as much bandwidth as he can with his ego.

Screw you, Septic. Take a flying fucking leap.

Please, trust me I will answer. i am doing 8 things at once right now and I responded to a quick post. I have read your long and thoughtful post and it was a good one. I have to really think of a response and I am in no mood to do that right now because I am very busy. I responded to a few posts that take less time because we've had this same discussion before.

but rest assured, I will certainly reply to your post. I am about to read it for the 4th time.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Aaron123 on December 01, 2013, 12:51:00 AM
Since we know spaghetti is material in nature, we know spaghetti can not be the cause of the universe. It's ridiculous to think so.

God is immaterial.

There is a difference. The Flying Spaghetti Monster has contingent qualities and properties.


Define "immaterial" and what it means in this context.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Foxy Freedom on December 01, 2013, 01:06:56 AM
I have two questions

Where do you think the physical laws of the universe come from, humans, gods, or the universe itself?

Have you ever destroyed a demon as you suggested you would do?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on December 01, 2013, 01:38:51 AM
Since we know spaghetti is material in nature, we know spaghetti can not be the cause of the universe. It's ridiculous to think so.

Since when did i say anything about spaghetti?
I explicitly stated the flying spaghetti MONSTER, its not just spaghetti, it is obviously god, unless you can provide evidence otherwise.

God is immaterial.

Then why do people claim to see god?

There is a difference. The Flying Spaghetti Monster has contingent qualities and properties.

And you know this how?
Has he touched you with his appendage?
If so, why are you such a blasphemer?

If anyone was wondering. I am NOT a pastafarian.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: natlegend on December 01, 2013, 01:51:42 AM
^^^ I've asked him something similar three times now, and I have been ignored on each occasion. I guess it's just too hard for him so he does the dodge dip and dive to avoid answering.

I am sorry. You must have missed it:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25917.msg586219.html#msg586219

Unacceptable. You have avoided my question for the FOURTH time now. A refresher for you...

Quote
Skeptic, please define for me what you believe defines a OneTrueChristian.

Please use point form, and be as specific as possible. I will not accept vague answers, I want the truth from you and I want it now. If ALL other religions are wrong, please convince me that yours is the correct one, and give valid reasons why.


Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Nam on December 01, 2013, 02:03:57 AM
I have a question.

Is, or is not the Flying Spaghetti monster the real god?

Only with pasta sauce. Without...it's just noodles.

-Nam

Skeptic,

Did my comment hurt your feelings? Of all the names I've called you it takes this comment for you to smite me?

Who's being childish? You, 'cause you're a fucking moron, and everyone knows it.

-Nam
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on December 01, 2013, 02:42:39 AM
I have a question.

Is, or is not the Flying Spaghetti monster the real god?

Only with pasta sauce. Without...it's just noodles.

-Nam

Skeptic,

Did my comment hurt your feelings? Of all the names I've called you it takes this comment for you to smite me?

Who's being childish? You, 'cause you're a fucking moron, and everyone knows it.

-Nam

Nam, I take the insults because I am trying to be like Christ. Christ didn't curse at the ones beating him and laughing at him. He just kept walking by.

Your post was insulting to the Eternal King and THAT is something I do not tolerate. Insult me all you want, but don't do that to the Creator.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on December 01, 2013, 02:46:07 AM
Since we know spaghetti is material in nature, we know spaghetti can not be the cause of the universe. It's ridiculous to think so.

God is immaterial.

There is a difference. The Flying Spaghetti Monster has contingent qualities and properties.


Define "immaterial" and what it means in this context.

Immaterial is something that is not material. For example, a thought is not material. it is immaterial. Nobody has ever empirically observed a thought.  Just like how your immaterial soul inside of you can't be empirically observed. You can see your flesh, but you can't see the spirit inside of you that makes you "you."
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on December 01, 2013, 02:49:10 AM
I have two questions

Where do you think the physical laws of the universe come from, humans, gods, or the universe itself?

Have you ever destroyed a demon as you suggested you would do?

God made the laws. If there were no laws imagine how chaotic the universe would be. Sometimes things would freeze at 45 degrees Fahrenheit. other times things would freeze at 17 degrees fahrenheit. Sometimes thins would fall up into the sky and sometimes they would fall down. it would be absolute no holds barred pandemonium.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on December 01, 2013, 02:52:47 AM
^^^ I've asked him something similar three times now, and I have been ignored on each occasion. I guess it's just too hard for him so he does the dodge dip and dive to avoid answering.

I am sorry. You must have missed it:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25917.msg586219.html#msg586219

Unacceptable. You have avoided my question for the FOURTH time now. A refresher for you...

Quote
Skeptic, please define for me what you believe defines a OneTrueChristian.

Please use point form, and be as specific as possible. I will not accept vague answers, I want the truth from you and I want it now. If ALL other religions are wrong, please convince me that yours is the correct one, and give valid reasons why.

I am sorry. I can not explain it anymore simple than that.

Jesus never told his disciples to go to Church every Sunday. Jesus didn't say to worship his mom. Jesus didn't say to beg people for money so you can buy a Rolls Royce and 2 mansions.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Add Homonym on December 01, 2013, 03:07:37 AM
Your post was insulting to the Eternal King and THAT is something I do not tolerate. Insult me all you want, but don't do that to the Creator.

Tut, tut, Nam. You have insulted the icing on the nonexistent cake.

Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on December 01, 2013, 03:08:49 AM
Tut, tut, Nam. You have insulted the icing on the nonexistent cake.

Are these discussions just a big joke to you?
Do you take them seriously?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Add Homonym on December 01, 2013, 03:10:59 AM
You don't take them seriously. You consistently refuse to make a case that the creator is, in fact, your God.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on December 01, 2013, 03:29:41 AM
You don't take them seriously. You consistently refuse to make a case that the creator is, in fact, your God.

Haven't you heard of the argument from motion? The unmoved mover is God. The only other option is infinite regress and that's nonsensical because you can't have a beginning with infinite regress so nothing would ever be able to be in motion right now so there must be an unmoved mover that started things in motion.

This is a plain as day slam dunk argument.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: MadBunny on December 01, 2013, 04:27:33 AM
Allow me to translate:



SPAG

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/SPAG

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/2009/10/christianity-is-self-projection-as-god/

Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on December 01, 2013, 05:11:55 AM
God is immaterial, and only material things can affect material things.

Therefore god has no meaning, and can be dismissed, as he cannot affect anything that we know of other than stuff like thoughts?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Foxy Freedom on December 01, 2013, 05:54:59 AM
God made the laws. If there were no laws imagine how chaotic the universe would be. Sometimes things would freeze at 45 degrees Fahrenheit. other times things would freeze at 17 degrees fahrenheit. Sometimes things would fall up into the sky and sometimes they would fall down. it would be absolute no holds barred pandemonium.

When it suits you to protect your worldview, scientific knowledge is based on god. When it suits you to protect your worldview, scientific knowledge is based on humans.

You have contradicted yourself like this before to protect your worldview. Your worldview is falling apart.

Science was made up by humans so they are just guessing how old these things are by assuming the methods are true.

It's circular. You can't validate the scientific method by using the scientific method.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: The Gawd on December 01, 2013, 09:27:45 AM
face it... skep is a troll. May as well  just treat a chew toy like a chew toy.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Traveler on December 01, 2013, 10:24:10 AM
face it... skep is a troll. May as well  just treat a chew toy like a chew toy.

Yup.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Graybeard on December 01, 2013, 11:02:46 AM
So, to remind you, “What is the nature of Jesus?” Man or God?

Graybeard, this is very simple.

Jesus is 100% man (the flesh) and 100% God (The eternal soul)

I think this is one of those things that is “simple to the simple.” You seem to have learned a formal and simply repeated it without understanding it.

I’m sorry, but the idea of there being 100% twice does not seem very simple. Could you expand upon this please?

As I understand it, and from the verses I have given, an adult Jesus has been in heaven (I assume as a spirit not a human) since before Creation. That spirit was then placed inside a fetus in a virgin’s womb. Jesus’s spirit would have been aware of this at all times, including directly after His birth.

So you seem to imply that Jesus consisted of God’s spirit inhabiting a human body and that the Spirit of God is aware that it is occupying a human body.

If this is so, the Spirit of God must have known that it was indestructible. It must have known that the body that it inhabited could be destroyed.

So the Cricifixion is rather like your driving your old clunker of a car to a wreckers’ yard, getting out of the car and then seeing it crushed. There is no pain for the car and all you have lost is a car that was worthless and your life continues as usual.

So, where was this sacrifice? Jesus started in Heaven and ended up back in heaven, didn’t he?

Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Graybeard on December 01, 2013, 11:11:07 AM
The unmoved mover is God. The only other option is infinite regress and that's nonsensical because you can't have a beginning with infinite regress so nothing would ever be able to be in motion right now so there must be an unmoved mover that started things in motion.

This is a plain as day slam dunk argument.

Can you explain why what you have just said is any different from "I can't understand it, therefore God-did-it?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Aaron123 on December 01, 2013, 11:16:36 AM
Immaterial is something that is not material.

Not a very helpful definition.


Quote
For example, a thought is not material. it is immaterial. Nobody has ever empirically observed a thought. 

Oh yes we can.  We're perfectly capable of scanning brain activity nowadays.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_scan

Not to mention there are loads of evidence that humans thoughts exists.  You're typing on one such example now.  Not to mention books, movies, and painting.



Quote
Just like how your immaterial soul inside of you can't be empirically observed. You can see your flesh, but you can't see the spirit inside of you that makes you "you."

I don't even believe that there is such a thing as a "immaterial soul".  So this is an irrelevant point.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on December 01, 2013, 12:16:36 PM
Immaterial is something that is not material.

Not a very helpful definition.


Quote
For example, a thought is not material. it is immaterial. Nobody has ever empirically observed a thought. 

Oh yes we can.  We're perfectly capable of scanning brain activity nowadays.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_scan

Not to mention there are loads of evidence that humans thoughts exists.  You're typing on one such example now.  Not to mention books, movies, and painting.



Quote
Just like how your immaterial soul inside of you can't be empirically observed. You can see your flesh, but you can't see the spirit inside of you that makes you "you."

I don't even believe that there is such a thing as a "immaterial soul".  So this is an irrelevant point.

You can not scan the thought and see what the person is thinking. That is how we know it is immaterial. Do you think doctors can scan a thought and say, "Oh you are thinking about a car right now?"

Besides, there's no evidence that other people think and feel pain. They could be philosophical zombies. You just BELIEVE everyone else has thoughts but you can only be sure of yourself, thus solipsism is the only logical position for the atheist.

If you BELIEVE others have thoughts and feel pain, you are basing it on faith, which opens the door to have faith in God. Otherwise it's hypocritical to deny God but believe in thoughts and pain.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Traveler on December 01, 2013, 12:20:10 PM
...Besides, there's no evidence that other people think and feel pain. They could be philosophical zombies. You just BELIEVE everyone else has thoughts but you can only be sure of yourself, thus solipsism is the only logical position for the atheist.

If you BELIEVE others have thoughts and feel pain, you are basing it on faith, which opens the door to have faith in God. Otherwise it's hypocritical to deny God but believe in thoughts and pain.

Ridiculous. There is MUCH evidence that others feel pain and have thoughts. Observation, reactions, responses to medication, changes in brain activity, psychological testing, and much, much more. You really are stretching aren't you?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on December 01, 2013, 12:21:42 PM
Can you explain why what you have just said is any different from "I can't understand it, therefore God-did-it?

OK, you have the floor.

At one point there was no universe. Then at another point there was a universe. What caused the universe? If you believe in Big Bang, it says time, space, and matter began at the Big Bang. So, what caused it?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on December 01, 2013, 12:24:01 PM
...Besides, there's no evidence that other people think and feel pain. They could be philosophical zombies. You just BELIEVE everyone else has thoughts but you can only be sure of yourself, thus solipsism is the only logical position for the atheist.

If you BELIEVE others have thoughts and feel pain, you are basing it on faith, which opens the door to have faith in God. Otherwise it's hypocritical to deny God but believe in thoughts and pain.

Ridiculous. There is MUCH evidence that others feel pain and have thoughts. Observation, reactions, responses to medication, changes in brain activity, psychological testing, and much, much more. You really are stretching aren't you?

I don't believe you have read about the philosophical zombie:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie

A philosophical zombie or p-zombie in the philosophy of mind and perception is a hypothetical being that is indistinguishable from a normal human being except in that it lacks conscious experience, qualia, or sentience.[1]

When a zombie is poked with a sharp object, for example, it does not feel any pain though it behaves exactly as if it does feel pain (it may say "ouch" and recoil from the stimulus, or tell us that it is in intense pain).
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: median on December 01, 2013, 12:29:48 PM

I am curious about this.

Don't atheists think their own viewpoint is correct and everything else is wrong? You guys make fun of Christians for having "absolute truth" but you guys claim to have the "absolute truth" as well.

I'm sure I would get more respect if I came to your side and started saying things like, "Wow I was such an idiot! You guys are right! There is no God!"

I would probably be congratulated and become liked.

You are quite wrong here actually - and this is b/c you continually choose to force non-belief (atheism) into 'a belief' (aka - you misrepresent my position and that of non-believers). Yet, that is self-contradictory. Atheism is simply non-belief in a god or gods (nothing more). There is no claim about "absolute truth" as we have no use for such claims. They are a red-herring to the subject. If you said, "There is no God" I would answer by saying that you can't know that. All you can do is withhold judgement b/c there is no sound demonstrable evidence of one (just like you can't know there are no unicorns). And that would make you agnostic about the question (which you should be).
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Foxy Freedom on December 01, 2013, 12:32:20 PM
At one point there was no universe. Then at another point there was a universe. What caused the universe? If you believe in Big Bang, it says time, space, and matter began at the Big Bang. So, what caused it?

Causality developed during the first minutes of the universe. Your question is based on lack of knowledge. If you do not understand science, just say you do not understand science, don't make up rubbish.

Causality of the universe is an unnecessary assumption which has to be proved.

Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: median on December 01, 2013, 12:36:41 PM

Immaterial is something that is not material. For example, a thought is not material. it is immaterial. Nobody has ever empirically observed a thought.  Just like how your immaterial soul inside of you can't be empirically observed. You can see your flesh, but you can't see the spirit inside of you that makes you "you."

This is not an actual definition b/c you haven't defined WHAT "immaterial" is. All you've tried to do is say what it is not. That is redundant. You need to actually define what-it-is. What is it's makeup? What are it's characteristics? I could say "A unicorn is not a duck". It says nothing.

The problem again here is, you have no reliable way of actually separating fact from fiction. You are practicing intellectual hypocrisy due to your confirmation bias toward your personal interpretation of the bible.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Aaron123 on December 01, 2013, 12:39:22 PM
You can not scan the thought and see what the person is thinking. That is how we know it is immaterial. Do you think doctors can scan a thought and say, "Oh you are thinking about a car right now?"

Again, we can do brain scans.  We can detect brain activities.  We know (generally speaking) what brain chemistry does.  When someone asks about a car, we can detect which parts of the brain "lights up".  This "exacting thoughts of a person" thing is just misdirection.


Quote
Besides, there's no evidence that other people think and feel pain.

You're typing on a computer.  That is evidence of someone's thinking (since someone had to think and engineer a computer in the first place).  You are arguing with other people (a sign that their thoughts differs from yours).  Books, paintings, poems, and movies exists.  All of which springs from someone's imagination.

As for feeling pain, if you really think that others do not feel pain, then throw rocks at them.  Go ahead.  Since they won't feel pain, what's the harm?



Quote
They could be philosophical zombies.

Define "philosophical zombies".

Quote
You just BELIEVE everyone else has thoughts but you can only be sure of yourself, thus solipsism is the only logical position for the atheist.

False Dichotomy.


Quote
If you BELIEVE others have thoughts and feel pain, you are basing it on faith, which opens the door to have faith in God. Otherwise it's hypocritical to deny God but believe in thoughts and pain.

False Dichotomy.  Thoughts and pain can be tested.  They are not faith-based.  Are we really going to get into the whole "christian telling atheist how to think" thing again?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: median on December 01, 2013, 12:50:16 PM

You can not scan the thought and see what the person is thinking. That is how we know it is immaterial. Do you think doctors can scan a thought and say, "Oh you are thinking about a car right now?"

Besides, there's no evidence that other people think and feel pain. They could be philosophical zombies. You just BELIEVE everyone else has thoughts but you can only be sure of yourself, thus solipsism is the only logical position for the atheist.

If you BELIEVE others have thoughts and feel pain, you are basing it on faith, which opens the door to have faith in God. Otherwise it's hypocritical to deny God but believe in thoughts and pain.

You've already been refuted when it comes to solipsism but we'll review. If you think solipsism is true then you don't get out of it by merely positing some 'thing' you call "God". Get it? Anyone can posit anything and it does nothing to sufficiently answer the claim. By positing solipsism you have just put yourself in the same boat as everyone else and you don't escape it by a mere arbitrary assertion (like Berkeley tried). If solipsism is true, then it's true for you likewise! Adding more mere claims to the top doesn't get you out of it.

Second, your first sentence commits the fallacy of the Argument from Incredulity. So stop using it. Even if it were true that we could not tell what others were thinking (which it is not, entirely - see links below) this wouldn't say anything about your mere assertion being right. Just b/c you can't imagine how a brain can produce consciousness without some 'immaterial soul' thing doesn't at all mean your mere claim is the correct one. You actually need sound reasoning here - not more fallacious arguments.

There is plenty of evidence that other people think and feel pain. But you have a hypocritical standard of evidence that only allows in your personal biased interpretation of what counts as 'evidence'. Of course you don't accept the evidence. Practicing confirmation bias can certainly make you do that. I asked you before, by what standard do you use to most reliably determine what is true from what is false in the world. You never answered.

http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2011/09/22/brain-movies/ (http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2011/09/22/brain-movies/)
http://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/spring07/cos424/papers/NormanEtAlTICS.pdf (http://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/spring07/cos424/papers/NormanEtAlTICS.pdf)
http://singularityhub.com/2010/03/17/fmri-reads-the-images-in-your-brain-we-know-what-youre-looking-at-video/ (http://singularityhub.com/2010/03/17/fmri-reads-the-images-in-your-brain-we-know-what-youre-looking-at-video/)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10617288 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10617288)
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-06/brain-scans-predict-your-behavior-better-you-can (http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-06/brain-scans-predict-your-behavior-better-you-can)
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: median on December 01, 2013, 01:09:23 PM

I am sorry. I can not explain it anymore simple than that.

Jesus never told his disciples to go to Church every Sunday. Jesus didn't say to worship his mom. Jesus didn't say to beg people for money so you can buy a Rolls Royce and 2 mansions.

That's right, you cannot explain it in any way that is outside your personal interpretation of that book. You have no reliable ("objective") method for judging who is a "true" Christian and who is not b/c all you have is your own personal subjective interpretation of it. Take a taste of your own medicine Mr. "objective absolute truth".

Second, there is no record of Jesus' actual words (from his own hand). All you have is stories about stories. It's all based on oral tradition (hear-say based on hear-say) 70 years after the alleged events - one person told another person who told another, and so on down the line. None of that demonstrates the truth of the claims that are found in there and it certainly does not demonstrate that your interpretation is the right one.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Nam on December 01, 2013, 01:48:39 PM
I have a question.

Is, or is not the Flying Spaghetti monster the real god?

Only with pasta sauce. Without...it's just noodles.

-Nam

Skeptic,

Did my comment hurt your feelings? Of all the names I've called you it takes this comment for you to smite me?

Who's being childish? You, 'cause you're a fucking moron, and everyone knows it.

-Nam

Nam, I take the insults because I am trying to be like Christ. Christ didn't curse at the ones beating him and laughing at him. He just kept walking by.

Your post was insulting to the Eternal King and THAT is something I do not tolerate. Insult me all you want, but don't do that to the Creator.

You failed.

Oh, fuck your "Eternal King" and the imaginary horse it rides like a pony and fuck you, too.

Smite that.

-Nam
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: DVZ3 on December 01, 2013, 01:57:08 PM


All Christians are like people that pack a large bag that nobody else can see planning to go on a trip. Their trip is a place they are absolutely sure exists but you cannot find this exotic, heavenly destination on a map and you cannot go to this designation while alive.  They pack this large bag for the hope that in death they will go to the better of the 2 places that they not only made up but packed their bag properly for and even developed a relationship with the so-called ruler of this exotic place they once again made up.

All Christians pack their bags with different stuff all claiming that they have all the right stuff for the trip. Every Christians bags are different colors, shapes and sizes and yet all claim they still have not only the right bag but the right stuff packed.

When people who don't have these bags question why they have the bag and what they have packed they always get different answers and reasons for the bag they've picked and what the contents of the bag are. When people who don't have bags point out what others have or don't have in their bags the person currently holding their bag in front of us quickly point out why the other bags are wrong and some of the contents are wrong.

Myself being a person without a bag learn over time that the people with the bags seemingly get the decision that the bag is needed because of the type of family and how they were raised making them feel like they require the bag themselves.  The color, shape, and size of the bag is generally picked by geography as well as the contents which vary from location to location.

Anyways, you all can keep your bags if you feel they are necessary as well of your content that always seem to change with time, geography and bag person to bag person. But please don't tell me that you can't understand why we don't believe you even need to the bag let alone most of its contents. More importantly please don't tell me why we think the underlying reason for the bag and it's contents is for the hope and of a relationship with the ruler of a destination that can only be attained in death.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, all we ask for is a little and the common courtesy of thinking about the real reasons you feel you need your invisible bag with your own special contents. Ask yourself what is more likely vs unlikely in life and not only will you be more open and honest with yourself, you'll sound more credulous and reasonable.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: median on December 01, 2013, 02:54:04 PM

I don't believe you have read about the philosophical zombie:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie)

A philosophical zombie or p-zombie in the philosophy of mind and perception is a hypothetical being that is indistinguishable from a normal human being except in that it lacks conscious experience, qualia, or sentience.[1]

When a zombie is poked with a sharp object, for example, it does not feel any pain though it behaves exactly as if it does feel pain (it may say "ouch" and recoil from the stimulus, or tell us that it is in intense pain).


NO, p-zombie is indistinguishable from FICTION. I deny the claim that such a "zombie" is even possible (as per Loar 1990 (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/), among others) and the burden of proof would be on you to demonstrate such a claim.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: MadBunny on December 01, 2013, 04:25:51 PM
NO, p-zombie is indistinguishable from FICTION. I deny the claim that such a "zombie" is even possible (as per Loar 1990 (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/), among others) and the burden of proof would be on you to demonstrate such a claim.

Down this road lies Solipsism, and the ever popular 'brain in a box' thought experiment.  I'm kind of surprised he hasn't brought up a variant of 'Mary's room' yet.[1]Of all the possible philosophical exercises one can make, Solipsism is one of the most useless.  Sure, it's both irrefutable, and indefensible at the same time, making it an 'interesting' thought experiment, but it's also utterly and astonishingly useless.

The idea that one could base their life around this philosophy makes as much sense as assuming you're in the matrix.[2]
 1. The idea that if you have a perfect description of something, say, a 'color' you can never know what that color actually is unless you experience that color yourself, only an approximation.  As such things go, it's not a bad argument to make from a religious perspective, provided of course it isn't being made to someone who'd deconverted.

 2.  There is a famous documentary by the Wachawski brothers using the concept of 'brain in a box.  A series of movies called 'the matrix' matrix reloaded' 'animatrix' and another one so bad it isn't worth mentioning.  Some people have floated the idea that the entire series would have to take place inside of ANOTHER brain box, handily explaining how the main character could have super powers outside of the original box.  Sort of a meta solipsistic thought experiment, but with lots of kung fu. 
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: median on December 01, 2013, 06:37:38 PM
Down this road lies Solipsism, and the ever popular 'brain in a box' thought experiment.  I'm kind of surprised he hasn't brought up a variant of 'Mary's room' yet.[1]Of all the possible philosophical exercises one can make, Solipsism is one of the most useless.  Sure, it's both irrefutable, and indefensible at the same time, making it an 'interesting' thought experiment, but it's also utterly and astonishingly useless.

The idea that one could base their life around this philosophy makes as much sense as assuming you're in the matrix.[2]
 1. The idea that if you have a perfect description of something, say, a 'color' you can never know what that color actually is unless you experience that color yourself, only an approximation.  As such things go, it's not a bad argument to make from a religious perspective, provided of course it isn't being made to someone who'd deconverted.

 2.  There is a famous documentary by the Wachawski brothers using the concept of 'brain in a box.  A series of movies called 'the matrix' matrix reloaded' 'animatrix' and another one so bad it isn't worth mentioning.  Some people have floated the idea that the entire series would have to take place inside of ANOTHER brain box, handily explaining how the main character could have super powers outside of the original box.  Sort of a meta solipsistic thought experiment, but with lots of kung fu. 

What Skep is trying to do though is, first claim solipsism must be true, then claim that he gets to get out of it b/c he merely claims some 'god' exists. But this line of reasoning is completely ad hoc (arbitrary) and unjustified (a mere assertion). If solipsism is true (which I hold Kant and others refuted) then it is true for him as well - at which case it doesn't matter and is of no consequence to us. Skep wants us to think that we have faith just like he has faith except that our faith is in the external world and his is in his "God". NOPE! Nothing could be further from the truth. Even if we granted for the sake of argument that solipsism were true this wouldn't say anything whatsoever about an alleged "God" thing existing, nor would it mean that we have "faith" like he does (b/c our position is tentative/easily changed with the evidence and his is not). In other words (under this scenario), we have a working hypothesis. He has a fixed belief that he defends no matter what. He has absolutely nothing even remotely close to a sound argument for a 'God' but we do have sound arguments for thinking there is an external world. Even further, the idea that there is an external world outside of our minds is not controversial. But his 'God' claim is. So there is really no comparison. 




http://www.iep.utm.edu/solipsis/#H7 (http://www.iep.utm.edu/solipsis/#H7)
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 01, 2013, 08:16:22 PM
This Skep fellow, who I don't find to be worth talking to, is a strange one. On one hand, he insists that we atheists have faith in atheism the way he has faith in god, and he knows that for a fact. On the other hand, he says it is impossible to know if other humans can even feel pain.

So either it is possible to know what is going on in another person, or it is not. What kind of an idiot would hold two such diametrically opposed views?

That was a rhetorical question. I of course know exactly what kind of idiot would do that.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Nam on December 01, 2013, 08:19:38 PM
This Skep fellow, who I don't find to be worth talking to,

I placed him on my ignore list. Right when he makes you think you're getting through to him, he reverts right back to his usual commenting. Repetition can be good but not to the extent he does it.

-Nam
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Graybeard on December 01, 2013, 09:02:07 PM
Can you explain why what you have just said is any different from "I can't understand it, therefore God-did-it?

OK, you have the floor.

At one point there was no universe. Then at another point there was a universe. What caused the universe? If you believe in Big Bang, it says time, space, and matter began at the Big Bang. So, what caused it?
I don't know. You however, and without the slightest shred of evidence or thought say, "God-did-it. Therefore there is a god."

Your move...
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: OldChurchGuy on December 01, 2013, 11:25:42 PM
Skeptic,

I wish to withdraw my questions from this post.  Nothing personal, but I think you have your hands full as it is.

I am very glad God has helped you experience a turn around in your life so you are much better person now than before.  And I can see where you want to share this good news of your experience with God to others. 

I would suggest you follow an old axiom of communication:  know your audience.

This audience is wanting proof of God's existence.  YOU know God exists and I am convinced God exists but there is no way to prove that conclusion.  Put another way, there is no ritual, prayer, incantation, etc. which will consistently yield an entity which can be seen and measured that can be understood to be God. 

Unless and until you can come up with proof which meets that criteria, your well intentioned words will have little, if any, impact with the members of this web site.  As you have seen, this is a group that know their Bible very well. 

Before you write this off as some secular advice, consider the words of Paul:  (1 Corinthians 9:19-23)   "19 Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings."

To me, Paul made it a point to know his audience.  When you or someone else can come up with the proof this website demands, then you will have credibility. 

As always,

OldChurchGuy
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: median on December 02, 2013, 01:02:12 AM
But "the word will never return void" though, right? 1 Peter 3:15 is an operating principle for most apologists and in Acts they supposedly preached on the streets (without care for the 'audience' - b/c that audience is really anybody). Jude 1 also speaks to this. The doctrine of eternal hell-fire causes this tradition of "preach the gospel to all men". If he thinks we're going to hell, isn't it his obligation to try to bring us "into the fold"? Personally, I'm happy when apologists research, study, debate, and try to "defend the faith" b/c I think that's the fastest ticket to becoming an ex-believer! As long as he is willing to debate here, I'll be open to responding.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on December 02, 2013, 01:37:54 AM
Skeptic,

I wish to withdraw my questions from this post.  Nothing personal, but I think you have your hands full as it is.

I am very glad God has helped you experience a turn around in your life so you are much better person now than before.  And I can see where you want to share this good news of your experience with God to others. 

I would suggest you follow an old axiom of communication:  know your audience.

This audience is wanting proof of God's existence.  YOU know God exists and I am convinced God exists but there is no way to prove that conclusion.  Put another way, there is no ritual, prayer, incantation, etc. which will consistently yield an entity which can be seen and measured that can be understood to be God. 

Unless and until you can come up with proof which meets that criteria, your well intentioned words will have little, if any, impact with the members of this web site.  As you have seen, this is a group that know their Bible very well. 

Before you write this off as some secular advice, consider the words of Paul:  (1 Corinthians 9:19-23)   "19 Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings."

To me, Paul made it a point to know his audience.  When you or someone else can come up with the proof this website demands, then you will have credibility. 

As always,

OldChurchGuy

I will take that into consideration. Thanks for the thoughtful words OCG.

I have a question for you now.

Do you think it's reasonable for atheists to demand a certain type of evidence?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on December 02, 2013, 01:42:32 AM
But "the word will never return void" though, right? 1 Peter 3:15 is an operating principle for most apologists and in Acts they supposedly preached on the streets (without care for the 'audience' - b/c that audience is really anybody). Jude 1 also speaks to this. The doctrine of eternal hell-fire causes this tradition of "preach the gospel to all men". If he thinks we're going to hell, isn't it his obligation to try to bring us "into the fold"? Personally, I'm happy when apologists research, study, debate, and try to "defend the faith" b/c I think that's the fastest ticket to becoming an ex-believer! As long as he is willing to debate here, I'll be open to responding.

I certainly view it as trying to save the person.

A helpful analogy is a fireman holding the net out and telling someone to jump but they refuse to jump and they die in the blazing inferno.

Would you say the fireman is an annoying prick?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 02, 2013, 01:45:09 AM
Would you say the fireman is an annoying prick?

Normally not, but if he was you he would be.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on December 02, 2013, 01:47:44 AM
Would you say the fireman is an annoying prick?

Normally not, but if he was you he would be.

That's the point! Atheists shouldn't get upset when we try to save them. If they see it from our point of view, we see a drowning man.

Wouldn't you be horrified if you knew some people would be lost forever? Wouldn't you view it as love?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Nam on December 02, 2013, 01:52:57 AM
The drowning man who wishes to drown should be allowed to if that's what he wants. Christians and other religious people don't care what anyone wants, only what they want.

-Nam
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on December 02, 2013, 01:53:58 AM
The drowning man who wishes to drown should be allowed to if that's what he wants. Christians and other religious people don't care what anyone wants, only what they want.

-Nam

Are you saying you want to go to Hell? I never ever had someone say that to me. If someone truly said to me, "I want to go to Hell" I would leave them alone.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Add Homonym on December 02, 2013, 01:55:02 AM
That's the point! Atheists shouldn't get upset when we try to save them. If they see it from our point of view, we see a drowning man.

Wouldn't you be horrified if you knew some people would be lost forever? Wouldn't you view it as love?

As OCG says: know your audience. There is no way to convince this audience that historical events in Genesis actually happened, because they didn't. Therefore, Genesis is a load of crap, which means Jesus, a God, endorsed crap. There is no way to work around this problem. You believe in the Genesis crap, so we are totally skeptical that your rationale of the Bible is correct. It differs from OCG, who probably does not believe in Genesis, or maybe even the resurrection. As such, his version of God is different to yours, and saves people a different way. You cannot save people, unless you know what God wants, and you cannot use the Bible to deduce that, only what God has told you directly, and is distinct from your imagination during prayer.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Nam on December 02, 2013, 01:56:53 AM
The drowning man who wishes to drown should be allowed to if that's what he wants. Christians and other religious people don't care what anyone wants, only what they want.

-Nam

Are you saying you want to go to Hell? I never ever had someone say that to me. If someone truly said to me, "I want to go to Hell" I would leave them alone.

If hell actually exists then yes, I want to go to hell. We had a discussion on this very topic over a year ago; if your god actually exists almost every single atheist here that took part in that discussion said they'd bow down to it. I wasn't one of them. Go bother them.

-Nam
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Add Homonym on December 02, 2013, 02:02:04 AM
if your god actually exists

Note to skep: it was semantically a debate about whether your God actually exists. The God of the Bible is such an entity described, would not deserve anyone's respect. There are other plausible gods who might be worth bowing down to.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on December 02, 2013, 02:02:32 AM
The drowning man who wishes to drown should be allowed to if that's what he wants. Christians and other religious people don't care what anyone wants, only what they want.

-Nam

Are you saying you want to go to Hell? I never ever had someone say that to me. If someone truly said to me, "I want to go to Hell" I would leave them alone.

If hell actually exists then yes, I want to go to hell. We had a discussion on this very topic over a year ago; if your god actually exists almost every single atheist here that took part in that discussion said they'd bow down to it. I wasn't one of them. Go bother them.

-Nam

I am sorry Nam but that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard in my life.

Imagine burning your hand on a hot stove. Now imagine that feeling forever with no end. That's not pretty and downright horrific.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on December 02, 2013, 02:03:44 AM
Are you saying you want to go to Hell? I never ever had someone say that to me. If someone truly said to me, "I want to go to Hell" I would leave them alone.

Well lets look at it.

There is fire apparently, but we are dead, so no pain will be there.
It will be warm, i like being warm.
It is run by a very good businessman, who is probably open to suggestions.
Said businessman is also near omnipotent, so you can probably slip some requests and such there.

So why not go to hell? It should be called paradise.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on December 02, 2013, 02:05:23 AM
Are you saying you want to go to Hell? I never ever had someone say that to me. If someone truly said to me, "I want to go to Hell" I would leave them alone.

Well lets look at it.

There is fire apparently, but we are dead, so no pain will be there.
It will be warm, i like being warm.
It is run by a very good businessman, who is probably open to suggestions.
Said businessman is also near omnipotent, so you can probably slip some requests and such there.

So why not go to hell? It should be called paradise.

This kind of stuff fuels the stereotype that atheists are in league with satan.  :o
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on December 02, 2013, 02:07:59 AM
I mean, who WOULDN'T want to do menial tasks like persuade people to burn, and in return get anything they desire?

Unlike that god guy, who wants you to worship him!

Bah.

Disclaimer: satan and god do not exist, so my posts about said works of fiction are satirical.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on December 02, 2013, 02:10:52 AM
I mean, who WOULDN'T want to do menial tasks like persuade people to burn, and in return get anything they desire?

Unlike that god guy, who wants you to worship him!

Bah.

Disclaimer: satan and god do not exist, so my posts about said works of fiction are satirical.

 I am in shock.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on December 02, 2013, 02:14:38 AM
I mean, how pathetic is god?

He sits on his ass all day saying "praise me bitches, while i sit here and shit"

While good ole' satan is going around making atheists, making pokemon raps and stuff.

Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Nam on December 02, 2013, 02:46:35 AM
The drowning man who wishes to drown should be allowed to if that's what he wants. Christians and other religious people don't care what anyone wants, only what they want.

-Nam

Are you saying you want to go to Hell? I never ever had someone say that to me. If someone truly said to me, "I want to go to Hell" I would leave them alone.

If hell actually exists then yes, I want to go to hell. We had a discussion on this very topic over a year ago; if your god actually exists almost every single atheist here that took part in that discussion said they'd bow down to it. I wasn't one of them. Go bother them.

-Nam

I am sorry Nam but that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard in my life.

Imagine burning your hand on a hot stove. Now imagine that feeling forever with no end. That's not pretty and downright horrific.

And how is worshipping for all eternity an idiot like your imaginary god any less of a hell? It may be peaches and cream to you but to people like me: that's worse.

-Nam
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Add Homonym on December 02, 2013, 02:52:38 AM
Note: the Bible does not say "eternity". The Vulgate translation did that one, and Revelation says second death.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Add Homonym on December 02, 2013, 02:54:38 AM
I am in shock.

Don't be too in shock. He's 16, and winding you up.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Nam on December 02, 2013, 03:04:38 AM
I am in shock.

Don't be too in shock. He's 16, and winding you up.

Who's 16?

-Nam
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Ataraxia on December 02, 2013, 03:05:39 AM
Would you say the fireman is an annoying prick?

Normally not, but if he was you he would be.

That's the point! Atheists shouldn't get upset when we try to save them. If they see it from our point of view, we see a drowning man.

Wouldn't you be horrified if you knew some people would be lost forever? Wouldn't you view it as love?

No, it's not even a nice thing to do, never mind loving. Thing is, you're not "saving" us from drowning, you're throwing us a concrete lifebelt. You're telling us to worship the thing that threw us overboard in the first place. No, leave me to Neptune. He seems a much more pleasant kinda fellow.

What you proselytisers never seem to understand is that you tell us that we're drowning, yet provide no evidence of us being in any water. The evidence is as dry as a bone. I'm not even stood in a puddle, but you're telling me I'm up to my neck in it. When you actually bother to get off your arse and provide some evidence, then you can tell me I'm drowning, but still don't expect me to look to your God as a saviour, when it was he who made me walk the plank as soon as I fell out my mother.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Add Homonym on December 02, 2013, 03:06:02 AM
Maybe his Tulpa is only 16. Maybe it's only his Tulpa that we hear from.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Add Homonym on December 02, 2013, 03:16:46 AM
Imagine burning your hand on a hot stove. Now imagine that feeling forever with no end. That's not pretty and downright horrific.

Imagine a scumbag who goes around scaring children with stories about burning in a fire, so they spend half their life waking up from nightmares.

Imagine a retard who puts his fingers in his ears, when you point out that the sun wasn't created on the 4th day, and that there is no way for animals to get to Australia, such that they would all be marsupials.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on December 02, 2013, 04:01:59 AM
Maybe his Tulpa is only 16. Maybe it's only his Tulpa that we hear from.

She is 7 moths old...
*off derailment*

Christians sicken me, they believe that threatening people with eternal pain is a GOOD thing.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: OldChurchGuy on December 02, 2013, 06:45:04 AM
Skeptic,

I wish to withdraw my questions from this post.  Nothing personal, but I think you have your hands full as it is.

I am very glad God has helped you experience a turn around in your life so you are much better person now than before.  And I can see where you want to share this good news of your experience with God to others. 

I would suggest you follow an old axiom of communication:  know your audience.

This audience is wanting proof of God's existence.  YOU know God exists and I am convinced God exists but there is no way to prove that conclusion.  Put another way, there is no ritual, prayer, incantation, etc. which will consistently yield an entity which can be seen and measured that can be understood to be God. 

Unless and until you can come up with proof which meets that criteria, your well intentioned words will have little, if any, impact with the members of this web site.  As you have seen, this is a group that know their Bible very well. 

Before you write this off as some secular advice, consider the words of Paul:  (1 Corinthians 9:19-23)   "19 Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings."

To me, Paul made it a point to know his audience.  When you or someone else can come up with the proof this website demands, then you will have credibility. 

As always,

OldChurchGuy

I will take that into consideration. Thanks for the thoughtful words OCG.

I have a question for you now.

Do you think it's reasonable for atheists to demand a certain type of evidence?

Yes, I do.

We are talking about a subjective idea; that of faith or belief in a supreme being.  The people on this website are looking for some external evidence to back up any assertion about a supreme being. 
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Jonny-UK on December 02, 2013, 07:20:31 AM
We are talking about a subjective idea; that of faith or belief in a supreme being.  The people on this website are looking for some external evidence to back up any assertion about a supreme being.
I know this is the "ask skeptic" thread but would you mind you mind answering a quick question please OCG?
If you had not read the bible (or any other religious book) is there anything in the world that you think would have still steered you to follow a god(s) and to then go and read the relevant book?
Thank you in advance for any reply.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on December 02, 2013, 11:46:00 AM
Skeptic,

I wish to withdraw my questions from this post.  Nothing personal, but I think you have your hands full as it is.

I am very glad God has helped you experience a turn around in your life so you are much better person now than before.  And I can see where you want to share this good news of your experience with God to others. 

I would suggest you follow an old axiom of communication:  know your audience.

This audience is wanting proof of God's existence.  YOU know God exists and I am convinced God exists but there is no way to prove that conclusion.  Put another way, there is no ritual, prayer, incantation, etc. which will consistently yield an entity which can be seen and measured that can be understood to be God. 

Unless and until you can come up with proof which meets that criteria, your well intentioned words will have little, if any, impact with the members of this web site.  As you have seen, this is a group that know their Bible very well. 

Before you write this off as some secular advice, consider the words of Paul:  (1 Corinthians 9:19-23)   "19 Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings."

To me, Paul made it a point to know his audience.  When you or someone else can come up with the proof this website demands, then you will have credibility. 

As always,

OldChurchGuy

I will take that into consideration. Thanks for the thoughtful words OCG.

I have a question for you now.

Do you think it's reasonable for atheists to demand a certain type of evidence?

Yes, I do.

We are talking about a subjective idea; that of faith or belief in a supreme being.  The people on this website are looking for some external evidence to back up any assertion about a supreme being.

But how can they just dismiss our experiences?

If someone never fell in love with a woman/man, are they justified in being skeptical about whether or not love exists?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Aaron123 on December 02, 2013, 11:49:52 AM
But how can they just dismiss our experiences?

If someone never fell in love with a woman/man, are they justified in being skeptical about whether or not love exists?

False analogy.  Love can be directly observed.  Your god cannot.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Traveler on December 02, 2013, 11:58:43 AM
Sceptic, try to imagine that you do not have any god belief. How would you even begin to know who to believe without any evidence? Christians (all 30,000+ variants), Jews, Muslims, Native Americans, Hindi, Pagan ... the list goes on. We would need some criteria for choice. its not christianity or atheism here ... there is a whole world full of belief systems. You don't get to skip to the head of the line without a REASON.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: jdawg70 on December 02, 2013, 12:11:53 PM
If someone never fell in love with a woman/man, are they justified in being skeptical about whether or not love exists?
If someone has never experienced love or observed love in action, then yes, they would certainly be justified in being skeptical about the existence of love.

Try it like this:
If someone never experienced flobort, and never observed flobort, are they justified in being skeptical about whether flobort exists?

If flobort is defined in such a way as to never, in principle, produce any observable phenomenon, then someone who has never experienced flobort firsthand damn well should be skeptical about it's purported existence.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Jag on December 02, 2013, 12:23:18 PM
I can't help but see skep's confusion over evidence as amounting to "What? You won't just take my word for it? But, but, but...I don't understand... why not?"

Or he's a very persistent troll.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: median on December 02, 2013, 06:53:37 PM

I certainly view it as trying to save the person.

A helpful analogy is a fireman holding the net out and telling someone to jump but they refuse to jump and they die in the blazing inferno.

Would you say the fireman is an annoying prick?

False Analogy (and not helpful). We have lots of examples of burning buildings, fires, people getting hurt, etc. YOU DO NOT, however, have any demonstrable examples of demons, ghosts, a place called "heaven" or "hell", a deity named "Yahweh", or any of that other supernatural stuff (and claims in books don't count b/c I've seen tons of fires, burning buildings, fireman, hurt people, etc - we don't just read about them in 2000 year old texts). Try actually comparing apples to apples next time.

EX:

A talking unicorn pointing in the direction of the end of a pot of gold for someone to get rich and have all their dreams come true

Would you say the unicorn is stupid for not taking the gold itself?


Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: median on December 02, 2013, 07:16:10 PM

But how can they just dismiss our experiences?

If someone never fell in love with a woman/man, are they justified in being skeptical about whether or not love exists?

We are challenging YOUR INTERPRETATION of your alleged 'experience', and your confirmation bias that you use in support of it.

"Love" is merely a word that we use to describe a specific set of human emotions, feelings, conscious states, and the like. There is no indication that love is anything supernatural. It is related to emotion. So your analogy is a false one. You cannot compare a human emotion to an alleged supernatural thing which has not been demonstrated. Where is your critical thinking?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Add Homonym on December 02, 2013, 07:59:30 PM
Or he's a very persistent troll.

I'm still voting for Troll, actually.

He doesn't engage with enough variation to be a real person.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Add Homonym on December 02, 2013, 08:21:32 PM
"Love" is merely a word that we use to describe a specific set of human emotions, feelings, conscious states, and the like.

He said, actually, "fell in love". The state known as "falling in love", is known by psychologists to be a delusional, OCD state, where the person who falls in love, suspends judgement on a load of issues.

It's similar to Christianity.

Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on December 02, 2013, 08:32:56 PM

I certainly view it as trying to save the person.

A helpful analogy is a fireman holding the net out and telling someone to jump but they refuse to jump and they die in the blazing inferno.

Would you say the fireman is an annoying prick?

False Analogy (and not helpful). We have lots of examples of burning buildings, fires, people getting hurt, etc. YOU DO NOT, however, have any demonstrable examples of demons, ghosts, a place called "heaven" or "hell", a deity named "Yahweh", or any of that other supernatural stuff (and claims in books don't count b/c I've seen tons of fires, burning buildings, fireman, hurt people, etc - we don't just read about them in 2000 year old texts). Try actually comparing apples to apples next time.

EX:

A talking unicorn pointing in the direction of the end of a pot of gold for someone to get rich and have all their dreams come true

Would you say the unicorn is stupid for not taking the gold itself?

but the thing is there have been people who died and went to hell and came back to life and told us about it. Countless people experience OBE's and can see things in different rooms.

This stuff is not just made up. This is the proof you guys want and it's right there!
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on December 02, 2013, 08:34:48 PM
Sceptic, try to imagine that you do not have any god belief. How would you even begin to know who to believe without any evidence? Christians (all 30,000+ variants), Jews, Muslims, Native Americans, Hindi, Pagan ... the list goes on. We would need some criteria for choice. its not christianity or atheism here ... there is a whole world full of belief systems. You don't get to skip to the head of the line without a REASON.

The Bible is the only Holy Book that jumps out at you. When I read the pages, everything applies to today. It's shocking how precise Paul and the other authors were about the future.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on December 02, 2013, 08:42:47 PM
If someone never fell in love with a woman/man, are they justified in being skeptical about whether or not love exists?
If someone has never experienced love or observed love in action, then yes, they would certainly be justified in being skeptical about the existence of love.

Try it like this:
If someone never experienced flobort, and never observed flobort, are they justified in being skeptical about whether flobort exists?

If flobort is defined in such a way as to never, in principle, produce any observable phenomenon, then someone who has never experienced flobort firsthand damn well should be skeptical about it's purported existence.

Skepticism is OK when applied to the right things.

However, do you know who only believes in things they can see and touch? Animals.

We are not animals. We are spiritual creatures. We have to be better than relying on the simple senses. That's what monkeys do.

Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: jynnan tonnix on December 02, 2013, 09:10:47 PM

but the thing is there have been people who died and went to hell and came back to life and told us about it. Countless people experience OBE's and can see things in different rooms.

This stuff is not just made up. This is the proof you guys want and it's right there!

Leaving aside all the research which suggests that near death experiences, out of body experiences, etc, are most likely some form of hallucination (which can, in fact, be duplicated in lab conditions), the fact still remains that the vast majority of people who did experience the white light, the overwhelming sensations of peace and love, etc, come from backgrounds which you would probably categorize as being demon-influenced.

The sensations reported tend to be very similar among people of all sorts of religious backgrounds, and those which report "hell" are quite few and far between. Also, there are other types specifically related to a person's religion, though I have not read as much about those.

How would you explain the fact that the experiences of a Baptist, a Catholic, a Mormon, a Pentecostal, a hippy-dippy new ager and someone who more or less ignores religion altogether (just to name a few backgrounds) might all have a very similar scenario when, according to you, all but about 1% of them are living lives which have them on the slope to hell?

For the most part, there does seem to be a strong correlation between what a person expects to find on the other side and the experiences they report if they do, indeed, have some sort of NDE. There are also many people who are resuscitated and do not recall anything in particular.

Oh, and while there are some pretty cool coincidences with what people recall seeing in OBE's, as far as I know there has not been anything thus far which has verified that people are seeing things which they absolutely would have no way to know, and plenty of instances where things reported did not match up to reality.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: median on December 02, 2013, 09:11:48 PM

but the thing is there have been people who died and went to hell and came back to life and told us about it. Countless people experience OBE's and can see things in different rooms.

This stuff is not just made up. This is the proof you guys want and it's right there!


Have you even researched these claims? The Institute for Near Death Experiences has documented a lot of these CLAIMS - and they contradict each other! How gullible are you? People who grew up in Hindu cultures had Hindu "experiences". People who grew up in Buddhist cultures had "past life" experiences - likewise with people who grew up in Judeo Christian, Muslim, Mormon, or Jewish cultures. This stuff you are bringing up is extremely weak. The brain is powerful and can create all sorts of illusions, false memories, and delusions that are not real.

Your assumption doesn't win by default. Sorry.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: natlegend on December 02, 2013, 09:15:22 PM
Since my question seems to be spread out over two threads now, I shall ask again in this thread...

*sigh*

Skeptic, please define for me what you believe defines a OneTrueChristian.

Please use point form, and be as specific as possible. I will not accept vague answers, I want the truth from you and I want it now. If ALL other religions are wrong, please convince me that yours is the correct one, and give valid reasons why.


Really, how many times do I have to ask you this?

Quote
How many times must I say it?

Follow Jesus' words and accept Him as your savior. That's it.
Show me where Jesus says, "Worship my mom at mass on Sundays."
(HINT: Don't do it because it's pointless. It's not in the Bible.)

THIS IS NOT AN ANSWER. IT IS A DODGE. Where in the above have you attempted to prove your god as being the correct one?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: median on December 02, 2013, 09:16:24 PM

Skepticism is OK when applied to the right things.

However, do you know who only believes in things they can see and touch? Animals.

We are not animals. We are spiritual creatures. We have to be better than relying on the simple senses. That's what monkeys do.

Wrong again. We are animals in that we are part of the animal kingdom. And no matter how much you want to just assume your belief on souls (or whatever), it doesn't make it true. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence but you don't even have ordinary evidence. All you have are ASSUMPTIONS and more claims b/c you are practicing intellectual hypocrisy.

Second, monkeys (just like all other creatures on earth) do the best they can with what they have - just like we are doing. Nothing about that equates to some 'immaterial soul'. Your term for "spiritual" is meaningless and points to nothing real.

Btw, "the right things" we should apply skepticism to are all claims about reality, and especially those of the supernatural, miraculous, superstitious, and non-demonstrable.

You need to start applying skepticism consistently (not selectively).
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: median on December 02, 2013, 09:19:52 PM

The Bible is the only Holy Book that jumps out at you. When I read the pages, everything applies to today. It's shocking how precise Paul and the other authors were about the future.

Have you read the Bhagavad Gita, the Hindu Veddas, The Code of Hammurabi, the Epic of Gilgamesh, the writings of Confucius, or the Illiad and Odyssey? You simply don't know what you're talking about. There are a ton of books that "jump out at you". But just b/c a book "jumps out at you" doesn't say anything as to whether or not it is true.

YOU ARE BEING IRRATIONAL

(http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm162/gojle/bth_red_alert.gif)
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: 12 Monkeys on December 02, 2013, 09:22:57 PM
Sceptic, try to imagine that you do not have any god belief. How would you even begin to know who to believe without any evidence? Christians (all 30,000+ variants), Jews, Muslims, Native Americans, Hindi, Pagan ... the list goes on. We would need some criteria for choice. its not christianity or atheism here ... there is a whole world full of belief systems. You don't get to skip to the head of the line without a REASON.

The Bible is the only Holy Book that jumps out at you. When I read the pages, everything applies to today. It's shocking how precise Paul and the other authors were about the future.
Plato,Nostradamus any many others made prediction,although vague and like the Bible open to many interpretations. If I tell you there will be a holy war soon am I right? Vague predictions open to interpretation are hardly an acceptable look at the future from 2000 years ago.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: jdawg70 on December 02, 2013, 09:54:40 PM
If someone has never experienced love or observed love in action, then yes, they would certainly be justified in being skeptical about the existence of love.

Try it like this:
If someone never experienced flobort, and never observed flobort, are they justified in being skeptical about whether flobort exists?

If flobort is defined in such a way as to never, in principle, produce any observable phenomenon, then someone who has never experienced flobort firsthand damn well should be skeptical about it's purported existence.

Skepticism is OK when applied to the right things.
Please explain either:
a) if you agree that applying skepticism towards flobort is valid then please, as specifically as you can, explain why that is so.
b) if you disagree that applying skepticism towards flobort is valid then please either:
    1) acknowledge that you believe that flobort exists
    2) explain why you do not believe flobort exists but do believe love exists.
c) If you cannot do either a or b, then it will suffice if you provide a method or process for discern whether some claim does or does not deserve skepticism.

Quote
However, do you know who only believes in things they can see and touch? Animals.

We are not animals. We are spiritual creatures. We have to be better than relying on the simple senses. That's what monkeys do.
First of all, you, I and every other human are animals.  Get over it.

Secondly, yes I do acknowledge that we have to be better than relying on the simple senses.  That doesn't mean you can just pick any old bulls**t willy-nilly as a 'true' claim regarding objective reality - refusing to have any sort of sanity check or process to serve as a 'truth filter' is downright bonkers.  You need to have some way to evaluate claims for truth-value; you need to have some reason to accept that some claims are true and other claims are false.  Rules of logic, coherence and consistency with observations and predictions from objective reality...these are tools that we use to extend our knowledge about reality beyond what we can get from our simple senses.

Accepting as true claims arbitrarily, that is, without any skepticism towards the truth-value of that claim, is abhorrent to doing better than our simple senses.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: OldChurchGuy on December 02, 2013, 09:55:56 PM
We are talking about a subjective idea; that of faith or belief in a supreme being.  The people on this website are looking for some external evidence to back up any assertion about a supreme being.
I know this is the "ask skeptic" thread but would you mind you mind answering a quick question please OCG?
If you had not read the bible (or any other religious book) is there anything in the world that you think would have still steered you to follow a god(s) and to then go and read the relevant book?
Thank you in advance for any reply.

I have no idea.  Perhaps and perhaps not.  Such a question is impossible for me to answer with any certainty.

Regretfully,

OldChurchGuy
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Traveler on December 02, 2013, 11:15:39 PM
Sceptic, try to imagine that you do not have any god belief. How would you even begin to know who to believe without any evidence? Christians (all 30,000+ variants), Jews, Muslims, Native Americans, Hindi, Pagan ... the list goes on. We would need some criteria for choice. its not christianity or atheism here ... there is a whole world full of belief systems. You don't get to skip to the head of the line without a REASON.

The Bible is the only Holy Book that jumps out at you. When I read the pages, everything applies to today. It's shocking how precise Paul and the other authors were about the future.

No, the bible is the only holy book that jumps out at YOU. for me it never resonated in the slightest. certain native American beliefs, some goddess religions, some pagan beliefs ... these at least made some sense. In contrast, your bible is a violent horror show filled with mysogyny, racism, and scare tactics. A large cult that worships a torture device, participates in ritual canibalism, and threatens eternal torture for finite crimes. pathetic.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on December 02, 2013, 11:26:59 PM
If someone has never experienced love or observed love in action, then yes, they would certainly be justified in being skeptical about the existence of love.

Try it like this:
If someone never experienced flobort, and never observed flobort, are they justified in being skeptical about whether flobort exists?

If flobort is defined in such a way as to never, in principle, produce any observable phenomenon, then someone who has never experienced flobort firsthand damn well should be skeptical about it's purported existence.

Skepticism is OK when applied to the right things.
Please explain either:
a) if you agree that applying skepticism towards flobort is valid then please, as specifically as you can, explain why that is so.
b) if you disagree that applying skepticism towards flobort is valid then please either:
    1) acknowledge that you believe that flobort exists
    2) explain why you do not believe flobort exists but do believe love exists.
c) If you cannot do either a or b, then it will suffice if you provide a method or process for discern whether some claim does or does not deserve skepticism.

Quote
However, do you know who only believes in things they can see and touch? Animals.

We are not animals. We are spiritual creatures. We have to be better than relying on the simple senses. That's what monkeys do.
First of all, you, I and every other human are animals.  Get over it.

Secondly, yes I do acknowledge that we have to be better than relying on the simple senses.  That doesn't mean you can just pick any old bulls**t willy-nilly as a 'true' claim regarding objective reality - refusing to have any sort of sanity check or process to serve as a 'truth filter' is downright bonkers.  You need to have some way to evaluate claims for truth-value; you need to have some reason to accept that some claims are true and other claims are false.  Rules of logic, coherence and consistency with observations and predictions from objective reality...these are tools that we use to extend our knowledge about reality beyond what we can get from our simple senses.

Accepting as true claims arbitrarily, that is, without any skepticism towards the truth-value of that claim, is abhorrent to doing better than our simple senses.

Believe me I see what you are saying. but atheism is a dead end when it comes to proving an objective reality.

How does one prove an objective reality?
 Can you please define it as well?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Add Homonym on December 02, 2013, 11:52:49 PM
Believe me I see what you are saying. but atheism is a dead end when it comes to proving an objective reality.

It's not a dead end for you, because you don't even bother to consider that you are in a dead end, as much as any atheist. You think you have a special exemption card, or something.

Watch the profound discussion that results from your explanation of why you have a special exemption.

Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: jdawg70 on December 03, 2013, 12:31:17 AM
Believe me I see what you are saying. but atheism is a dead end when it comes to proving an objective reality.
I really don't think you see what I'm saying.  Because everything that you say after that statement doesn't address what I'm saying.  It really doesn't.

First of all, I didn't make any mention of 'atheism' in my post.  So I'm not sure why you felt the need to bring it up.  Secondly, if you do not want to agree that there exists a shared objective reality (that is, there exists some facts that can be evaluated as true irrespective of a subjective entity's thoughts and experiences), then all of this is moot.  You're arguing from a perspective that there is no external world.  You're deciding on solipsism.  There is no argumentation left to be had.  You've chosen the philosophical nuke and have rendered all arguments and claims both true and false.  You've eradicated the very notion of evidence, annihilated the very concept of 'morality', curb stomped any notion of the existence of demons, and resolutely dimissed the existence gods.

You've allowed yourself to believe any and all bulls**t and disbelieve anything to the contrary just because it makes you feel good.  You would seriously need to find a way to change your username then.

Lastly, you completely ignored the little decision-tree thingiemadoodle made.  Which doesn't really support your assertion that you 'get what I'm saying'.
Quote
How does one prove an objective reality?
 Can you please define it as well?
Honestly, I have no idea how to prove an objective reality.  I suppose existence could be solipsistic in nature, but then as per above, there really is nothing at all to discuss.  But let's face it - you concede an objective reality exists.  Your position depends on it just as badly as anyone else's position.

Edit: I learned to count! (fixed enumeration of points to be sensible)
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Astreja on December 03, 2013, 01:03:35 AM
The Bible is the only Holy Book that jumps out at you.

Never did a thing for Me.  I've had far better luck with the Poetic Edda, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Edith Hamilton's book Mythology, and Dragonlance Legends.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on December 03, 2013, 01:57:30 AM
Skeptic, answer me this.


You state that pastafarianism is false, as it is not the majority.

Now, catholicism is the most common christian religion, so why is it false?

This contradicts itself.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on December 03, 2013, 02:13:08 AM
Skeptic, answer me this.


You state that pastafarianism is false, as it is not the majority.

Now, catholicism is the most common christian religion, so why is it false?

This contradicts itself.


No, because the Bible says that MANY will be deceived and the gate is very narrow. The Catholic Church fits this perfectly.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on December 03, 2013, 03:13:12 AM
Then if the majority is false, and you have more followers than pastafarianism, how is pastafarianism wrong?

How do you know you are right?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Antidote on December 03, 2013, 03:49:31 AM
The Bible is the only Holy Book that jumps out at you.

I've read the bible, if anything it gave me indigestion.

Riddle me this Batman, if christianity is true why do MOST christians contradict each other? There isn't a consensus among you guys, every single one I talk to says the previous wasn't a "true" christian.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: natlegend on December 03, 2013, 06:12:52 AM
This thread needs it's title changed to "The Religious Ask Skeptic And He Will Blatently Ignore You" thread.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: jynnan tonnix on December 03, 2013, 08:16:26 AM
  You're deciding on solipsism.  There is no argumentation left to be had.  You've chosen the philosophical nuke and have rendered all arguments and claims both true and false.  You've eradicated the very notion of evidence, annihilated the very concept of 'morality', curb stomped any notion of the existence of demons, and resolutely dimissed the existence gods.
.................
Honestly, I have no idea how to prove an objective reality.  I suppose existence could be solipsistic in nature, but then as per above, there really is nothing at all to discuss.  But let's face it - you concede an objective reality exists.  Your position depends on it just as badly as anyone else's position.

Edit: I learned to count! (fixed enumeration of points to be sensible)

Because I felt the above from Jdawg needed to be restated for Skeptic without the distraction of more stuff around it. This is exactly what it all boils down to, and is a total impasse. It's impossible to have it both ways.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Hatter23 on December 03, 2013, 09:28:04 AM
You don't take them seriously. You consistently refuse to make a case that the creator is, in fact, your God.

Haven't you heard of the argument from motion? The unmoved mover is God. The only other option is infinite regress and that's nonsensical because you can't have a beginning with infinite regress so nothing would ever be able to be in motion right now so there must be an unmoved mover that started things in motion.

This is a plain as day slam dunk argument.

based on special pleading, a logical fallacy. Furthermore you use the Deist God this requires and attribute it to the Judeo-Christian God, which is equivocation.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Hatter23 on December 03, 2013, 09:41:36 AM
I have a question.

Is, or is not the Flying Spaghetti monster the real god?

If atheists want to be taken seriously, they have to stop using this objection. It's rather pedestrian and immature.

It is neither. It is a demonstration, through humor, of what an appeal to ignorance can lead to. Sure the FSM may seem a ridiculous idea, but the only reason you find it ridiculous is that it does not share the same background cultural assmption of the Judeon Christian God. The FSM can use the same circular arguments you are using for your God, and therefore illustrates how useless those arguments are.

 
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Anfauglir on December 03, 2013, 11:00:50 AM
Are you saying you want to go to Hell? I never ever had someone say that to me. If someone truly said to me, "I want to go to Hell" I would leave them alone.

Oooo, look!  A direct lie from Skeptic!  After that post, Nam said:

If hell actually exists then yes, I want to go to hell.

Did Skep "leave him alone" as he promised he would?  Nope - he responded like this:

I am sorry Nam but that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard in my life.

...thus proving that his professed reasons for continuing to engage here are a pack of lies.  He's NOT here to help the people "drowning and not realising it".  He's here to preach, regardless, even when they tell him they are specifically not interested.

Why did you lie to us, Skep?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: median on December 03, 2013, 11:17:20 AM

Believe me I see what you are saying. but atheism is a dead end when it comes to proving an objective reality.

How does one prove an objective reality?
 Can you please define it as well?

I do not believe that you "see" what we are saying b/c you keep coming back with the same irrational arguments over and over and over.

Now YOU are the one using terms like "objective reality" or "knowing" (which pertains to some absolute certainty). So YOU need to define your terms.

Even if we agreed that we could not "prove" (with absolute certainty) that there is some "objective reality" that in itself would not make your position true. Sorry. An argument from ignorance can't get you there. Just making claims doesn't make them true by default.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 03, 2013, 11:41:46 AM
I don't know why Skep is so horrified by hell, or Nam's wanting to go there if it is real. First of all, he's pretty sure he is the only one getting in to heaven. Because every other religious person is dogged by demons and interpreting the bible wrong and hence doomed. Sadly, Skep's inability to clarify how he got it exactly right sort of dooms every other person on the planet to a permanent sauna, if the bible is right about that part.

Hence we're all going there except him. That is the norm. If a person is horrified by such everyday, mundane realities, then they have no grip on reality. I don't like that a hundred people die every day in the US in car wrecks, but if I were horrified by that, I would be unable to get in my own vehicle and go to the store. Car deaths are a modern reality that most of us have learned to be blasé about. Skep needs to get as casual about the rest of us going to hell or he's going to have a pretty tragic god-filled life.

If there is a hell, that's where I want to go. If it is good enough for all of my sweet grandparents (they were way to casual in the christianity department to be anything like the christian Skep is), then hell is good enough for me too.

Eternal torture? What a crock. You don't need much more information than that to understand that the concept of hell is an incredibly human invention, an idea produced by and/or maintained those who can't get their way and who want to have something to hold over the heads of others.

Like Skep does, for instance.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: The Gawd on December 03, 2013, 01:00:01 PM
I agree, I'll take hell too. I mean, if the angels found that place unbearable I doubt I'll find it better...
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: 12 Monkeys on December 03, 2013, 08:24:44 PM
I agree, I'll take hell too. I mean, if the angels found that place unbearable I doubt I'll find it better...
Utopia can only be unbearable,if of course it is NOT Utopia,as we can see if there is a God he is a bumbling idiot
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: MadBunny on December 03, 2013, 08:47:57 PM

Really, how many times do I have to ask you this?

Here, allow me to supply this "helpful illustration" (http://static2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120307222802/powerlisting/images/d/d9/Infinity_Symbol.jpg)
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: median on December 04, 2013, 12:01:54 AM

Really, how many times do I have to ask you this?

Here, allow me to supply this "helpful illustration" (http://"http://hdwallpapercorner.com/3315/infinity")

Doesn't work...
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: MadBunny on December 04, 2013, 01:15:54 AM

Sorry.  "fixed" (http://static2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120307222802/powerlisting/images/d/d9/Infinity_Symbol.jpg)
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on December 04, 2013, 01:56:26 AM
Are you saying you want to go to Hell? I never ever had someone say that to me. If someone truly said to me, "I want to go to Hell" I would leave them alone.

Oooo, look!  A direct lie from Skeptic!  After that post, Nam said:

If hell actually exists then yes, I want to go to hell.

Did Skep "leave him alone" as he promised he would?  Nope - he responded like this:

I am sorry Nam but that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard in my life.

...thus proving that his professed reasons for continuing to engage here are a pack of lies.  He's NOT here to help the people "drowning and not realising it".  He's here to preach, regardless, even when they tell him they are specifically not interested.

Why did you lie to us, Skep?

I was in shock that Nam would say that. Going to Hell is a choice that someone with a very low IQ would make.

Paradise or agony? give me paradise!
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on December 04, 2013, 01:58:01 AM
I agree, I'll take hell too. I mean, if the angels found that place unbearable I doubt I'll find it better...

You do realize not all of them rebelled, right? Plenty of them are still with God.

If you give the middle finger to a police officer, do you expect him to do nothing?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 04, 2013, 02:33:17 AM
I was in shock that Nam would say that. Going to Hell is a choice that someone with a very low IQ would make.

Paradise or agony? give me paradise!

No low IQ is required. I know that there is neither, but if I'm wrong, I don't want to spend a minute in heaven knowing that many, many billions are suffering down there. I'd rather be with the masses than the select few who get the bible just right like you. Don't take that personal, though maybe you should.

If you are right, my mom and dad are down there, my grandparents are down there, many a friend is down there. In fact, if you are right i don't know a single person who has made it to heaven. Why the fuck would I want to go there.

Of course, I'm not afraid to fry forever. If others can do it, so can I.

You are afraid of hell. That's why you insist the standards are so high. So you can make up stuff about how great you are and talk your way in.

I've found, over the years, that nice christians think that there is no hell. They can't imagine their version of god causing that much agony. But, like I said, that's the nice christians.

And before you tell me that they aren't really christians, keep these two things in mind. A) they self identify as christians, just like you do, and B) you haven't told us squat about how your version of christianity works. What we know about you is so generic it is useless. Other than the demon thing.  And I'll do my best to keep from saying anything about how stupid that idea is.

Oops, I failed.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: magicmiles on December 04, 2013, 02:47:09 AM

No low IQ is required. I know that there is neither, but if I'm wrong, I don't want to spend a minute in heaven knowing that many, many billions are suffering down there.

Is that really true? Right now you are amongst the 10% of the worlds population that, comparitively, live in heaven while 90% languish in a comparitive hell.

If you (like me) have no inclination to move from the comforts of the USA right now and set up in an over-crowded slum of New Delhi, why would that change in a heaven/hell scenario?

I know you talk about friends/family, but I am interested in the 'identifying with the majority suffering' aspect of your claim.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 04, 2013, 03:05:15 AM

No low IQ is required. I know that there is neither, but if I'm wrong, I don't want to spend a minute in heaven knowing that many, many billions are suffering down there.

Is that really true? Right now you are amongst the 10% of the worlds population that, comparitively, live in heaven while 90% languish in a comparitive hell.

If you (like me) have no inclination to move from the comforts of the USA right now and set up in an over-crowded slum of New Delhi, why would that change in a heaven/hell scenario?

I know you talk about friends/family, but I am interested in the 'identifying with the majority suffering' aspect of your claim.

I'm alive and this is real. Hell is not. Here I have real choices to make. As a dead guy it won't be necessary. I reserve the right to choose maintaining a minimum level of comfort.

Don't worry, I'm not a 1%er. I live in America,where even our middle class is poor. And I am voluntarily at the bottom end of that group. Within a couple of years the New Delhi slums will be looking good to a lot of us here.

I'm not actually a masochist, but I play on on the Internet.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: 12 Monkeys on December 04, 2013, 10:31:27 AM
Are you saying you want to go to Hell? I never ever had someone say that to me. If someone truly said to me, "I want to go to Hell" I would leave them alone.

Oooo, look!  A direct lie from Skeptic!  After that post, Nam said:

If hell actually exists then yes, I want to go to hell.

Did Skep "leave him alone" as he promised he would?  Nope - he responded like this:

I am sorry Nam but that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard in my life.

...thus proving that his professed reasons for continuing to engage here are a pack of lies.  He's NOT here to help the people "drowning and not realising it".  He's here to preach, regardless, even when they tell him they are specifically not interested.

Why did you lie to us, Skep?

I was in shock that Nam would say that. Going to Hell is a choice that someone with a very low IQ would make.

Paradise or agony? give me paradise!
so having a low IQ you choose hell?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: 12 Monkeys on December 04, 2013, 10:34:56 AM

No low IQ is required. I know that there is neither, but if I'm wrong, I don't want to spend a minute in heaven knowing that many, many billions are suffering down there.

Is that really true? Right now you are amongst the 10% of the worlds population that, comparitively, live in heaven while 90% languish in a comparitive hell.

If you (like me) have no inclination to move from the comforts of the USA right now and set up in an over-crowded slum of New Delhi, why would that change in a heaven/hell scenario?

I know you talk about friends/family, but I am interested in the 'identifying with the majority suffering' aspect of your claim.
Why are people breeding in a place where THEY can't even eat a proper meal on a regular basis? Does religious dogma have anything to do with it? (no birth control allowed)
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Truth OT on December 04, 2013, 11:33:15 AM
You do realize not all of them rebelled, right? Plenty of them are still with God.

If you give the middle finger to a police officer, do you expect him to do nothing?

If I give an officer the finger and he does something, Ima have a problem with that. There is nothing illegal about me flipping him off so if he responds with force in an attempt to punish me he is only doing so out of personal pride and anger, seeking revenge because my action somehow stirred him up to the point of retaliation.

I would expect more from an officer of the law and likewise, I'd suspect that an omnibenevolent god would respond in a much better way than the officer would. However, you do not seem to think your god should. You imply, whether you realize it or not, that your god needs to or is somehow justified in reacting to any little thing man does in as petty, as hateful, or as vendictive a way as imaginable. This god you have mentally constructed based on an extrremely loose interpretation of what the Bible says along with what Evangelicals promote is a monster to everyone that doesn't buy into your views!
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: xyzzy on December 04, 2013, 12:06:20 PM
Bah... you could just decide not to be Jewish then you only need to contend with Hell 1.0 and, then, probably for no more than a year - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gehinnom

How one gets sent to the modern scarier version of hell for not believing in the more loving biblegod 2.0, I find just a tad confusing.

Or, perhaps it's all just made up.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: median on December 04, 2013, 12:13:52 PM

You do realize not all of them rebelled, right? Plenty of them are still with God.

If you give the middle finger to a police officer, do you expect him to do nothing?

You do realize that this eliminates your option to use the "freewill" argument regarding God not showing "himself" to us, don't you? The angles (supposedly) have 'full-contact' with God (no faith necessary) and still rebel. So there is no viable option for you here. There is no sound reason why this deity thing should not be showing itself demonstrably to everyone all the time (just like in this alleged 'heaven' place) - unless of course this deity (like all the others) is a man-made fiction like Santa Claus or a childhood invisible 'best friend' which is imaginary.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Hatter23 on December 04, 2013, 01:28:22 PM
If I give an officer the finger and he does something, Ima have a problem with that. There is nothing illegal about me flipping him off so if he responds with force in an attempt to punish me he is only doing so out of personal pride and anger, seeking revenge because my action somehow stirred him up to the point of retaliation.

I would expect more from an officer of the law

So, I take it you are dissapointed a lot.

(http://www.legalforensicauditors.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/pikespraying.jpg)
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Graybeard on December 04, 2013, 02:36:32 PM
No, because the Bible says that MANY will be deceived and the gate is very narrow.

How do you know you have not been deceived? I will tell you:

You cannot really know, God lies to people and He makes them believe lies, and then He damns them:

2 Chronicles 18:22  Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets.

Ezekiel 14:9 And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet.

2Th:2:9: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
2Th:2:10: And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
2Th:2:11: And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
2Th:2:12: That they all might be damned
who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on December 04, 2013, 05:35:20 PM

You do realize not all of them rebelled, right? Plenty of them are still with God.

If you give the middle finger to a police officer, do you expect him to do nothing?

You do realize that this eliminates your option to use the "freewill" argument regarding God not showing "himself" to us, don't you? The angles (supposedly) have 'full-contact' with God (no faith necessary) and still rebel. So there is no viable option for you here. There is no sound reason why this deity thing should not be showing itself demonstrably to everyone all the time (just like in this alleged 'heaven' place) - unless of course this deity (like all the others) is a man-made fiction like Santa Claus or a childhood invisible 'best friend' which is imaginary.

You must have missed where Nam said he's choosing to go to Hell. So why would God show up to Nam if Nam's just going to decide to go to Hell anyway? Why should God show up to anyone who is already choosing Hell?

Plenty of atheists on this site have stated that even if God was real, they would ignore Him or curse Him off. So it makes no sense to wonder why he's not showing up to you guys.

Do you go "hang out" with people who can't stand you and never want you around?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 04, 2013, 05:40:48 PM
Do you go "hang out" with people who can't stand you and never want you around?

We try not to but you keep coming back.

My first 45 or so years of being an atheist were rather mild, and I had few thoughts on the issue rather than being pretty sure there was no god. He didn't show himself to me in any way during that period. I see no need to get all nice about him again and give him a second chance.

If he is real, he's the omnipotent one, not me. He knows exactly how to sway me in his direction. I can't help it if he doesn't do diddley squat.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on December 04, 2013, 05:47:23 PM
Do you go "hang out" with people who can't stand you and never want you around?

We try not to but you keep coming back.

My first 45 or so years of being an atheist were rather mild, and I had few thoughts on the issue rather than being pretty sure there was no god. He didn't show himself to me in any way during that period. I see no need to get all nice about him again and give him a second chance.

If he is real, he's the omnipotent one, not me. He knows exactly how to sway me in his direction. I can't help it if he doesn't do diddley squat.

He's the omnipotent one, but it's up to you.

It's the same way a rich father has almost unlimited money but still makes his kids get a job.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Boots on December 04, 2013, 05:54:05 PM
You must have missed where Nam said he's choosing to go to Hell. So why would God show up to Nam if Nam's just going to decide to go to Hell anyway? Why should God show up to anyone who is already choosing Hell?

Plenty of atheists on this site have stated that even if God was real, they would ignore Him or curse Him off. So it makes no sense to wonder why he's not showing up to you guys.

Do you go "hang out" with people who can't stand you and never want you around?

And what about those who actually WANT to find god (like I did myself), and he's a no-show?  Your answer is disingenuous and ignores the real point, just as most answers to 'why won't god heal amputees' do.

Oh, and to answer your question ("Why should God show up to anyone who is already choosing Hell?"), how about because he loves his creations and doesn't actually want them to go to the hell he created?  If he really loved us, wouldn't he want to do whatever he could to prevent that -- oh wait, he could have just not created hell...never mind.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: MadBunny on December 04, 2013, 05:55:41 PM
(http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k150/madbunny_2006/poe1_zps267cbc9c.jpg)
Why can't these stupid athiests see this?  I mean, it's obvious right?  They keep asking for proof of this and proof of that.  They keep wanting to have some sort of rational verification of why we believe.  What they don't understand is that they'll never understand faith till they have faith, amirite?

It's like the thought experiment called "Mary's Room" where a person in a grey room can be told about color, all the spectrum, all the rods and cones in the eye and how it all works.. but until that person actually 'sees' something in color it's all just theoretical, amirite?

They just don't understand that we true believers are not just trying to tell them about color, but instead to get them to open the door, or a window and take a look outside the room they've all decided is the whole world.
(http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k150/madbunny_2006/pigliucci2013090d_zpsca308579.png)
Making the whole problem worse of course is that they just don't seem to understand that everybody 'sees' color/god in a slightly different way meaning that each person experiences it in that deeply personal way not definable by science.

Jeez, stupid athiests.





[1]
 1. I told you guys: solipsism and spag at it's finest.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 04, 2013, 06:06:14 PM
He's the omnipotent one, but it's up to you.

It's the same way a rich father has almost unlimited money but still makes his kids get a job.

You sure like to simplify things. At your convenience. Here you are, directly comparing a sinner with your god and telling me that they have the same morals.

I'm not complaining, mind you, I think the comparison quite apt. Because your god was made up by people who also made up sinning. They couldn't help themselves. But you sure are helping them.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Truth OT on December 04, 2013, 06:12:12 PM

It's the same way a rich father has almost unlimited money but still makes his kids get a job.

Ever considered all the reasons why the father believes the kids need to get jobs?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: median on December 04, 2013, 06:28:28 PM

You must have missed where Nam said he's choosing to go to Hell. So why would God show up to Nam if Nam's just going to decide to go to Hell anyway? Why should God show up to anyone who is already choosing Hell?

Plenty of atheists on this site have stated that even if God was real, they would ignore Him or curse Him off. So it makes no sense to wonder why he's not showing up to you guys.

Do you go "hang out" with people who can't stand you and never want you around?

The funny part is that (by your own admission) God does 'show up' and hang around (demonstrating itself) to those who reject his ways (i.e. - 1/3 of the angels did it, Judas and everyone who rejected Jesus' - aka God's - claims etc, including the alleged Pharisees). You aren't making any sense at all and that's b/c your religion is FICTION. Others are pointing this out and stating that they would rather suffer for eternity than be in the presence of a moral monster dictator ***hole forever. But that is only a hypothetical b/c we do not share your belief. For us, you believe in a Santa Claus for grown ups.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Graybeard on December 04, 2013, 07:39:44 PM
Why should God show up to anyone who is already choosing Hell?

Isn't that his job? M't:15:24: But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

I thought God really, really, wanted the lost sheep? Was Jesus telling lies like his dad did?

Lu:15:7: I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.
Lu:15:10: Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.

The truth is a little more prosaic: he doesn't show up to anyone because there's no such thing as a god.

Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Hatter23 on December 04, 2013, 09:19:22 PM
Do you go "hang out" with people who can't stand you and never want you around?

We try not to but you keep coming back.

My first 45 or so years of being an atheist were rather mild, and I had few thoughts on the issue rather than being pretty sure there was no god. He didn't show himself to me in any way during that period. I see no need to get all nice about him again and give him a second chance.

If he is real, he's the omnipotent one, not me. He knows exactly how to sway me in his direction. I can't help it if he doesn't do diddley squat.

He's the omnipotent one, but it's up to you.

It's the same way a rich father has almost unlimited money but still makes his kids get a job.

You first have to convince me that the father exists. That father then needs to convince the kid to get a job. Yes, withholding funds is a good tool. However, he has TO ACTUALLY COMMUNICATE IT IN PERSON.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: natlegend on December 05, 2013, 01:28:12 AM
This thread is making me dizzy, the way it goes round and round... In fact I think... I'm gonna be... sick...

*BLURK*
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on December 05, 2013, 01:51:11 AM
You first have to convince me that the father exists. That father then needs to convince the kid to get a job. Yes, withholding funds is a good tool. However, he has TO ACTUALLY COMMUNICATE IT IN PERSON.

OK, I have a question for you to start off.

Is there anything that exists without a purpose for its existence?

If yes, explain what it is and why it has no purpose.
If no, you must concede the universe has a purpose for its existence.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on December 05, 2013, 01:56:32 AM
I am going to say this again...

You state that pastafarianism is wrong because christianity has more followers.

You then state that only "many" will be deceived.

So how is the minority wrong?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on December 05, 2013, 02:08:39 AM
I am going to say this again...

You state that pastafarianism is wrong because christianity has more followers.

You then state that only "many" will be deceived.

So how is the minority wrong?

No, that's not why it's wrong.

It's wrong because it was made up to ridicule Christianity.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Aaron123 on December 05, 2013, 02:19:44 AM
No, that's not why it's wrong.

It's wrong because it was made up to ridicule Christianity.

But how do you know it was "made up" to  ridicule?  It might seem that way to you, but that doesn't mean it wasn't.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Jonny-UK on December 05, 2013, 02:27:59 AM
Is there anything that exists without a purpose for its existence?

If yes, explain what it is and why it has no purpose.
If no, you must concede the universe has a purpose for its existence.

That question only makes sense if you assume there is a creator behind everything.
You are trying to relate human emotions and ideas to objects and it just does not work (does a stone think it is happy?- no it just exists without any thoughts or emotions)
The universe does not need a purpose to exist it just does.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on December 05, 2013, 02:30:43 AM
No, that's not why it's wrong.

It's wrong because it was made up to ridicule Christianity.

But how do you know it was "made up" to  ridicule?  It might seem that way to you, but that doesn't mean it wasn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

The "Flying Spaghetti Monster" was first described in a satirical open letter written by Bobby Henderson in 2005 to protest the Kansas State Board of Education decision to permit teaching intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in public school science classes.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Fiji on December 05, 2013, 02:31:14 AM
No, that's not why it's wrong.

It's wrong because it was made up to ridicule Christianity.

But how do you know it was "made up" to  ridicule?  It might seem that way to you, but that doesn't mean it wasn't.

It most certainly was not made up to ridicule christianity ... it was made up to ridicule the notion of teaching made up stories in science class
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on December 05, 2013, 02:31:54 AM
Is there anything that exists without a purpose for its existence?

If yes, explain what it is and why it has no purpose.
If no, you must concede the universe has a purpose for its existence.

That question only makes sense if you assume there is a creator behind everything.
You are trying to relate human emotions and ideas to objects and it just does not work (does a stone think it is happy?- no it just exists without any thoughts or emotions)
The universe does not need a purpose to exist it just does.

So you believe the universe has no purpose?

OK, you must find something else that has no purpose or else it is special pleading, which is a logical fallacy.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Aaron123 on December 05, 2013, 02:33:09 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

The "Flying Spaghetti Monster" was first described in a satirical open letter written by Bobby Henderson in 2005 to protest the Kansas State Board of Education decision to permit teaching intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in public school science classes.

That article is referring to the spiritual meaning of the word "satirical".  The spiritual meaning is different than the normal meaning of the word.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Jonny-UK on December 05, 2013, 02:39:07 AM
So you believe the universe has no purpose?
The universe does not need a purpose to exist.
Your statements only make sense to you because you believe there is a creator responsible for it and so someone (a god) had a reason to create it. Matter does not have a purpose behind it. Matter(and energy) simply exist and have done, as we know them, since the big bang.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on December 05, 2013, 02:40:49 AM
That article is referring to the spiritual meaning of the word "satirical".  The spiritual meaning is different than the normal meaning of the word.

Post-hoc.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on December 05, 2013, 02:42:41 AM
So you believe the universe has no purpose?
The universe does not need a purpose to exist.
Your statements only make sense to you because you believe there is a creator responsible for it and so someone (a god) had a reason to create it. Matter does not have a purpose behind it. Matter(and energy) simply exist and have done, as we know them, since the big bang.

So you believe matter had a beginning, despite the fact there is a law against it?

You must provide another example of something that exists without a purpose or else it is special pleading. Perhaps you missed that part of the post. No worries.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Aaron123 on December 05, 2013, 02:45:55 AM
That article is referring to the spiritual meaning of the word "satirical".  The spiritual meaning is different than the normal meaning of the word.

Post-hoc.

Now you can imagine how we feel when dealing with religious retorts.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Foxy Freedom on December 05, 2013, 02:48:34 AM
So you believe the universe has no purpose?
The universe does not need a purpose to exist.
Your statements only make sense to you because you believe there is a creator responsible for it and so someone (a god) had a reason to create it. Matter does not have a purpose behind it. Matter(and energy) simply exist and have done, as we know them, since the big bang.

So you believe matter had a beginning, despite the fact there is a law against it?

You must provide another example of something that exists without a purpose or else it is special pleading. Perhaps you missed that part of the post. No worries.

Which law is against matter having a beginning ?

There is no thing which is created with a purpose. Saying something has a purpose is special pleading. (From the living world, maybe ants are created with a purpose.)

Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on December 05, 2013, 02:51:05 AM
That article is referring to the spiritual meaning of the word "satirical".  The spiritual meaning is different than the normal meaning of the word.

Post-hoc.

Now you can imagine how we feel when dealing with religious retorts.

Tell me something.

Did you find dead sea scrolls about the FSM?
Did a historian named Thallus mention the FSM in the same way he mentioned darkness over all the land right around the time of the Jesus' crucifixion, which matches the biblical account?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Jonny-UK on December 05, 2013, 02:56:46 AM
So you believe matter had a beginning, despite the fact there is a law against it?

You must provide another example of something that exists without a purpose or else it is special pleading. Perhaps you missed that part of the post. No worries.
I don't actually know what "special pleading" means.
I said matter and energy exist as we know it since the big bang. I simply do not know about it before that but I'm sure some of the others on here can go into greater detail about the first moments of the universe as we know it. I did not say that the conservation of energy law had been broken, I simply do not have the knowledge about what happened at the big bang.

Something else that exists without a purpose?
You are failing to see the point I am making. You assume a purpose because you assume a creator that had a reason to create. Without the creator, no purpose is needed.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on December 05, 2013, 03:04:44 AM
Or heck, Islam, how is Islam not the real religion, all its texts match up, its not satrical, Allah seems more powerful than Christ-god.

So, how is Islam false?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Aaron123 on December 05, 2013, 03:06:11 AM
Tell me something.

Did you find dead sea scrolls about the FSM?

The Dead Sea scrolls does nothing to build the case for christianity.


Quote
Did a historian named Thallus mention the FSM in the same way he mentioned darkness over all the land right around the time of the Jesus' crucifixion, which matches the biblical account?

I looked up wikipedia to see what you're talking about.  Here's what it had to say:

The works are considered important by some Christian scholars because they believe them to help confirm the historicity of Jesus. Some people believe that Thallus refers to the darkness, reported in the Synoptic gospels as falling over the world at the time of Jesus' death, explaining it as an eclipse. However, this is impossible as only a lunar eclipse can occur at Passover, and lunar eclipses are not visible at mid day (the 6th hour as reported in the gospels) due to the moon being directly opposite the sun, and therefore below the horizon. An eclipse can therefore not be used to establish a pre-Markan origin for the story spoken of in the Gospel of Mark as some people claim.

Richard Carrier states the following "It is commonly claimed that a chronologer named Thallus, writing shortly after 52CE, mentioned the crucifixion of Jesus and the noontime darkness surrounding it (which reportedly eclipsed the whole world for three hours), and attempted to explain it as an ordinary solar eclipse. But this is not a credible interpretation of the evidence. A stronger case can be made that we actually have a direct quotation of what Thallus said, and it does not mention Jesus.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thallus_%28historian%29


Your historian lead is a bust.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Add Homonym on December 05, 2013, 03:07:39 AM
So you believe matter had a beginning, despite the fact there is a law against it?

The "law" comes from within our observations of it, in this universe, which are limited. We know that it is interchangeable with energy. Why you continue to argue this fruitless line, is beyond me.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Add Homonym on December 05, 2013, 03:08:35 AM
The Dead Sea scrolls does nothing to build the case for christianity.

Daniel 12 is missing in the 8 copies from Qumran, so the DSS undermines Christianity.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Foxy Freedom on December 05, 2013, 03:19:03 AM
So you believe matter had a beginning, despite the fact there is a law against it?

Which law is against matter having a beginning ?


Once again you have lost the argument by making random false claims which you cannot support. Your worldview is falling apart.

Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Add Homonym on December 05, 2013, 03:20:22 AM
You are failing to see the point I am making. You assume a purpose because you assume a creator that had a reason to create. Without the creator, no purpose is needed.

Don't give the trolls oxygen. The trolls can never make a case that their particular god made the universe, or documented the process accurately, so it's pointless arguing over why it exists, or what created it.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on December 05, 2013, 03:22:27 AM
Another question.

Why did god wait until, what? Like year 0? To do anything of substance, and not record any valid reports?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Jonny-UK on December 05, 2013, 03:29:41 AM
Don't give the trolls oxygen. The trolls can never make a case that their particular god made the universe, or documented the process accurately, so it's pointless arguing over why it exists, or what created it.
Fair enough.
Skeptic will never look at any other version of events incase they do not lead to the conclusion he has already arrived at.
Sad really, to be so closed minded and not open to new ideas (or even the truth)
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Add Homonym on December 05, 2013, 03:55:59 AM
Skeptic will never look at any other version of events incase they do not lead to the conclusion he has already arrived at.
Sad really, to be so closed minded and not open to new ideas (or even the truth)

I'm not sure if he doesn't understand the weaknesses in his own position. He seems to avoid going there with such precision that he must know. I think for Skep, if he admits anything, his faith will fall down around his ankles. It's a position of insecurity, rather than faith.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Jonny-UK on December 05, 2013, 04:06:19 AM
^^Makes sense.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Anfauglir on December 05, 2013, 05:19:52 AM
Are you saying you want to go to Hell? I never ever had someone say that to me. If someone truly said to me, "I want to go to Hell" I would leave them alone.

Oooo, look!  A direct lie from Skeptic!  After that post, Nam said:

If hell actually exists then yes, I want to go to hell.

Did Skep "leave him alone" as he promised he would?  Nope - he responded like this:

I am sorry Nam but that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard in my life.

...thus proving that his professed reasons for continuing to engage here are a pack of lies.  He's NOT here to help the people "drowning and not realising it".  He's here to preach, regardless, even when they tell him they are specifically not interested.

Why did you lie to us, Skep?

I was in shock that Nam would say that. Going to Hell is a choice that someone with a very low IQ would make.

Paradise or agony? give me paradise!

"If someone truly said to me, "I want to go to Hell" I would leave them alone."  And yet here you are, still indirectly insulting Nam and his honestly expressed beliefs.  No matter how "shocked" you were, you still posted to try to argue with his views, despite your earlier promise to "leave (him) alone".

Why did you lie when you said you would leave him alone?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Anfauglir on December 05, 2013, 05:29:27 AM
You must provide another example of something that exists without a purpose or else it is special pleading. Perhaps you missed that part of the post. No worries.

Those who believe in a creator are often asked "so who created the creator?".  To which the reply is along the lines of "well, he is eternal and uncreated".

So I ask YOU: who created your god?  And remember - if your answer runs along the lines I have outlined, you must provide another example of something that exists without having to be created, or else it is special pleading.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Nam on December 05, 2013, 06:07:25 AM
I did. I shit it out this morning; corn and everything.

;)

-Nam
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Jonny-UK on December 05, 2013, 06:22:20 AM
Holy Shit Dat-Nam
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on December 05, 2013, 06:23:42 AM
Nice one.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: penfold on December 05, 2013, 07:01:30 AM

OK, I have a question for you to start off.

Is there anything that exists without a purpose for its existence?

If yes, explain what it is and why it has no purpose.
If no, you must concede the universe has a purpose for its existence.

I think there are two serious confusions here.

First:

Are you saying, as Aristotle did, that nothing in nature is without purpose? - eg. An eye has the purpose of seeing, the sun has the purpose of shining etc... If this is what you mean then it seems to me that the claim is unfalsifiable as the claim that everything in nature is without purpose could equally be held to be true - eg. it is true that nn eye sees and the sun shines but they do not do so for some external goal.

Unless you can point to something which allows us to say that purpose is an inherent characteristic of objects we cannot resolve the issue either way. If we think about this it is obvious that we will never be able to resolve this as purpose is not a necessary connection between objects. It is only a connection that can be drawn by the mind (if you disagree can you provide an example when this is not true?) and thus we cannot prove one way or another if the connection is necessary to the object (ie that it is objectively 'there').

So in answer to the question "Is there anything that exists without purpose for its existence?" we must (if we are honest) respond that we do not know - a forteriori that we cannot know.

Second:

Even if I grant you that everything within the universe has purpose (and for the reason above I wouldn't); that does not logically entail that the universe itself has purpose. The universe is the set of all things - it is not itself a thing. If it were that would lead to a paradox as being a thing it is/can be causally connected to other things, and thus is within the net of all causally connected things (ie the universe). The universe cannot both be a collection of all objects, and itself an object!

To use an analogy: Just because every human being has a mother it does not entail that humanity has a mother (as "humanity" is the set of human beings not a human being itself!). Similarly; just because every object has a purpose that does not mean that the universe has a purpose (as "the universe" is the set of objects not an object itself!)

hope that helps clarify :)
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: natlegend on December 05, 2013, 07:45:14 AM
The arguments have become too logical for Skep.

*cue tumbleweeds*
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Hatter23 on December 05, 2013, 08:29:10 AM
You first have to convince me that the father exists. That father then needs to convince the kid to get a job. Yes, withholding funds is a good tool. However, he has TO ACTUALLY COMMUNICATE IT IN PERSON.

OK, I have a question for you to start off.

Is there anything that exists without a purpose for its existence?

If yes, explain what it is and why it has no purpose.
If no, you must concede the universe has a purpose for its existence.

And that address anything I had to say, HOW? Secondly, I have to explain "no" purpose.

BRRRRNNNNNTTTT

shifting of the burden of proof. Your argument is fallacy
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Astreja on December 06, 2013, 12:56:53 AM
I was in shock that Nam would say that. Going to Hell is a choice that someone with a very low IQ would make.

Paradise or agony? give me paradise!

I don't want paradise if someone else is in agony.  I'm not keen on experiencing suffering, but I would feel honour-bound to go to Hell in an act of protest, to try to alleviate the suffering of anyone imprisoned there.  Moreover, I can feel neither love nor respect for any god that had the power to liberate the victims of Hell but refused to use it.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: wright on December 06, 2013, 02:38:17 AM
I don't want paradise if someone else is in agony.  I'm not keen on experiencing suffering, but I would feel honour-bound to go to Hell in an act of protest, to try to alleviate the suffering of anyone imprisoned there.  Moreover, I can feel neither love nor respect for any god that had the power to liberate the victims of Hell but refused to use it.

Noble sentiments, Astreja. Rather like this Buddhist oath by a bodhisattva:
Quote
"Never will I seek nor receive private individual salvation - never enter into final peace alone; but forever and everywhere will I live and strive for the universal redemption of every creature throughout all worlds. Until all are delivered, never will I leave the world of sin, sorrow and struggle, but will remain where I am."

I'm not sure I would have the same courage, but I certainly do question the perfection of a supposed god that permits- perhaps deliberately created- eternal torture for finite transgression.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on December 06, 2013, 12:28:29 PM
I was in shock that Nam would say that. Going to Hell is a choice that someone with a very low IQ would make.

Paradise or agony? give me paradise!

I don't want paradise if someone else is in agony.  I'm not keen on experiencing suffering, but I would feel honour-bound to go to Hell in an act of protest, to try to alleviate the suffering of anyone imprisoned there.  Moreover, I can feel neither love nor respect for any god that had the power to liberate the victims of Hell but refused to use it.

So i take it you do not enjoy a nice big juicy steak knowing there are starving people in Africa?

Do you ever eat anything?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 06, 2013, 12:39:21 PM
Skeptic

Before you start arguing with people, I suggest you write down the point you're trying to make and stick to it. This grasping at straws in every frickin' thread is getting old. Drivers licenses, hell and steak, etc. You don't seem to realize that you have nothing to say, and that you're no good at saying nothing either.

That you're stuck in a world where your assume that everything you think is true must be, by definition the truth, is bad enough. That you have no capacity to see any other point of view, no capacity to discern evidence that is contrary to your reality (which is based only on your hopes and fears), and no thoughts to offer the rest of the world that are of any use, you should be able to see that you are contributing nothing to either this web site or the human race. However, you have self-diagnosed yourself as the worlds finest human being.

So its time for you to be told. Solipsism is true. It is only you. The rest of us aren't real. You don't need to do this any more. Bye.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Hatter23 on December 06, 2013, 12:47:26 PM
The arguments have become too logical for Skep.

No argument s too logical to stupidly ignore, Skep is living proof of that.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: 12 Monkeys on December 06, 2013, 01:24:54 PM
I was in shock that Nam would say that. Going to Hell is a choice that someone with a very low IQ would make.

Paradise or agony? give me paradise!

I don't want paradise if someone else is in agony.  I'm not keen on experiencing suffering, but I would feel honour-bound to go to Hell in an act of protest, to try to alleviate the suffering of anyone imprisoned there.  Moreover, I can feel neither love nor respect for any god that had the power to liberate the victims of Hell but refused to use it.

So i take it you do not enjoy a nice big juicy steak knowing there are starving people in Africa?

Do you ever eat anything?
And what are YOU doing about the starving? Enjoying that nice juicy steak thinking about how great God is for providing the steak?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Jag on December 06, 2013, 01:34:20 PM
I was in shock that Nam would say that. Going to Hell is a choice that someone with a very low IQ would make.

Paradise or agony? give me paradise!

I don't want paradise if someone else is in agony.  I'm not keen on experiencing suffering, but I would feel honour-bound to go to Hell in an act of protest, to try to alleviate the suffering of anyone imprisoned there.  Moreover, I can feel neither love nor respect for any god that had the power to liberate the victims of Hell but refused to use it.

So i take it you do not enjoy a nice big juicy steak knowing there are starving people in Africa?

Do you ever eat anything?
And what are YOU doing about the starving? Enjoying that nice juicy steak thinking about how great God is for providing the steak?
Lazy f'er isn't even fighting the demons in his own neighborhood, he'd rather continue demonstrating his tenuous grasp of reality to us, despite having successfully convincing everyone here that he can't think his way out of a wet paper bag.

Altruism? Fugetaboudit - he's spent the last 8 years telling stories about a red substance on a wall, and a dog that got sick then better. Praise something or other.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Jonny-UK on December 06, 2013, 01:39:43 PM
People starving has to be one of (if not the) greatest argument that god does not exist.
If prayer is supposed to be able to move mountains then why does it fail to provide some decent crops and livestock for those in need.
Should we all feel guilty if we eat a steak or should we feel mad that your god does nothing to get steaks to everyone that needs one?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: 12 Monkeys on December 06, 2013, 05:17:52 PM
People starving has to be one of (if not the) greatest argument that god does not exist.
If prayer is supposed to be able to move mountains then why does it fail to provide some decent crops and livestock for those in need.
Should we all feel guilty if we eat a steak or should we feel mad that your god does nothing to get steaks to everyone that needs one?
Skep only cares that his God is gracious enough to give him steak. Skep cares not for what God does for the starving just what God can do for HIM.....is that bang on Skep? You not only have shown us your God is self centered,but you as a believer in HIM are as well. You have no interest in the teachings of Jesus,Skep if you did you would be MORE like the character Jesus. Skeptic you are in your own little Christian cult,nothing more.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Astreja on December 07, 2013, 12:59:07 AM
So i take it you do not enjoy a nice big juicy steak knowing there are starving people in Africa?

False dichotomy.  The disadvantaged people in Africa have not been condemned to eternal starvation by a powerful entity who controls all the food.  It is also possible for people to help them without going there to starve to death along with them.

Skeptic, what do you suggest we do to alleviate the suffering of people in Hell?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Jonny-UK on December 07, 2013, 02:01:26 AM
I do not know if this is allowed on here but-

http://www.deki.org.uk/about_us

(apologies if I have broken any rules but it's in a good cause)
This is an organisation that I dontate too.
Perhaps you could give this a read Skeptic, people trying to help people (rather than a well meaning but ultimately useless prayer or two)
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Nam on December 07, 2013, 02:05:32 AM
I do not know if this is allowed on here but-

http://www.deki.org.uk/about_us

(apologies if I have broken any rules but it's in a good cause)
This is an organisation that I dontate too.
Perhaps you could give this a read Skeptic, people trying to help people.


Stop apologising for stupid shit. If it was your first day that'd be one thing, or if you were an idiot like skeptic.

-Nam
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Jonny-UK on December 07, 2013, 02:10:47 AM
Stop apologising for stupid shit. If it was your first day that'd be one thing, or if you were an idiot like skeptic.

-Nam
Your quite right,I do apolo.............  &)
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on December 07, 2013, 02:16:50 AM
So i take it you do not enjoy a nice big juicy steak knowing there are starving people in Africa?

False dichotomy.  The disadvantaged people in Africa have not been condemned to eternal starvation by a powerful entity who controls all the food.  It is also possible for people to help them without going there to starve to death along with them.

Skeptic, what do you suggest we do to alleviate the suffering of people in Hell?

I am curious as to why you help them, considering you believe in evolution. "Survival of the fittest."

or are there bigger motivating factors involved here?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: 12 Monkeys on December 07, 2013, 02:23:45 AM
WE actually do believe in survival of the fittest,it's why we can go to the market and buy that steak,and we have all done little as possible to alleviate the world food shortage in certain regions,like YOU we do as little as possible for ANYBODY but ourselves GENERALLY speaking of course. There are pockets of people who do all they can,you and I are not in those pockets
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on December 07, 2013, 02:33:17 AM
WE actually do believe in survival of the fittest,it's why we can go to the market and buy that steak,and we have all done little as possible to alleviate the world food shortage in certain regions,like YOU we do as little as possible for ANYBODY but ourselves GENERALLY speaking of course. There are pockets of people who do all they can,you and I are not in those pockets

I'm not sure where you went with that post.

Do you think starving people in Africa are just not fit enough to survive? The United States does waste a lot of food.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Astreja on December 07, 2013, 03:05:57 AM
I am curious as to why you help them, considering you believe in evolution. "Survival of the fittest."

Humanity has evolved to have a sense of compassion whereby we can identify with the pain of other living beings.  We are "the fittest" -- that is, the most appropriate, not always faster or stronger but better suited to our environment -- because this neurological trait makes it easier to live in large groups and cooperate with strangers.

I am among "the fittest" because I have achieved a reasonable balance between selfishness (juicy steaks) and altruism (using part of My salary to support such things as medical research, clothing and food drives, and other causes that benefit those outside My immediate family).

Now, Skeptic, please answer My question:  What do you propose we do to alleviate suffering in Hell?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on December 07, 2013, 03:28:45 AM
I am  fit...

Fit for sitting on the couch...that is...

I think too many theists take "survival of the fittest" as meaning "survival of the physically strongest", without factoring other things, like behaviors, technology, etc.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Astreja on December 07, 2013, 03:43:19 AM
Do you think starving people in Africa are just not fit enough to survive? The United States does waste a lot of food.

Interestingly, those individuals who manage to stay alive in adverse situations, such as famine, may have survived because of one or more physical traits.  For example, someone who sweats less may be the one who lives when water is in short supply.

I wish that it was as easy as {reduce waste -> redistribute surplus food -> save lives}.  There are other things at play here, such as regional politics.  A lot of food is shipped to needy areas but a lot of it doesn't make it through to the intended recipients.  This is particularly so when there's armed conflict in the area, as a lot of the donated supplies get hijacked and redirected to local warlords and their supporters.  In such situations, it may well be aggression that selects for fitness --  At least, until superior firepower arrives to deal with the problem and protect the less aggressive.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on December 07, 2013, 12:47:09 PM
Do you think starving people in Africa are just not fit enough to survive? The United States does waste a lot of food.

Interestingly, those individuals who manage to stay alive in adverse situations, such as famine, may have survived because of one or more physical traits.  For example, someone who sweats less may be the one who lives when water is in short supply.

I wish that it was as easy as {reduce waste -> redistribute surplus food -> save lives}.  There are other things at play here, such as regional politics.  A lot of food is shipped to needy areas but a lot of it doesn't make it through to the intended recipients.  This is particularly so when there's armed conflict in the area, as a lot of the donated supplies get hijacked and redirected to local warlords and their supporters.  In such situations, it may well be aggression that selects for fitness --  At least, until superior firepower arrives to deal with the problem and protect the less aggressive.

I agree that is the problem! Corrupt people doing nothing but corrupting and taking the food away.

This is why i find it comical when people blame God and yell "Let God fix it!!!!" when it's up to us and our free will.

If a bunch of dicks are taking the food, God shakes his head with the rest of us.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: G-Roll on December 07, 2013, 12:57:01 PM
Do you think starving people in Africa are just not fit enough to survive? The United States does waste a lot of food.

Interestingly, those individuals who manage to stay alive in adverse situations, such as famine, may have survived because of one or more physical traits.  For example, someone who sweats less may be the one who lives when water is in short supply.

I wish that it was as easy as {reduce waste -> redistribute surplus food -> save lives}.  There are other things at play here, such as regional politics.  A lot of food is shipped to needy areas but a lot of it doesn't make it through to the intended recipients.  This is particularly so when there's armed conflict in the area, as a lot of the donated supplies get hijacked and redirected to local warlords and their supporters.  In such situations, it may well be aggression that selects for fitness --  At least, until superior firepower arrives to deal with the problem and protect the less aggressive.

I agree that is the problem! Corrupt people doing nothing but corrupting and taking the food away.

This is why i find it comical when people blame God and yell "Let God fix it!!!!" when it's up to us and our free will.

If a bunch of dicks are taking the food, God shakes his head with the rest of us.
Am I the only one who finds humor in this post? I almost +1ed it but I think he means what he says in a different way than I do.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: MadBunny on December 07, 2013, 02:55:19 PM

If a bunch of dicks are taking the food, God shakes his head with the rest of us.

The only reason you feel this is the case is because you have cast god in your own image.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: 12 Monkeys on December 07, 2013, 09:24:46 PM
WE actually do believe in survival of the fittest,it's why we can go to the market and buy that steak,and we have all done little as possible to alleviate the world food shortage in certain regions,like YOU we do as little as possible for ANYBODY but ourselves GENERALLY speaking of course. There are pockets of people who do all they can,you and I are not in those pockets

I'm not sure where you went with that post.

Do you think starving people in Africa are just not fit enough to survive? The United States does waste a lot of food.
No I am saying you and I are aware of it but do little to nothing to help,the difference is you have orders from god to help the meek,I don't,so you as a Christian FAIL
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: median on December 07, 2013, 09:30:03 PM

OK, I have a question for you to start off.

Is there anything that exists without a purpose for its existence?

If yes, explain what it is and why it has no purpose.
If no, you must concede the universe has a purpose for its existence.

Are you familiar with the famous Russell/Copelston debate? If not, please check it out on YouTube. You really need to do your philosophy homework.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on December 07, 2013, 09:39:08 PM
I agree that is the problem! Corrupt people doing nothing but corrupting and taking the food away.

This is why i find it comical when people blame God and yell "Let God fix it!!!!" when it's up to us and our free will.

If a bunch of dicks are taking the food, God shakes his head with the rest of us.

I consider myself to be lazy.

But if i had omnipotence, i would help everything.

Why?

Because it would be nothing, omnipotence is literally unlimited power.
Therefore if god exists, he is a lazy/immoral bastard.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: median on December 07, 2013, 09:42:14 PM

So i take it you do not enjoy a nice big juicy steak knowing there are starving people in Africa?

Do you ever eat anything?

Excuse me DICK! I am a vegetarian and I sponsor starving children in Africa (as well as send clothes and food to people there and in Mexico). You really should think more before you open your proverbial mouth. Think outside the church box.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: median on December 07, 2013, 09:51:22 PM

I agree that is the problem! Corrupt people doing nothing but corrupting and taking the food away.

This is why i find it comical when people blame God and yell "Let God fix it!!!!" when it's up to us and our free will.

If a bunch of dicks are taking the food, God shakes his head with the rest of us.

You think an omnipotent God exists who has the power to end all world starvation immediately, right now, this very second and yet somehow it's our job? What a cop-out. There clearly is no all-loving all-powerful deity. Your God is imaginary fiction (yes, like Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy for children).
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Add Homonym on December 07, 2013, 10:11:53 PM
Because it would be nothing, omnipotence is literally unlimited power.
Therefore if god exists, he is a lazy/immoral bastard.

He might be busy. If he's created an infinite number of universes, with different physical constants, then, to fix all the evil in the universe, he might be stretched rather thin.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on December 07, 2013, 10:14:05 PM
He might be busy. If he's created an infinite number of universes, with different physical constants, then, to fix all the evil in the universe, he might be stretched rather thin.

I sense sarcasm here, being that omnipotence would hand wave the concept of busy away..
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on December 08, 2013, 03:03:00 AM
You think an omnipotent God exists who has the power to end all world starvation immediately, right now, this very second and yet somehow it's our job? What a cop-out. There clearly is no all-loving all-powerful deity. Your God is imaginary fiction (yes, like Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy for children).

Let me illustrate how silly that sounds:

You think billionaire Bill Gates exists who has the power to end all work for his children and make life a party 24/7 for them, and yet somehow they have to earn their own money? What a cop-out. There clearly is no billionaire Bill Gates. Your Gates is imaginary fiction.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on December 08, 2013, 03:26:08 AM
I think you fail to see what omnipotence means...

It means one could do everything ever in a zero amount of time.

If this god is apparently loving, he sure doesn't love Africa.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Add Homonym on December 08, 2013, 04:00:44 AM
You think an omnipotent God exists who has the power to end all world starvation immediately, right now, this very second and yet somehow it's our job? What a cop-out. There clearly is no all-loving all-powerful deity. Your God is imaginary fiction (yes, like Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy for children).

Let me illustrate how silly that sounds:

You think billionaire Bill Gates exists who has the power to end all work for his children and make life a party 24/7 for them, and yet somehow they have to earn their own money? What a cop-out. There clearly is no billionaire Bill Gates. Your Gates is imaginary fiction.

I don't see Bill Gates letting his children starve in Africa, or not receiving medical help, if they have a terminal disease. Your analogy can only stretch so far, because we know Bill Gates exists, because I have seen him on TV.

Despite what you think, Bill Gates is a loving parent, and would suddenly have second thoughts about his principle, if any of his children suffered because of it.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Boots on December 08, 2013, 09:15:23 AM
Let me illustrate how silly that sounds:

You think billionaire Bill Gates exists who has the power to end all work for his children and make life a party 24/7 for them,

Skep, question: could heaven be described as a 24/7 party?  If so, then you certainly have to concede that your god is capable of creating this scenario.  Further, that some beings (unborn children, for example) get to go there without the "benefit" of having suffered through this life.

How do you reconcile that with the reality we see daily: of untold suffering of innocents here on earth, while some innocents get the 24/7 party immediately?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Nam on December 08, 2013, 10:19:08 AM
Let me illustrate how silly that sounds:

You think billionaire Bill Gates exists who has the power to end all work for his children and make life a party 24/7 for them,

Skep, question: could heaven be described as a 24/7 party?  If so, then you certainly have to concede that your god is capable of creating this scenario.  Further, that some beings (unborn children, for example) get to go there without the "benefit" of having suffered through this life.

How do you reconcile that with the reality we see daily: of untold suffering of innocents here on earth, while some innocents get the 24/7 party immediately?

I've been to a 24/5 party but never a 24/7 one.

-Nam
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: MadBunny on December 08, 2013, 12:55:17 PM
You think an omnipotent God exists who has the power to end all world starvation immediately, right now, this very second and yet somehow it's our job? What a cop-out. There clearly is no all-loving all-powerful deity. Your God is imaginary fiction (yes, like Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy for children).

Let me illustrate how silly that sounds:

You think billionaire Bill Gates exists who has the power to end all work for his children and make life a party 24/7 for them, and yet somehow they have to earn their own money? What a cop-out. There clearly is no billionaire Bill Gates. Your Gates is imaginary fiction.


I find it amusing that you place these limitations on your god.  I notice your god only has powers that you can imagine 'him' having, or morals that you imagine it to have.

In short you can't imagine the effort it would take to individually deal with every human therefore your god cannot manage to individually deal with every human.

Your god is less of a god and more of a super...human.
Your god is less yaweh and more Black Adam.

(http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k150/madbunny_2006/adam_zps4eb2717d.jpg)

Has the power of a god, chooses to bestow it upon only his chosen subjects.  Is selfish, requires adulation, and isn't afraid to get things bloody.  As long as you stay out of his back yard he doesn't care if you're super wealthy or starving.  Could probably rule the entire world if it weren't for the opposition, can't be arsed to do so.


Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: 12 Monkeys on December 08, 2013, 01:29:48 PM
I think you fail to see what omnipotence means...

It means one could do everything ever in a zero amount of time.

If this god is apparently loving, he sure doesn't love Africa.
It's obvious that Skeptics God only loves whitey
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on December 08, 2013, 02:30:21 PM
I think you fail to see what omnipotence means...

It means one could do everything ever in a zero amount of time.

If this god is apparently loving, he sure doesn't love Africa.
It's obvious that Skeptics God only loves whitey

No, It's the U.S. who hates Africa.

Imagine if we let them keep their own diamonds. They'd be wealthy as hell!

The problem is godless people keep rolling in with bulldozaers and stealing their diamonds and selling them in the U.S.

"One nation under God" indeed. What a joke!
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: MadBunny on December 08, 2013, 03:11:47 PM
No, It's the U.S. who hates Africa.

Imagine if we let them keep their own diamonds. They'd be wealthy as hell!

The problem is godless people keep rolling in with bulldozaers and stealing their diamonds and selling them in the U.S.

"One nation under God" indeed. What a joke!

(http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k150/madbunny_2006/adamhatesafrica_zpscf6fd2e7.jpg)


God: powerless against godless people.  Super god you have there Skeptic54768.  Real impressive.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: 12 Monkeys on December 08, 2013, 03:17:15 PM
I think you fail to see what omnipotence means...

It means one could do everything ever in a zero amount of time.

If this god is apparently loving, he sure doesn't love Africa.
It's obvious that Skeptics God only loves whitey

No, It's the U.S. who hates Africa.

Imagine if we let them keep their own diamonds. They'd be wealthy as hell!

The problem is godless people keep rolling in with bulldozaers and stealing their diamonds and selling them in the U.S.

"One nation under God" indeed. What a joke!
I have never bought a diamond in my life,,,,and I think you are confusing USA with Holland,in Africa stealing diamonds....BTW everything you have in terms of wealth has been "stolen" from the indigenous peoples of North America,see the double standard you have there? Why don't you go back home from your county of origin,or that of your ancestors? You can take your God with you.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on December 08, 2013, 03:17:18 PM
No, It's the U.S. who hates Africa.

Imagine if we let them keep their own diamonds. They'd be wealthy as hell!

The problem is godless people keep rolling in with bulldozaers and stealing their diamonds and selling them in the U.S.

"One nation under God" indeed. What a joke!

(http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k150/madbunny_2006/adamhatesafrica_zpscf6fd2e7.jpg)


God: powerless against godless people.  Super god you have there Skeptic54768.  Real impressive.

Please tell me what lesson anyone would learn if God kept feeding the Africans. "Hey we can keep stealing the diamonds and God is gonna keep feeding them! Wow! This God really spoils us! No discipline whatsoever! Such a pushover!"

What lesson would a person learn if they kept getting traffic tickets and their parents kept paying for it?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Aaron123 on December 08, 2013, 03:22:07 PM
God: powerless against godless people.  Super god you have there Skeptic54768.  Real impressive.

Well, to be fair, there is precedence for that.  Just look at what happened with those iron chariots...
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: G-Roll on December 08, 2013, 03:23:17 PM
Quote
http://money.howstuffworks.com/african-diamond-trade2.htm

First, remember that not all African diamond mines are corrupt. For example, the African nation Botswana has been able to thrive thanks to a successful diamond mining industry. As recently as 1999, it was considered the world's fastest-growing economy. In fact, three-quarters of Botswana's export profits and 45 percent of the country's government revenue are produced by diamonds. Thanks to a legitimate diamond industry, Botswana has enjoyed a complete about-face from one of the world's poorest countries in 1966 to the world's most rapidly growing economy over the last 25 years [source: Allafrica.com].

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/20/business/botswana-diamonds-de-beers/index.html

In 1969, the Botswana government signed a 50/50 deal with global diamond giant De Beers to explore and mine all of the country's diamonds. The partnership, called 'Debswana,' has helped turn Botswana into one of Africa's most prosperous countries, boasting today a robust economy and one of the highest per capita incomes on the continent.
The state mines the country's riches as an owner, getting a share of the profit in addition to just collecting taxes and royalties like many other mineral-rich African governments.
This unique arrangement has allowed Botswana to make significant investments in education and health care, officials say.
"Since we partnered with De Beers, we have a lot to show from any community development standpoint," says Bank of Botswana governor Linah Mohohlo. She notes that this model can be emulated in other parts of the continent.
"If you were to replicate what we do in Botswana in other African countries, I have no doubt in my mind that there could be meaningful gains."
And now, Botswana's diamond industry looks set to get a further boost after De Beers announced last year its decision to shift its rough diamond trading operation from London to Gaborone, the Botswana capital.
Linah Mohohlo, Bank of Botswana governor. The company says it expects the move to bring an extra $6 billion of diamond sales into the country. A new head office is also under construction while 80 staff members  will be relocated from Europe to Africa.

Yeah those freaking heathens are mucking up Botswana! How dare De Beers Co. have a working relationship with the Botswana government since 1969 that pumps $6 billion dollars into the country of Botswana!? That is just something Jesus wouldn’t support.

Do you know of the KPSC?
Quote
The Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (KPCS) is the process established in 2003 to prevent "conflict diamonds" from entering the mainstream rough diamond market by United Nations General Assembly Resolution 55/56 following recommendations in the Fowler Report. The process was set up "to ensure that diamond purchases were not financing violence by rebel movements and their allies seeking to undermine legitimate governments."

Now I am not ignorant enough to state that there is no corruption in Botswana. Or that the US/west is fair to any nation in Africa or helpful or harmful. However your statement of "imagine if we let them keep their own diamonds they'd be wealthy" is silly. I am sure that the government of Botswana could mine their own diamonds and keep all the profits but why would they?
I have given you two separate sources that state the diamond industry have skyrocketed an African countries economy. What Botswana's government does with that money.. I have no idea. Given your statements should we (the US) invade African countries and displace their governments? Seeming that has worked so well in the Middle East in the past?

Lol I know nothing of this subject but a quick google search proved your statement invalid. It is safe to state something along the lines of the world gave up on Africa or that the west could care less about Africa. But sometimes there is a bored individual on the other side of the internet with nothing better to do but challenge your statement.
You kind sir are incorrect. Thanks to a western company and US consumers Botswana has a "sparkling" economy.       

Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Aaron123 on December 08, 2013, 03:27:54 PM
Please tell me what lesson anyone would learn if God kept feeding the Africans. "Hey we can keep stealing the diamonds and God is gonna keep feeding them! Wow! This God really spoils us! No discipline whatsoever! Such a pushover!"

What lesson would a person learn if they kept getting traffic tickets and their parents kept paying for it?

What lesson is there when god stands by, do nothing, and allow people to "keep rolling in with bulldozaers and stealing their diamonds and selling them in the U.S."?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: MadBunny on December 08, 2013, 03:28:16 PM
Please tell me what lesson anyone would learn if God kept feeding the Africans. "Hey we can keep stealing the diamonds and God is gonna keep feeding them! Wow! This God really spoils us! No discipline whatsoever! Such a pushover!"

What lesson would a person learn if they kept getting traffic tickets and their parents kept paying for it?

I don't know.  It's your god, you tell me.  What lesson is he teaching his Christian Americans by telling them they can take what they want from the less powerful?
What lesson would a person learn if they let their children bully others for lunch money, knew about it and did nothing?

Wow, this god lets me do whatever I want to people with no consequences whatsoever.  Fuck those guys, I'm taking their shit.

(http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k150/madbunny_2006/adamlunchmoney_zps62231778.jpg)


Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: 12 Monkeys on December 08, 2013, 03:34:54 PM
What lessons are the "true Christians" learning when God lets them bully others and take what they want? God himself has commanded such actions,why would it bother God?

 Then of course Jesus comes along and preached an entirely different message than that of his "father" to love one another instead of killing all who oppose or defile God or those who oppose his rule. Good thing this crazy fuck aint real
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Traveler on December 08, 2013, 05:03:14 PM
Here would be my SPAG god (if one existed), and it wouldn't have anything to do with the bible. It would create a world where people could easily enough support their basic needs so that we could pursue becoming our greatest, wisest selves. It would encourage learning, growth, love, kindness. It would want us to grow and wouldn't put endless obstacles in the way of so many people that their lives are spent in misery. Instead of petty threats of hell, it would teach through positive reinforcement.

When one looks at what the world might actually look like with a loving creator, the biblical god stands out as a petty, immature, egotistical monster.

So, Sceptic, how does your god concept achieve the positive results that my imaginary one would? And how can you believe its perfect, if a lowly human can come up with a much better, fairer world, where one's place of birth doesn't play such an enormous part in whether you survive or thrive?

"God works in mysterious ways" is not an answer.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: magicmiles on December 08, 2013, 05:21:46 PM
Here would be my SPAG god (if one existed), and it wouldn't have anything to do with the bible. It would create a world where people could easily enough support their basic needs so that we could pursue becoming our greatest, wisest selves. It would encourage learning, growth, love, kindness. It would want us to grow and wouldn't put endless obstacles in the way of so many people that their lives are spent in misery. Instead of petty threats of hell, it would teach through positive reinforcement.



Hi Traveler, I have some questions about this:

* Are you talking about the creation of humans as we know them today?

* If yes to above, does your God grant free will?

* If yes to above, what would your God do in response to human decisions and actions that cause suffering?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: median on December 08, 2013, 05:45:12 PM
You think an omnipotent God exists who has the power to end all world starvation immediately, right now, this very second and yet somehow it's our job? What a cop-out. There clearly is no all-loving all-powerful deity. Your God is imaginary fiction (yes, like Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy for children).

Let me illustrate how silly that sounds:

You think billionaire Bill Gates exists who has the power to end all work for his children and make life a party 24/7 for them, and yet somehow they have to earn their own money? What a cop-out. There clearly is no billionaire Bill Gates. Your Gates is imaginary fiction.

The silliness is all yours. Listen to yourself. Are you actually attempting to compare Bill Gates (who is NOT infinite, all-loving; ie. IS love, all-powerful, all-knowing, and limitless) to your alleged deity thing? This is just more irrationality from you. False Comparison. And if Bill Gates WERE limitless he would in fact end starvation immediately (as would I - and likely you).

You are better than your God and you just haven't realized it yet.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: median on December 08, 2013, 05:53:22 PM

Please tell me what lesson anyone would learn if God kept feeding the Africans. "Hey we can keep stealing the diamonds and God is gonna keep feeding them! Wow! This God really spoils us! No discipline whatsoever! Such a pushover!"

What lesson would a person learn if they kept getting traffic tickets and their parents kept paying for it?

You seem to have this weird concept justification of continual parental absence. "Well gee, what lesson would anyone learn if their parents actually came home and disciplined them in their presence for all in the house to see!? Parents should just leave and not be around. Yeah, that's the ticket!"

Listen to yourself, turning every which way in an attempt to justify this alleged invisible "spirit" thing. Do you have kids? Why don't you just leave them to fend for themselves like you think this alleged 'God' does?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: magicmiles on December 08, 2013, 06:02:01 PM
And if Bill Gates WERE limitless he would in fact end starvation immediately (as would I - and likely you).


How can you claim you would end starvation immediately if you were limitless? What do you mean by 'limitless'?

Right now, like me (and most everybody on the forum), you have the opportunity and means to do a lot, lot more to alleviate hunger (and other suffering) than you actually do. Why don't you take every opportunityand use all available means? And how would this change if you were limitless?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: median on December 08, 2013, 06:27:20 PM
And if Bill Gates WERE limitless he would in fact end starvation immediately (as would I - and likely you).


How can you claim you would end starvation immediately if you were limitless? What do you mean by 'limitless'?

Right now, like me (and most everybody on the forum), you have the opportunity and means to do a lot, lot more to alleviate hunger (and other suffering) than you actually do. Why don't you take every opportunityand use all available means? And how would this change if you were limitless?

This is a red-herring fallacy. We aren't debating whether or not "I" exist. We are talking about the sheer and utter LACK of any phenomenal evidence that any alleged 'all-loving', 'all-powerful', deity is around doing anything to end world starvation (or any other world atrocity, such as decease, for that matter). If this 'thing' were real (and actually all-loving) it would rain down 'manna' from heaven (or whatever) and do what is truly loving for it's alleged 'children'. But...NOPE.

I'd be willing to bet that you would step right in and aid a starving child (or one being raped) if it was in your immediate presence, would't you? And allegedly this deity is omni-present. So it is continuously in the presence of these horrific atrocities all-the-time (which you or I would stop immediately) and yet it does nothing. That's the difference between you and your alleged deity. You would stop the rape. It stands back, watches, and does nothing.

But yay for your belief in Jesus!
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: magicmiles on December 08, 2013, 06:42:03 PM
And if Bill Gates WERE limitless he would in fact end starvation immediately (as would I - and likely you).


How can you claim you would end starvation immediately if you were limitless? What do you mean by 'limitless'?

Right now, like me (and most everybody on the forum), you have the opportunity and means to do a lot, lot more to alleviate hunger (and other suffering) than you actually do. Why don't you take every opportunityand use all available means? And how would this change if you were limitless?

This is a red-herring fallacy.

I've noticed difficult and uncomfortable questions often are.



We aren't debating whether or not "I" exist.

No, we're not. But in the course of discussion you made a claim about something - that you would eliminate starvation if you were limitless. That's all you need to focus on in your response to me. Tall order for you, but I haven't abandoned hope you may one day do it.


We are talking about the sheer and utter LACK of any phenomenal evidence that any alleged 'all-loving', 'all-powerful', deity is around doing anything to end world starvation (or any other world atrocity, such as decease, for that matter).

Yep. And in the process of discussing it, you made a claim. I wanted you to provide further information on that claim.


If this 'thing' were real (and actually all-loving) it would rain down 'manna' from heaven (or whatever) and do what is truly loving for it's alleged 'children'. But...NOPE.

Half way through your response...no sign of an answer to my question. Will there be one? It's exciting to keep reading!


I'd be willing to bet that you would step right in and aid a starving child (or one being raped) if it was in your immediate presence, would't you?

I certainly hope so. Now bear with me for a second while I quickly review your response so far for any hint of an answer to my question.

....nope. OK, lets move on.


 And allegedly this deity is omni-present. So it is continuously in the presence of these horrific atrocities all-the-time (which you or I would stop immediately) and yet it does nothing. That's the difference between you and your alleged deity. You would stop the rape. It stands back, watches, and does nothing.

But yay for your belief in Jesus!

thanks for the info. I'll keep reading..excitedly looking forward to your answer!!

Wait..

That's all?

"sigh"
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: 12 Monkeys on December 08, 2013, 06:49:22 PM
And if Bill Gates WERE limitless he would in fact end starvation immediately (as would I - and likely you).


How can you claim you would end starvation immediately if you were limitless? What do you mean by 'limitless'?

Right now, like me (and most everybody on the forum), you have the opportunity and means to do a lot, lot more to alleviate hunger (and other suffering) than you actually do. Why don't you take every opportunityand use all available means? And how would this change if you were limitless?
Pretty stupid statement,the wave of a hand would so it if we were God. Why do you people limit your God to terms that LIMIT his power?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on December 08, 2013, 06:52:57 PM
I think i can safely say that if any person considered "moral" (ohh hell, is the moral shit storm going to come from this?) was also omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, they would most certainly help all of mankind, and likely any other sentient beings in the universe.

I ponder how theists believe their god is loving, when humans are repeatedly known for being even better.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: natlegend on December 08, 2013, 06:53:27 PM
It truly boggles my mind to read Skep's posts... How is it possible that one person can be so thick?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: 12 Monkeys on December 08, 2013, 06:55:49 PM
It truly boggles my mind to read Skep's posts... How is it possible that one person can be so thick?
From the looks of his latest posts MM can't be far behind
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: magicmiles on December 08, 2013, 06:56:32 PM
And if Bill Gates WERE limitless he would in fact end starvation immediately (as would I - and likely you).


How can you claim you would end starvation immediately if you were limitless? What do you mean by 'limitless'?

Right now, like me (and most everybody on the forum), you have the opportunity and means to do a lot, lot more to alleviate hunger (and other suffering) than you actually do. Why don't you take every opportunityand use all available means? And how would this change if you were limitless?
Pretty stupid statement,the wave of a hand would so it if we were God. Why do you people limit your God to terms that LIMIT his power?

Where did I mention God in my post?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: 12 Monkeys on December 08, 2013, 06:57:49 PM
And if Bill Gates WERE limitless he would in fact end starvation immediately (as would I - and likely you).


How can you claim you would end starvation immediately if you were limitless? What do you mean by 'limitless'?

Right now, like me (and most everybody on the forum), you have the opportunity and means to do a lot, lot more to alleviate hunger (and other suffering) than you actually do. Why don't you take every opportunityand use all available means? And how would this change if you were limitless?
If you bothered to read Medians posts,he does contribute what he can for the hungry....what as a Christian have you done?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: 12 Monkeys on December 08, 2013, 06:59:57 PM
And if Bill Gates WERE limitless he would in fact end starvation immediately (as would I - and likely you).


How can you claim you would end starvation immediately if you were limitless? What do you mean by 'limitless'?

Right now, like me (and most everybody on the forum), you have the opportunity and means to do a lot, lot more to alleviate hunger (and other suffering) than you actually do. Why don't you take every opportunityand use all available means? And how would this change if you were limitless?
Pretty stupid statement,the wave of a hand would so it if we were God. Why do you people limit your God to terms that LIMIT his power?

Where did I mention God in my post?
The term was if you were limitless,and of course you know the answer IF YOU were limitless,I am sure you would help ALL....or do you not understand what limitless means?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: magicmiles on December 08, 2013, 07:00:08 PM
I think i can safely say that if any person considered "moral" (ohh hell, is the moral shit storm going to come from this?) was also omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, they would most certainly help all of mankind, and likely any other sentient beings in the universe.



And I say, what evidence do you have for thinking this? The evidence actually goes against it. Moral people right now don't do everything within their means to help mankind. Why would that change if the ability to help increased?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on December 08, 2013, 07:05:41 PM
And I say, what evidence do you have for thinking this? The evidence actually goes against it. Moral people right now don't do everything within their means to help mankind. Why would that change if the ability to help increased?

Again, omnipotence is FARRRRRRRRRRRRR more power than you can imagine.

Omnipotence is the level of power where there is no level, you could make an indefinite amount of whatever you want, in a nanosecond, in 0 seconds!

Hell, you could break the rules and go "I made everything in cabbage seconds", they don't exist, but you made them anyway.

I consider myself to be moral, and i would help everything (and i mean EVERYTHING, as it would still equate to no effort), if i were omnipotent.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: magicmiles on December 08, 2013, 07:06:16 PM
And if Bill Gates WERE limitless he would in fact end starvation immediately (as would I - and likely you).


How can you claim you would end starvation immediately if you were limitless? What do you mean by 'limitless'?

Right now, like me (and most everybody on the forum), you have the opportunity and means to do a lot, lot more to alleviate hunger (and other suffering) than you actually do. Why don't you take every opportunityand use all available means? And how would this change if you were limitless?
If you bothered to read Medians posts,he does contribute what he can for the hungry....what as a Christian have you done?

My point is that noone of us contribute what we can for the hungry. We could all do more, often a lot more. I make this point only in response to the assertion by Median that he would eliminate starvation if he was limitless. I want to know why this is necessarily true, based on what we know about ourselves.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: 12 Monkeys on December 08, 2013, 07:06:58 PM
I think i can safely say that if any person considered "moral" (ohh hell, is the moral shit storm going to come from this?) was also omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, they would most certainly help all of mankind, and likely any other sentient beings in the universe.



And I say, what evidence do you have for thinking this? The evidence actually goes against it. Moral people right now don't do everything within their means to help mankind. Why would that change if the ability to help increased?
MM i think you hit the nail on the head,but can a person be called "moral" in these terms if they fail to help others to the full extent of their abilities?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: jynnan tonnix on December 08, 2013, 07:08:56 PM
Here would be my SPAG god (if one existed), and it wouldn't have anything to do with the bible. It would create a world where people could easily enough support their basic needs so that we could pursue becoming our greatest, wisest selves. It would encourage learning, growth, love, kindness. It would want us to grow and wouldn't put endless obstacles in the way of so many people that their lives are spent in misery. Instead of petty threats of hell, it would teach through positive reinforcement.



Hi Traveler, I have some questions about this:

* Are you talking about the creation of humans as we know them today?

* If yes to above, does your God grant free will?

* If yes to above, what would your God do in response to human decisions and actions that cause suffering?

I actually think these are some pretty good questions. They made me think a little. I'm not Traveler, but I'll take a stab at them.

I think, in the first case, that, yes, we would be talking about humans who, physically, are basically the same as we know them. There would probably be social differences depending on how much hands-on interference there was from God, and how it went over.

I would also see "free will" being part of the plan. Inusmuch as there actually IS free will. I'm not a particular proponent of the theory that every move we make is somehow programmed into us through every moment of life experience which came before it, and that's not a controversy I want to see here, so let's just leave it at, yes, god gives us the ability to make choices in this scenario.

The last is the most interesting...Because if human evolution as a social species (which I am assuming) were to remain pretty much as it appears to have been in THIS reality, I suppose God would have had to be a bit more hands-on pretty early in the game, making sure that it was clear that those who chose to live their lives peacefully, cooperatively, and in seeking knowledge and wisdom ended up faring better, karma-wise, than those who sought power over others. I don't see this as necessarily a violation of free-will, though it might be, to some extent. I would imagine that an omnipotent power could figure out a way to make it reasonably subtle.
I could probably keep expounding on this until it became an incoherent mess, but it does seem to me that with a reasonably consistent system of reward/punishment for specific behaviors, god could grant free will, yet still end up with a society where peaceful, rational pursuits and a love of education would become the standard.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: 12 Monkeys on December 08, 2013, 07:09:35 PM
MM is God limitless or not? If you were limitless you would end all world suffering,war,starvation in a heartbeat? It if the believer who limits the power of God IMO.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: magicmiles on December 08, 2013, 07:11:33 PM


I consider myself to be moral, and i would help everything (and i mean EVERYTHING, as it would still equate to no effort), if i were omnipotent.

So are you saying that you are prevented from doing more now because you don't wish to make the effort?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: magicmiles on December 08, 2013, 07:12:28 PM
I think i can safely say that if any person considered "moral" (ohh hell, is the moral shit storm going to come from this?) was also omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, they would most certainly help all of mankind, and likely any other sentient beings in the universe.



And I say, what evidence do you have for thinking this? The evidence actually goes against it. Moral people right now don't do everything within their means to help mankind. Why would that change if the ability to help increased?
MM i think you hit the nail on the head,but can a person be called "moral" in these terms if they fail to help others to the full extent of their abilities?

Good question...
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: 12 Monkeys on December 08, 2013, 07:14:41 PM


I consider myself to be moral, and i would help everything (and i mean EVERYTHING, as it would still equate to no effort), if i were omnipotent.

So are you saying that you are prevented from doing more now because you don't wish to make the effort?
And what if we were ommni-max deities would we do all within our power or would we just let them suffer and then burn in hell because they failed to accept Jesus?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: magicmiles on December 08, 2013, 07:15:40 PM
MM is God limitless or not? If you were limitless you would end all world suffering,war,starvation in a heartbeat? It if the believer who limits the power of God IMO.

At the momemt, I am uninterested in whether God is limitless. I wanted only to pursue Median's assertion that HE would end starvation if he was limitless. So far, no sign of any argument from Median to back that assertion up or explain why he holds that assertion.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: 12 Monkeys on December 08, 2013, 07:18:13 PM
You MM are not really a Christian as it is understood are you?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: median on December 08, 2013, 07:18:33 PM

My point is that noone of us contribute what we can for the hungry. We could all do more, often a lot more. I make this point only in response to the assertion by Median that he would eliminate starvation if he was limitless. I want to know why this is necessarily true, based on what we know about ourselves.

"What we can" is quite relative and is also completely aside from the subject. I'm not going to quibble with you about what "all you can do" means b/c you don't get to define that for me. I do plenty now and will continue, and this says nothing about what I would do if I had unlimited capacity. We are discussing an alleged "all-loving" being who stands by and watches while horrific things happen to his 'children'. And yet these same 'children' help each other far more than this invisible 'thing' does (which is none). It doesn't matter to me whatever if you believe me or not that I would end starvation if I had the unlimited means/powers. The point is, this alleged deity DOES have the means (supposedly), and is supposedly "all loving", and still does nothing, which makes me (and you) better than 'him'.



Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: 12 Monkeys on December 08, 2013, 07:20:55 PM


I consider myself to be moral, and i would help everything (and i mean EVERYTHING, as it would still equate to no effort), if i were omnipotent.

So are you saying that you are prevented from doing more now because you don't wish to make the effort?
And what if we were ommni-max deities would we do all within our power or would we just let them suffer and then burn in hell because they failed to accept Jesus?
I answered the Question and stated if we were ommni-max we would do all to stop suffering,now what exactly is your God doing? -1 Darwin,when the answer is THERE
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: magicmiles on December 08, 2013, 07:26:22 PM


I consider myself to be moral, and i would help everything (and i mean EVERYTHING, as it would still equate to no effort), if i were omnipotent.

So are you saying that you are prevented from doing more now because you don't wish to make the effort?
And what if we were ommni-max deities would we do all within our power or would we just let them suffer and then burn in hell because they failed to accept Jesus?
I answered the Question and stated if we were ommni-max we would do all to stop suffering,now what exactly is your God doing? -1 Darwin,when the answer is THERE

You'll have to be specific !2M - which part of your question was the answer to my question?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: 12 Monkeys on December 08, 2013, 07:29:20 PM
The topic as we both understood it was if we were ommni-max what would we do,I answered.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: magicmiles on December 08, 2013, 07:37:51 PM

My point is that noone of us contribute what we can for the hungry. We could all do more, often a lot more. I make this point only in response to the assertion by Median that he would eliminate starvation if he was limitless. I want to know why this is necessarily true, based on what we know about ourselves.

"What we can" is quite relative and is also completely aside from the subject.

Of course its relative. A person with disposable income has a greater ability to do charitable works than somebody who doesn't, for instance. But that doesn't change the fact that you could, if you really wanted to, do more charitable works than you do. Don't be so scared to just concede that this is the case..I don't judge you. I am right alongside you in that particualr boat.

And it isn't aside from the subject which I addressed from within your post - it is absolutely relevant to the assertion you made.


 I'm not going to quibble with you about what "all you can do" means b/c you don't get to define that for me. I do plenty now and will continue, and this says nothing about what I would do if I had unlimited capacity.

I don't question whether you do plenty now. I believe you do, and good on you for doing it. But I disagree that it says nothing about what you would do if you had unlimited capacity. Or at least, I wanted to explore that further. Because logic would seem to suggest that something is preventing you from doing more than you currently do. I am interested to have you identify what that something is, and discuss why that something would cease to be a factor if you had unlimited capacity.

If you don't care to discuss it...just frikking say so for once. I won't think less of you.


Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: median on December 08, 2013, 07:38:49 PM
It's really funny that he started this piddly quibble with me about what I would do. Is he then saying that HE would NOT eliminate poverty, homelessness, and starvation in an instant if he had unlimited powers (as supposedly this 'God' thing has)? It would be quite interesting to see him admit that, wouldn't it?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: magicmiles on December 08, 2013, 07:39:28 PM
The topic as we both understood it was if we were ommni-max what would we do,I answered.

That was not the very specific question I asked Angus (or Alexis, I don't know who's on duty today).
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: magicmiles on December 08, 2013, 07:43:04 PM
It's really funny that he started this piddly quibble with me about what I would do. Is he then saying that HE would NOT eliminate poverty, homelessness, and starvation in an instant if he had unlimited powers (as supposedly this 'God' thing has)? It would be quite interesting to see him admit that, wouldn't it?

What's amusing about it?

I don't do everthying I can do right now to alleviate suffering because I care more for my own comfort and well-being than I do for those suffering. And because I am lazy. I know that to be true...about myself.

Would those traits disappear if I had unlimited power? And if they didn't, would they still prevent me from eliminating suffering? I do not know.

Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: median on December 08, 2013, 07:49:46 PM

I don't question whether you do plenty now. I believe you do, and good on you for doing it. But I disagree that it says nothing about what you would do if you had unlimited capacity. Or at least, I wanted to explore that further. Because logic would seem to suggest that something is preventing you from doing more than you currently do. I am interested to have you identify what that something is, and discuss why that something would cease to be a factor if you had unlimited capacity.

If you don't care to discuss it...just frikking say so for once. I won't think less of you.

First, I don't give two shits what you think of me. Second, "logic" doesn't indicate anything. So you are off it right from the git-go. You can disbelieve that I would end world hunger if I had unlimited resources to do so and I don't care whether you do or you don't. It means nothing to me. Whether or not I am doing "all I can" or "could do more" doesn't 'indicate' anything (even if you WANT it to in order to protect your theology) about what I would do if things were limitless. Ask yourself if YOU would, and that answer will be sufficient to continue the discussion we were having (which you so rudely and irrationally derailed) regarding your alleged "all-loving" deity.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Traveler on December 08, 2013, 07:50:05 PM
Here would be my SPAG god (if one existed), and it wouldn't have anything to do with the bible. It would create a world where people could easily enough support their basic needs so that we could pursue becoming our greatest, wisest selves. It would encourage learning, growth, love, kindness. It would want us to grow and wouldn't put endless obstacles in the way of so many people that their lives are spent in misery. Instead of petty threats of hell, it would teach through positive reinforcement.



Hi Traveler, I have some questions about this:

* Are you talking about the creation of humans as we know them today?

I don't see what difference that would make.

Quote
* If yes to above, does your God grant free will?

As much as free will CAN exist, of course.

Quote
* If yes to above, what would your God do in response to human decisions and actions that cause suffering?

Have you heard of a movement called "peaceful parenting?" There are ways to guide people to kindness without punishment or reprogramming them. It would require a god(dess) who actually showed up and talked with people of course. And if this god(dess) created people from scratch, it certainly seems that a perfect god(dess) would be capable of creating a species that was not prone to such anti-social defects as serial-killer psychopathy.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: 12 Monkeys on December 08, 2013, 07:51:05 PM
It's really funny that he started this piddly quibble with me about what I would do. Is he then saying that HE would NOT eliminate poverty, homelessness, and starvation in an instant if he had unlimited powers (as supposedly this 'God' thing has)? It would be quite interesting to see him admit that, wouldn't it?

What's amusing about it?

I don't do everthying I can do right now to alleviate suffering because I care more for my own comfort and well-being than I do for those suffering. And because I am lazy. I know that to be true...about myself.

Would those traits disappear if I had unlimited power? And if they didn't, would they still prevent me from eliminating suffering? I do not know.
Does this mean you are not really "like" Jesus or even act "like" him or just that you will be forgiven for your inaction and lazy attitude for others,and looking out after your own interests,directly in violation of the orders given to you by Jesus?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: median on December 08, 2013, 08:13:00 PM

What's amusing about it?

I don't do everthying I can do right now to alleviate suffering because I care more for my own comfort and well-being than I do for those suffering. And because I am lazy. I know that to be true...about myself.

Would those traits disappear if I had unlimited power? And if they didn't, would they still prevent me from eliminating suffering? I do not know.

And you call yourself a follower of Jesus? Your inaction is quite like this alleged 'God' thing you supposedly worship. Yet, don't you think you have a moral obligation (via the commands of your 'Lord') to be helping others in need? Have you ever helped anyone in a dire circumstance? If so, why did you help them?

The worse part of this, actually, is that you've admitted that you don't know if you would end world hunger (for example) if you had unlimited resources. Are you actually serious with this claim? If you had literally unlimited resources from which to help starving children, such that it would be of no cost to yourself, you still cannot say that you would help them (even with a moral obligation to do so)?? WOW. So much spin to protect your theology.

Unsurprisingly, it sounds like you are an indifferent vile monster just like your 'God' thing is.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Antidote on December 08, 2013, 08:55:53 PM
You think an omnipotent God exists who has the power to end all world starvation immediately, right now, this very second and yet somehow it's our job? What a cop-out. There clearly is no all-loving all-powerful deity. Your God is imaginary fiction (yes, like Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy for children).

Let me illustrate how silly that sounds:

You think billionaire Bill Gates exists who has the power to end all work for his children and make life a party 24/7 for them, and yet somehow they have to earn their own money? What a cop-out. There clearly is no billionaire Bill Gates. Your Gates is imaginary fiction.

I don't see Bill Gates letting his children starve in Africa, or not receiving medical help, if they have a terminal disease. Your analogy can only stretch so far, because we know Bill Gates exists, because I have seen him on TV.

Despite what you think, Bill Gates is a loving parent, and would suddenly have second thoughts about his principle, if any of his children suffered because of it.

I've met him personally, I actually bumped into him (literally) at the fish market in Seattle, really nice guy.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Hatter23 on December 08, 2013, 09:09:37 PM
MM is God limitless or not? If you were limitless you would end all world suffering,war,starvation in a heartbeat? It if the believer who limits the power of God IMO.

At the momemt, I am uninterested in whether God is limitless. I wanted only to pursue Median's assertion that HE would end starvation if he was limitless. So far, no sign of any argument from Median to back that assertion up or explain why he holds that assertion.

"I've noticed difficult and uncomfortable questions often are." Huh Hypocrite?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: median on December 08, 2013, 09:13:53 PM

I've met him personally, I actually bumped into him (literally) at the fish market in Seattle, really nice guy.

What's interesting though is that MM wants us to compare Bill Gates to his 'God', and believe that b/c Bill Gates could do more (in a strictly logical sense) that he would not do more if he had unlimited resources (So God is a lazy dick like him then?). Of course, this claim is nonsense. Whether or not Bill Gates could do more right now has no bearing on what we would do if he was unlimited. In fact, the evidence goes the other way. There is good reason for thinking that those who currently do a lot to help the starving and needy would do even more if they had vastly greater resources, and especially unlimited ones.

What MM is admitting is that he does not love his neighbor as himself (unlike this alleged God). For those of us who do care about our neighbor's well being, we are actually better than this invisible sky-daddy who does nothing but watch with indifference.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Antidote on December 08, 2013, 09:15:30 PM
MM is God limitless or not? If you were limitless you would end all world suffering,war,starvation in a heartbeat? It if the believer who limits the power of God IMO.

At the momemt, I am uninterested in whether God is limitless. I wanted only to pursue Median's assertion that HE would end starvation if he was limitless. So far, no sign of any argument from Median to back that assertion up or explain why he holds that assertion.

MM, since it was a hypothetical, he's not exactly required to provide an argument, since he knows he can't do it. However It's easy to extrapolate and understand that he would do it because it's the right thing to do.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Hatter23 on December 08, 2013, 09:22:38 PM

I've met him personally, I actually bumped into him (literally) at the fish market in Seattle, really nice guy.

What's interesting though is that MM wants us to compare Bill Gates to his 'God', and believe that b/c Bill Gates could do more (in a strictly logical sense) that he would not do more if he had unlimited resources (So God is a lazy dick like him then?). Of course, this claim is nonsense. Whether or not Bill Gates could do more right now has no bearing on what we would do if he was unlimited. In fact, the evidence goes the other way. There is good reason for thinking that those who currently do a lot to help the starving and needy would do even more if they had vastly greater resources, and especially unlimited ones.

What MM is admitting is that he does not love his neighbor as himself (unlike this alleged God). For those of us who do care about our neighbor's well being, we are actually better than this invisible sky-daddy who does nothing but watch with indifference.

Yes to solve every problem would be less effort than Bill Gates to give a penny, yet it still does not happen.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on December 09, 2013, 01:57:36 AM
So are you saying that you are prevented from doing more now because you don't wish to make the effort?

Incorrect, i am prevented from helping the world because i...

A:Lack the resources.
B:Currently do not know how to help the world.
C:Am too busy with my own life.

If i were omni-everything, like your "God", i would easily hand wave all of that away in ten seconds flat, and BAM, the world is now in peace, no one has to suffer, etc.

That was not the very specific question I asked Angus (or Alexis, I don't know who's on duty today).

Alexis does not type here. I do however (Angus, that is).
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Anfauglir on December 09, 2013, 03:12:49 AM
My point is that noone of us contribute what we can for the hungry. We could all do more, often a lot more. I make this point only in response to the assertion by Median that he would eliminate starvation if he was limitless. I want to know why this is necessarily true, based on what we know about ourselves......I am interested to have you identify what that something is, and discuss why that something would cease to be a factor if you had unlimited capacity.

I quite agree - I could do more for the starving.  If I sold up absolutely everything I owned today, house and car and possessions and all, I could give hundreds of thousands of dollars.

And, crucially, I would then have nothing.  Yahweh would not have that problem.  He could give everyone everything they ever needed and wanted, and still have everything.  He can give away a dollar, and still have his dollar - and a billion dollars more.

MM's question - is effectively how he can trust that a person who could give £10 (but only give £1), would give £1000 dollars when they had $infinity.  The problem is that as has been said, he does not appear to understand the concept of a limitless god (or a limitless amount of resources).

Why don't I give any more than I do?  Ultimately, I guess, its fear.  I look at the world, at the banks, at the way we are burning through our resources, and then I look at my wife and my children.  And ultimately, I think to myself "I could give away more - but what might happen tomorrow?  What might happen to them if I give away a little too much?"

But if I was GOD, I wouldn't have any of those problems.  With limitless resource, I could feed every person in every country every day, and STILL be guaranteed to have everything I could ever want or need forever.  GUARANTEED.  That is the point.

MM has asked us all "how can he believe that we would give so much, when we had limitless resource?"  I would like to ask MM a similar question.

MM, you give away some now, but agree you could do more.  If YOUR resources were limitless, what would stop YOU from feeding all the starving, all the time?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Anfauglir on December 09, 2013, 03:15:05 AM
Please tell me what lesson anyone would learn if God kept feeding the Africans. "Hey we can keep stealing the diamonds and God is gonna keep feeding them! Wow! This God really spoils us! No discipline whatsoever! Such a pushover!"

Really?

You honestly think that if god appeared, feeding the starving, and looking directly and sadly at the guys with the bulldozers, that they would keep doing it?  You don't think that the regular and obvious appearance of your god in the world would dramatically change the behaviour of billions of people?

He doesn't sound like much of a god to me, if his direct appearance in the world would have so little impact.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Add Homonym on December 09, 2013, 04:04:39 AM
Right now, like me (and most everybody on the forum), you have the opportunity and means to do a lot, lot more to alleviate hunger (and other suffering) than you actually do. Why don't you take every opportunityand use all available means? And how would this change if you were limitless?

Without getting too detailed, because I don't think the question has enough thought in it, to warrant a serious answer:

Most of the reason that individuals horde wealth, is to do with uncertainty of financial and health future. All my relatives and people I know, seem to be getting dementia, PD, strokes, cancer. I have some quite rich in-laws, but their son is a dribbler, and needs total care. One of the mothers just had her memory wiped by a stroke; the other one also had a partial stroke. That's BEFORE I even consider my own health outlook, which I'm not terribly optimistic about.

If you ever want to get an idea of whether your wealth is your house, or your health, then ask yourself what you would be willing to pay, to get a free pass from cancer, PD, heart disease, arthritis, and know you would live until, say, 110. What would you be willing to pay for that? Perhaps you are too young to really know.

God doesn't have to worry about his parents or children, or getting PD.

 
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: magicmiles on December 09, 2013, 04:26:19 AM
Firstly, thank you for actually giving a direct answer to my question. For focusing more on actually answering my question than twisting yourself in knots trying to second guess my intentions. Often, a question is just a question. Crazy but true.



I quite agree - I could do more for the starving.  If I sold up absolutely everything I owned today, house and car and possessions and all, I could give hundreds of thousands of dollars.

This is true. But isn't it also true that you could do a lot more good with very little extra sacrifice? I don't claim to know this, it's a genuine question. But I do get the impression you and I are on pretty similar paths...good job, few kids, 40ish, first world country[1]...and I know full well that I could do a lot more than I currently do, with pretty minimal sacrifice.


He could give everyone everything they ever needed and wanted, and still have everything.  He can give away a dollar, and still have his dollar - and a billion dollars more.

I think that is a big assumption, based on incomplete knowledge. But I really never intended this particular discussion to be about God. I've talked about God in some of my other posts on the forum.



MM's question - is effectively how he can trust that a person who could give £10 (but only give £1), would give £1000 dollars when they had $infinity.

It's not so much a matter of 'can I trust it' as 'Are you sure'?


The problem is that as has been said, he does not appear to understand the concept of a limitless god (or a limitless amount of resources).

I understand that concept, although I did ask Median to clarify what he meant when he used the term, in order to better aid discussion, because I think it may not mean the exact same thing to everybody, as I will explain in just a moment


Why don't I give any more than I do?  Ultimately, I guess, its fear.  I look at the world, at the banks, at the way we are burning through our resources, and then I look at my wife and my children.  And ultimately, I think to myself "I could give away more - but what might happen tomorrow?  What might happen to them if I give away a little too much?"

Thankyou again for a direct answer, and I have 100% confidence in your sincerity.

I assume, then, that your position is that if this fear could be removed there would be nothing further to stop you from helping the whole world? If you had unlimited ability to give and give and give but still keep all your own money, you would be able to eliminate everyone's hunger problems.

A starving child in Africa might look at your bank balance, and look at your monthly expenditure on things such as recreational activities, deserts, etc etc and think "why is this person not helping me? I can see the comfort he lives in, can't he buy me another few months of rice? I can't think of any reason other than pure sadism"

Would he be justified in thinking that? Would he think differently if he was made aware of what was stopping you from doing more? Would he understand?

My question is: when we don't have all the facts, can we say for sure what we would do if we had unlimited ability to do it? That's the crux of my question. 


 1. we do, however, have a better cricket team in Australia
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: magicmiles on December 09, 2013, 04:33:54 AM


MM, you give away some now, but agree you could do more.  If YOUR resources were limitless, what would stop YOU from feeding all the starving, all the time?

I don't know, because I can't assume that just because my resources were unlimited, some other circumstance might not exist to prevent me from doing that.

Certainly, I would love to eliminate all physical suffering. But I have to look at my reality NOW, where I have sufficient resources to do more than I do but fail to do it, and think about the question more than a few minuted on a forum allows.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Add Homonym on December 09, 2013, 04:45:58 AM
MM, you give away some now, but agree you could do more.  If YOUR resources were limitless, what would stop YOU from feeding all the starving, all the time?

I don't know, because I can't assume that just because my resources were unlimited, some other circumstance might not exist to prevent me from doing that.

Certainly, I would love to eliminate all physical suffering. But I have to look at my reality NOW, where I have sufficient resources to do more than I do but fail to do it, and think about the question more than a few minuted on a forum allows.

You don't need unlimited resources to fix Africa. The main problems are malaria, HIV, drought, and various tropical diseases. You could, however, get it in much better state, by making the nastiest dictators in it, trip, while walking down some stairs.

In order to explain why God doesn't just tweak a few nasties out of the way, using minimal action, you have to invoke Satan, and some kind of struggle.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Anfauglir on December 09, 2013, 07:02:43 AM
I could do more for the starving.  If I sold up absolutely everything I owned today, house and car and possessions and all, I could give hundreds of thousands of dollars.

This is true. But isn't it also true that you could do a lot more good with very little extra sacrifice?

Yup.  And there's the rub.  That bit in bold.  For any of us to give another more, we must end up with less.  My impression of any god worthy of the name of "god" is that that does not apply - a being with the ability to create from nothing does not have that dilemma.  And a being that does NOT have the ability to create from nothing is not one I would call a "god" - for me at least, ability to create is one of the primary attributes of godship.

Why don't I give any more than I do?  Ultimately, I guess, its fear.  I look at the world, at the banks, at the way we are burning through our resources, and then I look at my wife and my children.  And ultimately, I think to myself "I could give away more - but what might happen tomorrow?  What might happen to them if I give away a little too much?"

Thank you again for a direct answer, and I have 100% confidence in your sincerity.
…..
A starving child in Africa might look at your bank balance, and look at your monthly expenditure on things such as recreational activities, deserts, etc etc and think "why is this person not helping me? I can see the comfort he lives in, can't he buy me another few months of rice? I can't think of any reason other than pure sadism"

Would he be justified in thinking that? Would he think differently if he was made aware of what was stopping you from doing more? Would he understand?

Almost certainly, the child in Africa who saw me saving for my old age might struggle to understand why his real lack of food today is less important that my possible lack of food in twenty years.  And he would certainly not get why I feel able to drop $60 on the latest game on Kickstarter - I wouldn't blame him for slapping me in the face if he was standing by me when I did it.  My reasons of "well, I worked hard for my money, I give you some, be satisfied" probably wouldn't satisfy him.

But then again, I have never heard a satisfying answer as to why a being that allegedly loves every one of us so much, and (as I note above) apparently can create matter, is not doing ANYTHING.

I assume, then, that your position is that if this fear could be removed there would be nothing further to stop you from helping the whole world? If you had unlimited ability to give and give and give but still keep all your own money, you would be able to eliminate everyone's hunger problems.

My question is: when we don't have all the facts, can we say for sure what we would do if we had unlimited ability to do it? That's the crux of my question.

What does god fear, that prevents him from doing more?  I think that is the key question here: everyone has reasons for why they do what they do, whether what they do is a lot or a little.  Some reasons stack up better than others. 

But I know that I give some.  You do too.  Median gives more.  What has god given, that he no longer has?  What has he given this year?  In the last few decades?  This to me is the crux of the problem.  This year I gave about 1% of my income to a project in Uganda, about 0.1% of everything I had. 

How do god's figures stack up this year?  If they don't compare well to mine - to a fallible, fearful, mortal atheist sinner - if they don't make my figures look like an ant next to a Blue Whale by comparison….then what possible reason could there be for that?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: The Gawd on December 09, 2013, 07:17:58 AM
What I never understood is all the rationalizing to protect a god that does nothing. Why make excuses? Just say, "He doesnt do shit because he doesnt want to do shit." and wash your hands of it. When excuses are made for his inaction you are admitting that his actions are inadequate. When you try to shift responsibility onto humans you are admitting that his actions are inadequate.

But when you are thinking and making excuses as to why god does nothing, I hope in your mind you think about whether a non-existent god would also do nothing. And you ponder what the difference is between a non-existent god and a god that does nothing. You'll likely come up with the right conclusion.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: jdawg70 on December 09, 2013, 11:02:48 AM
I don't know, because I can't assume that just because my resources were unlimited, some other circumstance might not exist to prevent me from doing that.
Would non-existence qualify as a limiting factor preventing you from doing that?  Would actually not having unlimited resources be a limiting factor?  Would actually not knowing a problem existed qualify as a limiting factor?  Would actually not wanting to utilize said resources be a limiting factor?

Omnipotence.
Omniscience.
Omni-benevolence.
Exists.

At least one of these does not belong.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Jonny-UK on December 09, 2013, 11:15:37 AM
If any one of us here were omni-everything then would we not have already solved the worlds problems?
I would assume it takes more effort for a human to give £1 to charity than it would an omni-everything god to solve all the worlds problems.
It cannot be the same comparing what a human can or cannot do to what a god can or cannot do.
A lot of humans do try to make the world a better place, I have yet to see any evidence of gods help.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Truth OT on December 09, 2013, 12:51:22 PM
Do you think starving people in Africa are just not fit enough to survive? The United States does waste a lot of food.

Interestingly, those individuals who manage to stay alive in adverse situations, such as famine, may have survived because of one or more physical traits.  For example, someone who sweats less may be the one who lives when water is in short supply.

I wish that it was as easy as {reduce waste -> redistribute surplus food -> save lives}.  There are other things at play here, such as regional politics.  A lot of food is shipped to needy areas but a lot of it doesn't make it through to the intended recipients.  This is particularly so when there's armed conflict in the area, as a lot of the donated supplies get hijacked and redirected to local warlords and their supporters.  In such situations, it may well be aggression that selects for fitness --  At least, until superior firepower arrives to deal with the problem and protect the less aggressive.

I agree that is the problem! Corrupt people doing nothing but corrupting and taking the food away.

This is why i find it comical when people blame God and yell "Let God fix it!!!!" when it's up to us and our free will.

If a bunch of dicks are taking the food, God shakes his head with the rest of us.

You do realize that this response is basically saying things happen as if your god doesn't exist since he is as inactive in affecting chance as that flying spagetti monster you referenced previously?

This comment about the extent of human free will also goes against what the Christian holy book reveals about the god you claim to believe in. In the Bible God intervenes time after time to enforce his will upon man. He didn't want man to build a tower to the heavens, so Babel occurred (with that in mind, maybe it was YHWH and nor Allah that was responsible to the trade center coming down since he is so anti tower). He wanted Israel to be a great nation so he saved Jacob's family from famine via miraculous means and once he decided to act, he freed them from slavery in Eygpt via miraculous means. He got mad and initiated a worldwide genocidal flood to wipe out those that brought him displeasure. He turned Lot's wife into a pillar of salt for looking in the wrong direction. He, thru Elijah illustrated to the prophets of Baal that he was in fact real in a test of might. Oh, yeah, he also impregnated an engaged virgin in order to directly intervene in the affairs of men.

All that to say, you are WRONG about your God yet again! In the Biblical storybook he does not stand by just like the rest of us shaking his head. He sends fire and brimstone, plagues and diseases, angels and his human avatar into man's affair to insure that his will is done. In real life, we don't see this active God and the most logical conclusion we should come to is that this god you believe in is no more ral than Posidon, Zeus, Baal, Mitraz, etc.

I'll give him credit for this; He really crossed over well from ancient stories into the hearts and minds of generations over the millennia. That doesn't make him real though.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: median on December 09, 2013, 06:19:22 PM

A starving child in Africa might look at your bank balance, and look at your monthly expenditure on things such as recreational activities, deserts, etc etc and think "why is this person not helping me? I can see the comfort he lives in, can't he buy me another few months of rice? I can't think of any reason other than pure sadism"

Would he be justified in thinking that? Would he think differently if he was made aware of what was stopping you from doing more? Would he understand?

My question is: when we don't have all the facts, can we say for sure what we would do if we had unlimited ability to do it? That's the crux of my question.

This statement/question is another red-herring. Absolute certainty (aka - "having all the facts") is completely aside from the point (sufficient evidence is enough). It is also aside from the point as to whether or not a person "gives more" right now, b/c those limitations would be removed with a limitless "all-loving" ability (like this alleged God has). Further, there is plenty of evidence to support what I have stated. Those who currently do lots to help the needy have been given more (via donation, etc) and they have done more! My own mother works for the second largest marketing firm in the country and the focus of her business is charity and charitable organizations. They raise funds for needy people all over the world (in the millions of dollars) and as more money comes in - guess what - they give more and help more!!!! This is in stark contrast to the God you allegedly worship who doesn't do anything but observe the starvation, rape, murder, and incest with idle hands.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: median on December 09, 2013, 06:30:49 PM
If any one of us here were omni-everything then would we not have already solved the worlds problems?
I would assume it takes more effort for a human to give £1 to charity than it would an omni-everything god to solve all the worlds problems.
It cannot be the same comparing what a human can or cannot do to what a god can or cannot do.
A lot of humans do try to make the world a better place, I have yet to see any evidence of gods help.

I am an extremely giving person when it comes to those in dire need, and I have been as such since even before I was a Christian - continuing during, and after. I've sponsored children in Africa, given clothes and living supplies to needy families across the globe, bought many of my students musical instruments when their parents couldn't afford them (in the thousands of dollars), and a ton more. The demonstrable evidence that I show displays more than this alleged invisible deity 'God' thing (which is a big whopping ZERO), and it's astonishing that religious people can't see this. They are so blinded by theology and ideology that nothing can turn them from it's grip, even with it's vile consequences taken to logical conclusion.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: MadBunny on December 09, 2013, 07:23:23 PM
If any one of us here were omni-everything then would we not have already solved the worlds problems?
I would assume it takes more effort for a human to give £1 to charity than it would an omni-everything god to solve all the worlds problems.
It cannot be the same comparing what a human can or cannot do to what a god can or cannot do.
A lot of humans do try to make the world a better place, I have yet to see any evidence of gods help.
(bold mine)

Of course not, unless of course we're not talking about a god but instead a super empowered human. 
Then it all kind of fits into place.

While personally I think that we underestimate the power that we have at our fingertips, we also understand inherently that it isn't infinite.  Infinity is not, I think a concept that our minds can grasp fully.  At best we can simply use metaphors to communicate it[1], the idea of 'omni-anything' actually is just as bad or worse.

However when we limit the limitless to our own imaginations, indeed to our own selves as in the case of cafeteria christians, and I'm sure SPAGers of all religions, then the way gods act makes sense because it's what 'we' would do in it's stead, or what we imagine it would do.  When looked at from the outside, either through the lens of other religion, or simple rationality then said actions make little sense at all. 
 1. eg: if you have an infinite number of monkeys banging on an infinite number of typewriters then they will instantly produce every work of literature ever produced (perfectly) as well as every piece of literature that WILL ever be produced (also perfectly).
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: jtk73 on December 10, 2013, 02:56:00 PM
* If yes to above, does your God grant free will?

* If yes to above, what would your God do in response to human decisions and actions that cause suffering?

Just a thought here. If a being is powerful enough to create an entire universe (not saying, MM, that you necessarily consider Yahweh to be that powerful), this being could literally shape everything. A being that powerful could completely dis-allow the very concept of murder/rape/<insert harmful act here> from ever existing. A child grows up and for whatever reason becomes a sociopath. Some one rubs him/her the wrong way. Murder as a concept or thought or even the word itself does not and cannot exist. He/she is still left with options of possible actions to take, just none that cause serious harm. Actions that cause suffering are reduced or even removed but free will still exists.

Maybe I'm way off base here.

Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 10, 2013, 04:12:15 PM
^^^ You're not off base at all jkt. And it makes no sense that a product of a god could be so intellectually and morally superior to the god itself. "Supreme Being" kind of indicates superiority, and if he's not very good at it, may that is an indication that he doesn't exist at all.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: 12 Monkeys on December 10, 2013, 09:21:44 PM
* If yes to above, does your God grant free will?

* If yes to above, what would your God do in response to human decisions and actions that cause suffering?

Just a thought here. If a being is powerful enough to create an entire universe (not saying, MM, that you necessarily consider Yahweh to be that powerful), this being could literally shape everything. A being that powerful could completely dis-allow the very concept of murder/rape/<insert harmful act here> from ever existing. A child grows up and for whatever reason becomes a sociopath. Some one rubs him/her the wrong way. Murder as a concept or thought or even the word itself does not and cannot exist. He/she is still left with options of possible actions to take, just none that cause serious harm. Actions that cause suffering are reduced or even removed but free will still exists.

Maybe I'm way off base here.
For God to be all powerful ommni-max being the theists hold him up to be,they sure have to ignore large parts of the writings about said deity
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: median on December 12, 2013, 07:21:16 PM

MM, you give away some now, but agree you could do more.  If YOUR resources were limitless, what would stop YOU from feeding all the starving, all the time?

I don't know, because I can't assume that just because my resources were unlimited, some other circumstance might not exist to prevent me from doing that.

You've missed the point entirely. Having limitless resources (like this alleged God has) means that there would be no circumstances holding you back! Is it actually possible for you to be honest about this question? What circumstances can you possibly imagine would prevent you from ending world hunger if you had unlimited resources at your disposal? Think about what was just said - unlimited resources (unending life, health, wealth, prosperity, etc). Can you honestly say that you do-not-know if you would help people if you had such resources? Have you EVER helped anybody? It's quite surprising to see you make those claims since you claim to be a follower of Christ. But perhaps you're not actually a Christian. I'm sure you can see why many of us view this as nothing but an obfuscation to save your theology from refutation.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: 12 Monkeys on December 12, 2013, 10:42:19 PM
Median maybe the fact that he would only feed those who worship him(much like his God) could be a factor? Like said God he only has an interest in those who have an interest in him and not the people who actually need the help?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Hatter23 on December 13, 2013, 08:12:05 AM
Median maybe the fact that he would only feed those who worship him(much like his God) could be a factor? Like said God he only has an interest in those who have an interest in him and not the people who actually need the help?

of course that would bring up the question of the distinct lack of manna falling onto Aushwitz.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: 12 Monkeys on December 13, 2013, 10:30:42 AM
Median maybe the fact that he would only feed those who worship him(much like his God) could be a factor? Like said God he only has an interest in those who have an interest in him and not the people who actually need the help?

of course that would bring up the question of the distinct lack of manna falling onto Aushwitz.
There are so many examples of this "god" and his lack of "manna"
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Shaffy on December 13, 2013, 11:26:36 AM
Skeptic,

Ever been laid?

-Nam

 :laugh: :laugh: Dying right now... +1

-Shaffy
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: median on December 13, 2013, 11:39:24 AM
Wasn't this supposed to be THE thread where Skep answers people's questions? But all we get are half baked incomplete answers, post-and-runs, and obfuscations. What gives? For a professing Jesus follower this guy certainly is dishonest as they come.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Shaffy on December 13, 2013, 12:14:07 PM
Skeptic,

Ever been laid?

-Nam

Yes, Nam. I discussed this in my other threads. I was a wild one back in the day before I came to Christ. Now, I am celibate by choice until I get married.

Nothing but Jesus could have changed my life. There's no reason to change if there's no God. God is obviously real. There's absolutely no feeling the world like the Holy Spirit flowing through you. Once someone experiences this, no amount of rational argument can dissuade you from the Eternal King.

What was his name?

-Nam

Didnt see this one.... :laugh: Your on a roll

-Shaffy
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: penfold on December 13, 2013, 01:06:23 PM
Skeptic,

Ever been laid?

-Nam

Yes, Nam. I discussed this in my other threads. I was a wild one back in the day before I came to Christ. Now, I am celibate by choice until I get married.

Nothing but Jesus could have changed my life. There's no reason to change if there's no God. God is obviously real. There's absolutely no feeling the world like the Holy Spirit flowing through you. Once someone experiences this, no amount of rational argument can dissuade you from the Eternal King.

What was his name?

-Nam

Didnt see this one.... :laugh: Your on a roll

-Shaffy


Yeah you go Nam! Maybe he's a virgin - maybe he's gay. Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo funny! That's why I'm a heterosexual & a sexually active person. Imagine how embarrassed I'd be if that weren't true. I bet that's what skeptic54768 feels like - really embarrassed. And totally defeated. We all know he's wrong because he's either a virgin or gay! Yeah! ... Stupid gay virgin!

And well done Shaffy, good job on the thread. Really contributing to the whole gay virgin thing. Yeah! You go Shaffy!

Have I mentioned how funny this is.

wow...

fucking funny...

Yeah!

 
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Zankuu on December 13, 2013, 05:19:55 PM
Out of curiosity, does anyone know if skeptic has admitted he was wrong or conceded any points on this forum?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Add Homonym on December 13, 2013, 08:42:28 PM
Wasn't this supposed to be THE thread where Skep answers people's questions? But all we get are half baked incomplete answers, post-and-runs, and obfuscations. What gives? For a professing Jesus follower this guy certainly is dishonest as they come.

No, he's not dishonest, because he is too dishonest to engage with any inquiry which would result in him being proven dishonest.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Boots on December 13, 2013, 11:14:23 PM
There's absolutely no feeling the world like the Holy Spirit flowing through you. Once someone experiences this, no amount of rational argument can dissuade you from the Eternal King.

emphasis added.

that is ABSOLULTEY FALSE.  I felt the holy spirit flow through me as a teenager; I vividly recall the incredible feeling of euphoria and peace.

I have come to learn, years later, that it was exactly that--a feeling, brought on by the situation (a form of group hypnosis + months of preparation and anticipation -->release).  I have come to learn that I can, with enough effort, elicit a similar state of altered consciousness if I so choose.

I was a True Christian.  I have learned enough that now I'm an atheist.  Your arguments and observations really aren't convincing.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on December 13, 2013, 11:21:09 PM
Isn't it obvious?

You were not a true christian, that is why you are an atheist 9_9.

I hate hand waving arguments...
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Jonny-UK on December 15, 2013, 06:54:19 AM

There is no evidence of anything older than 6,000-10,000 years old.
Apart from moving your goalposts from 6000 years to 10,000 years when archaeology proves the biblical dated creation wrong, you also have this little problem.
(http://i.space.com/images/i/000/030/563/original/andromeda-galaxy-lc-italy.jpg?1372861638)
You can see this with your own eyes. Light takes 2.5 million years to reach your eyes from the andromeda galaxy. No doubt you agree with that other guy that your god is a liar and light has not taken so long to reach your eyes.
No, that isn't evidence. Ever heard of in situ? That's how God created the light. It's the exact same thing as God creating Adam and he looks 25 years old even though he is 0 years old.
God makes it so simple for us to comprehend.
This is from another thread but I think it should be asked here.
Something about your reply Skeptic just does not add up for me.
If your god created everything between 6 and 10 thousand years ago then why not have all the information we can observe point to that fact?
Why did he not ensure that all carbon dating, for example, would only ever max out at 10,000 years?
Why have a universe larger than 10,000 light years?
It would seem that god deliberately wants people to not believe in him by leaving proof that the bible he instructed is wrong. Why would he do that ?
If he does exist he is deliberately trying to show he does not.
Could you perhaps shed some light on this Skeptic?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Jonny-UK on December 15, 2013, 07:49:44 AM
A system, by definition, denotes intelligence behind it.
You're making things up again. Give me a link to your definition. What are you using, Merriam-Webster?
The onus is on you to describe a system without intelligence. Every job I have ever worked had a system they used ad they taught me the system.
Should I assume the system was created without intelligence?
flipping burden of proof, your argument is invalid
No, my argument is based on empiricism. I see systems created using intelligence. The universe is a majorly complex system, as is the human body. This means it's only logical that intelligence is responsible for the universe and everything in it.
Logic and empiricism are 2 gifts from God that we can use to deduce his existence. The problem is that a lot of atheists try to turn it around against God.
But the facts show that empiricism and logic prove God's existence.
Just an additional point to my post above.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Nam on December 22, 2013, 01:17:36 PM
Yeah you go Nam! Maybe he's a virgin - maybe he's gay. Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo funny! That's why I'm a heterosexual & a sexually active person. Imagine how embarrassed I'd be if that weren't true. I bet that's what skeptic54768 feels like - really embarrassed. And totally defeated. We all know he's wrong because he's either a virgin or gay! Yeah! ... Stupid gay virgin!

And well done Shaffy, good job on the thread. Really contributing to the whole gay virgin thing. Yeah! You go Shaffy!

Have I mentioned how funny this is.

wow...

fucking funny...

Yeah!

 


Don't add me to that. My response was based on his (skeptic's) stupidity, Shaffy, well, he's probably an actual child (compared to you and I).

-Nam
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on December 22, 2013, 01:23:17 PM

There is no evidence of anything older than 6,000-10,000 years old.
Apart from moving your goalposts from 6000 years to 10,000 years when archaeology proves the biblical dated creation wrong, you also have this little problem.
(http://i.space.com/images/i/000/030/563/original/andromeda-galaxy-lc-italy.jpg?1372861638)
You can see this with your own eyes. Light takes 2.5 million years to reach your eyes from the andromeda galaxy. No doubt you agree with that other guy that your god is a liar and light has not taken so long to reach your eyes.
No, that isn't evidence. Ever heard of in situ? That's how God created the light. It's the exact same thing as God creating Adam and he looks 25 years old even though he is 0 years old.
God makes it so simple for us to comprehend.
This is from another thread but I think it should be asked here.
Something about your reply Skeptic just does not add up for me.
If your god created everything between 6 and 10 thousand years ago then why not have all the information we can observe point to that fact?
Why did he not ensure that all carbon dating, for example, would only ever max out at 10,000 years?
Why have a universe larger than 10,000 light years?
It would seem that god deliberately wants people to not believe in him by leaving proof that the bible he instructed is wrong. Why would he do that ?
If he does exist he is deliberately trying to show he does not.
Could you perhaps shed some light on this Skeptic?

No.

As I have explained, if someone were to examine Adam when God created him, they would say, "Male, about 25 years old." But, this would be wrong because Adam would technically be 1 minute old but he would APPEAR to be 25 years old.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: MadBunny on December 22, 2013, 01:25:51 PM
No.

As I have explained, if someone were to examine Adam when God created him, they would say, "Male, about 25 years old." But, this would be wrong because Adam would technically be 1 minute old but he would APPEAR to be 25 years old.

So you're suggesting that when your supergod created everything he also created it with light already in transit between stars?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on December 22, 2013, 01:28:53 PM
No.

As I have explained, if someone were to examine Adam when God created him, they would say, "Male, about 25 years old." But, this would be wrong because Adam would technically be 1 minute old but he would APPEAR to be 25 years old.

So you're suggesting that when your supergod created everything he also created it with light already in transit between stars?

Yes, Adam could see the stars right away.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: MadBunny on December 22, 2013, 08:04:03 PM
How do you know the universe wasn't created 1 second ago?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Hatter23 on December 22, 2013, 08:28:45 PM
How do you know the universe wasn't created 1 second ago?

or at least last Thursday starting with a Mountain and a Midget.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: OldChurchGuy on December 22, 2013, 08:47:35 PM
No.

As I have explained, if someone were to examine Adam when God created him, they would say, "Male, about 25 years old." But, this would be wrong because Adam would technically be 1 minute old but he would APPEAR to be 25 years old.

So you're suggesting that when your supergod created everything he also created it with light already in transit between stars?

Yes, Adam could see the stars right away.

If I am understanding things correctly, because of what is written in Genesis 1 and 2, the known universe is about 6,000 to 10,000 years old and was created by God with everything in motion as we see it today?  Based on scientific observation the universe appears to be approximately 14 billion years old.  Correct? 

Ever curious,

OldChurchGuy
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on December 22, 2013, 09:20:27 PM
No.

As I have explained, if someone were to examine Adam when God created him, they would say, "Male, about 25 years old." But, this would be wrong because Adam would technically be 1 minute old but he would APPEAR to be 25 years old.

So you're suggesting that when your supergod created everything he also created it with light already in transit between stars?

Yes, Adam could see the stars right away.

If I am understanding things correctly, because of what is written in Genesis 1 and 2, the known universe is about 6,000 to 10,000 years old and was created by God with everything in motion as we see it today?  Based on scientific observation the universe appears to be approximately 14 billion years old.  Correct? 

Ever curious,

OldChurchGuy

That is correct. But science is based on the premise of getting rid of God as an explanation, plus it's entirely circular.

 Genesis can't be correct. Why? Because God isn't real.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Aaron123 on December 22, 2013, 09:29:47 PM
That is correct. But science is based on the premise of getting rid of God as an explanation, plus it's entirely circular.

 Genesis can't be correct. Why? Because God isn't real.

Strawman.  Science is not about "getting rid of god".  It's about looking at the evidence, and seeing where it leads.

Genesis is considered incorrect not because "god is in it", but because there is a lack of evidence to support the story.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on December 22, 2013, 09:36:34 PM
That is correct. But science is based on the premise of getting rid of God as an explanation, plus it's entirely circular.

 Genesis can't be correct. Why? Because God isn't real.

Strawman.  Science is not about "getting rid of god".  It's about looking at the evidence, and seeing where it leads.

Genesis is considered incorrect not because "god is in it", but because there is a lack of evidence to support the story.

Polonium halos prove the Earth is young though. It's suppressed because they want God out of the picture. True origin has a whole thesis about the halos, along with rebuttals to scientists who say that it's nonsense.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Boots on December 22, 2013, 09:40:22 PM
That is correct. But science is based on the premise of getting rid of God as an explanation, plus it's entirely circular.

 Genesis can't be correct. Why? Because God isn't real.

Strawman.  Science is not about "getting rid of god".  It's about looking at the evidence, and seeing where it leads.

Genesis is considered incorrect not because "god is in it", but because there is a lack of evidence to support the story.

Polonium halos prove the Earth is young though. It's suppressed because they want God out of the picture. True origin has a whole thesis about the halos, along with rebuttals to scientists who say that it's nonsense.

Who does, and why?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: OldChurchGuy on December 22, 2013, 09:48:40 PM
That is correct. But science is based on the premise of getting rid of God as an explanation, plus it's entirely circular.

 Genesis can't be correct. Why? Because God isn't real.

Strawman.  Science is not about "getting rid of god".  It's about looking at the evidence, and seeing where it leads.

Genesis is considered incorrect not because "god is in it", but because there is a lack of evidence to support the story.

Polonium halos prove the Earth is young though. It's suppressed because they want God out of the picture. True origin has a whole thesis about the halos, along with rebuttals to scientists who say that it's nonsense.

This Polonium halos idea is new to me.  Did a little search on Wikipedia and found the following:

"Robert V. Gentry studied halos which appeared to have arisen from Po-218 rather than U-238 and concluded that solid rock must have been created with these polonium inclusions, which decayed with a half-life of 3 minutes. They could not have been formed from molten rock which took many millennia to cool (the standard theory) because polonium decays in a few minutes. This is taken by creationists as evidence that the Earth was formed instantaneously (Gentry 1992).

Critics of Gentry, including Thomas A. Baillieul (Baillieul 2005) and John Brawley (Brawley 1992), have pointed out that Po-218 is a decay product of radon, which as a gas can be given off by a grain of uranium in one part of the rock and migrate to another part of the rock to form a uraniumless halo. Apparently a large number of radon atoms are caught or absorbed at a particular point. This has not been proved experimentally, but is supported by the fact that Gentry's "polonium halos" are found along microscopic cracks in rocks that also contain uranium halos (Wakefield 1988).

Gentry's work has been continued and expanded by the Radioactivity and the Age of the Earth (R.A.T.E.) project that was operating between 1997 and 2005 (Wieland 2003). However, Collins (1997), Wakefield (1988) and others have repeatedly offered rebuttals of the radiohalo evidence for a young Earth in peer-reviewed publications."

Source:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polonium_halos

There is also a link on creation geophysics:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_geophysics

All this raises a question that I am still trying to resolve.  That is, why should theists feel threatened by advances in science? If the advances show that a given theistic understanding is incorrect, why not adopt the new information and go on with the work of the church to take care of widows and orphans? 

As always,

OldChurchGuy


Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: MadBunny on December 22, 2013, 11:02:18 PM
Polonium halos prove the Earth is young though. It's suppressed because they want God out of the picture. True origin has a whole thesis about the halos, along with rebuttals to scientists who say that it's nonsense.

It's interesting that you would think that there is a conspiracy to hide the age of the earth.

What's *more* interesting is that you discount the one by your presumed god.  After all, your god has gone to some pretty absurd lengths to hide the age of the universe, making it appear as though it's much older than you claim.

I wonder why that would be.  Would you care to suggest a reason why your god would lie and conceal?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Astreja on December 22, 2013, 11:32:53 PM
Polonium halos prove the Earth is young though.

No, they don't prove a young Earth.  The "halo" rings in the rocks could also have been made by radon or uranium, both of which have considerably longer half-lives.  This article by John Brawley (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/violences.html) explains in more detail.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Astreja on December 22, 2013, 11:48:36 PM
All this raises a question that I am still trying to resolve.  That is, why should theists feel threatened by advances in science? If the advances show that a given theistic understanding is incorrect, why not adopt the new information and go on with the work of the church to take care of widows and orphans?

I think that science is actually doing theists a favour by cutting away everything that doesn't look like a god.  Why would any religion be hostile to such a venture?  Whenever conformity to doctrine becomes more important than correcting errors, it serves only those who are using the errors for personal gain.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: mhaberling on December 23, 2013, 01:43:27 AM
Not all theists fear scientific advancement. Some think it is noble to learn more about the inter workings of God's creation.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Antidote on December 23, 2013, 01:56:32 AM
Not all theists fear scientific advancement.
Who claimed they did?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: MadBunny on December 23, 2013, 02:38:58 AM
Not all theists fear scientific advancement. Some think it is noble to learn more about the inter workings of God's creation.

In this particular case why a god would choose to intentionally create a universe that looks and acts as though it were millions, billions of years old.  Why would the Christian god choose to do that?

One can come up with all sorts of hand wave excuses, but the simplest answer as to why a star appears to be say, 200,000 light years away is that the light has been traveling for 200,000 years before it got here.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Anfauglir on December 23, 2013, 05:32:30 AM
As I have explained, if someone were to examine Adam when God created him, they would say, "Male, about 25 years old." But, this would be wrong because Adam would technically be 1 minute old but he would APPEAR to be 25 years old.

But they couldn't do that, because the world was created ten years ago by Satan, who - for funnies - created the whole Bible, and made sure that it LOOKED like it was a 2,000 year old book discussing a 6,000 year old world that looked like a 16 billion year old world.

Or, if you like.......Christ never actually came to Earth to be sacrificed, because Yahweh created the whole world on a Tuesday afternoon in 1642.  All the events in the Bible are metaphors, made up by Yahweh.  None of the characters - Adam, Moses, Noah, Jesus, Judas, John - ever really existed.  The Earth is just under 400 years old.  There was no real "sacrifice", because it never really happened.

Do you have one single shred of evidence that can counter that theory?

Or will you ignore this question as being far too complex, and far too likely to destroy your own 6,000-year worldview if you successfully address it?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Boots on December 23, 2013, 12:20:00 PM
That is correct. But science is based on the premise of getting rid of God as an explanation, plus it's entirely circular.

 Genesis can't be correct. Why? Because God isn't real.

This, IMHO, is the WHOLE PROBLEM.  Because you see that science can defeat (and has defeated) at least some of your ideas about your diety, you make the false assumption that this is science's goal, and you therefore feel justified in dismissing it as biased. 

News flash: science doesn't give a (lab) rat's ass about any god.

Science is simply a methodology designed to try to come up with answers to what makes up our world/universe.  It's designed in such a way as to remove as many biases as possible, while keeping a few truths (such as, most things behave in a predictable way).

Simply because science gives answers you don't like is no reason to dismiss it.  Just shows YOUR bias in making the false assumption of science's goals.

Actually, I find it humorous that what you see as science's goal--to get rid of god--is just the side-effect of its ACTUAL goal--to find the truth of things.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: median on December 23, 2013, 01:01:17 PM

That is correct. But science is based on the premise of getting rid of God as an explanation, plus it's entirely circular.

 Genesis can't be correct. Why? Because God isn't real.

Are you really that much of a conspiracy guy that you think ALL of science is to "get rid of God"??? There are tons of Christians who accept the scientific observations. Don't you think you are being hypocritical here, in accepting ONLY the science that affirms your presumptions and denying the others?? That is the opposite of science you know.

If you were truly honest you would hold your presuppositions TENTATIVELY and follow the evidence where it leads - instead of LEADING the evidence where you want it to go, trying to change what science is, and using fallacious arguments such as god of the gaps. Science requires you to be CRITICAL of your assumptions, instead of trying to defend them against all challenges. This is what you are not doing, and what I think you are unwilling to do b/c you have too much to lose.

The problem of your confirmation bias is what you must deal with first.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Hatter23 on December 23, 2013, 01:24:42 PM


That is correct. But science is based on the premise of getting rid of UGABUGA as an explanation, plus it's entirely circular.

Ancient Scrolls  can't be correct. Why? Because UGABUGA isn't real.

Separate you statement from this variation.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Foxy Freedom on December 23, 2013, 05:51:27 PM
But science is based on the premise of getting rid of God as an explanation, plus it's entirely circular.

Genesis can't be correct. Why? Because God isn't real.

No, this is why Genesis can't be correct.

(http://i675.photobucket.com/albums/vv118/icedbun/creation.jpg) (http://s675.photobucket.com/user/icedbun/media/creation.jpg.html)

If you think this picture is an inaccurate representation of the bible find a better one.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: natlegend on February 16, 2014, 05:12:37 AM
SIX TIMES I HAVE ASKED THIS QUESTION AND IT STILL HAS NOT BEEN ANSWERED TO MY SATISFACTION.

Skeptic, please define for me what you believe defines a OneTrueChristian.

Please use point form, and be as specific as possible. I will not accept vague answers, I want the truth from you and I want it now. If ALL other religions are wrong, please convince me that yours is the correct one, and give valid reasons why.

How many times must I say it?[1]

The rooster has less than 10 hours to crow here in Australia. What does that say about your betrayal of your god, Skeptic?
 1. Please excuse the necromancy
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Keko-in-the-box on February 21, 2014, 08:51:47 PM


All Christians are like people that pack a large bag that nobody else can see planning to go on a trip. Their trip is a place they are absolutely sure exists but you cannot find this exotic, heavenly destination on a map and you cannot go to this designation while alive.  They pack this large bag for the hope that in death they will go to the better of the 2 places that they not only made up but packed their bag properly for and even developed a relationship with the so-called ruler of this exotic place they once again made up.

All Christians pack their bags with different stuff all claiming that they have all the right stuff for the trip. Every Christians bags are different colors, shapes and sizes and yet all claim they still have not only the right bag but the right stuff packed.

When people who don't have these bags question why they have the bag and what they have packed they always get different answers and reasons for the bag they've picked and what the contents of the bag are. When people who don't have bags point out what others have or don't have in their bags the person currently holding their bag in front of us quickly point out why the other bags are wrong and some of the contents are wrong.

Myself being a person without a bag learn over time that the people with the bags seemingly get the decision that the bag is needed because of the type of family and how they were raised making them feel like they require the bag themselves.  The color, shape, and size of the bag is generally picked by geography as well as the contents which vary from location to location.

Anyways, you all can keep your bags if you feel they are necessary as well of your content that always seem to change with time, geography and bag person to bag person. But please don't tell me that you can't understand why we don't believe you even need to the bag let alone most of its contents. More importantly please don't tell me why we think the underlying reason for the bag and it's contents is for the hope and of a relationship with the ruler of a destination that can only be attained in death.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, all we ask for is a little and the common courtesy of thinking about the real reasons you feel you need your invisible bag with your own special contents. Ask yourself what is more likely vs unlikely in life and not only will you be more open and honest with yourself, you'll sound more credulous and reasonable.

Excellent way to describe it. That part has always irked me about religion from a young age. You all do a great job really at pointing out the huge flaw it has. I really do wish Skeptic would answer this question properly, as to why he believes that his "packed bag" of religion is the "right" one. If there is no way to know for sure, then how can he simply follow a faith blindly all his life in the hope that his choice is right?

If there were a god at the end of the day, and you followed a religion based upon your own interpretation on what is right all your life, only to find that you were wrong and didn't get into heaven or didn't get saved or risen from the dead (again, depending on what you believe) then what is the point in believing at all? Sounds like a huge waste of life and Sundays. You might as well go through life and live every day to the fullest, with the understanding that you won't get another one.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on February 22, 2014, 02:00:38 AM
Polonium halos prove the Earth is young though.

No, they don't prove a young Earth.  The "halo" rings in the rocks could also have been made by radon or uranium, both of which have considerably longer half-lives.  This article by John Brawley (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/violences.html) explains in more detail.

Can't believe I  missed this. Notice how you said, "could also have" with the keyword "could."

That is not 100% solid proof. In the same way the polonium halos "could" also mean the Earth is young. This is why we want it taught in classrooms. Since both of them are based on guesses and speculation, it's not right to only include ONE version of the speculation. That is called indoctrination.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on February 22, 2014, 02:06:27 AM
That is not 100% solid proof. In the same way the polonium halos "could" also mean the Earth is young. This is why we want it taught in classrooms. Since both of them are based on guesses and speculation, it's not right to only include ONE version of the speculation. That is called indoctrination.

And guess what?
Polonium is complete rubbish for proving a young earth.

If the earth was indeed 10-6K years old, there should be virtually no polonium, it should all be radon and uranium.
In other words, we should find A METRIC ASS-LOAD of elements which have high half lives.

Alas, this is not the case.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on February 22, 2014, 02:17:39 AM
That is not 100% solid proof. In the same way the polonium halos "could" also mean the Earth is young. This is why we want it taught in classrooms. Since both of them are based on guesses and speculation, it's not right to only include ONE version of the speculation. That is called indoctrination.

And guess what?
Polonium is complete rubbish for proving a young earth.

If the earth was indeed 10-6K years old, there should be virtually no polonium, it should all be radon and uranium.
In other words, we should find A METRIC ASS-LOAD of elements which have high half lives.

Alas, this is not the case.

This article would beg to differ:

http://www.trueorigin.org/helium01.asp

"Figure 2 shows the experimental results as blue dots with blue “2-sigma error bars” going vertically through them.  If we repeated the experiments hundreds of times, we estimate the data points would remain within the caps on the error bars over 95% of the time.  Again, the RATE “results” book (which has now passed through extensive peer review and is being proofread) will have the details on the error estimates.

To our great delight, the data fell right on the “6,000 year” prediction!
  This alignment validates the young-age model even for readers who are not experts in this field, because the probability of such a lineup by accident is small.  The data resoundingly reject the “1.5 billion year” model.  The experimenter, whose name is in one of our articles, stands by his data, even though as a uniformitarian he does not like our interpretation of them.  (Even after several years, he has not offered an alternative interpretation.)

This sequence of events places the burden of disproof on the critics, because they must explain how, if there is no truth to our model, the data “accidentally by sheer coincidence just happened by blind chance” to fall right on the predictions of our model."
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on February 22, 2014, 02:23:02 AM
Your source is bogus.

Find a better one.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on February 22, 2014, 02:25:47 AM
Your source is bogus.

Find a better one.

I am sorry but you can not just dismiss something like that without explaining why.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on February 22, 2014, 02:28:08 AM
A: scientists do not want to hide anything.
B: the site is against "macro evolution" (Yeah, because 1 step a day can never reach a mile...pshhh)
C: it tries to use science to prove the supernatural.

AKA, bogus.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: OldChurchGuy on February 22, 2014, 06:17:16 AM
There does appear to be an interesting exchange regarding Dr. Humphreys and a Dr. Loechelt on Dr. Humphrey's findings.  I have not read all of the articles listed but in one of the later ones it seems Dr. Humphreys is continuing to ignore questions put forth by Dr. Loechelt from 4 years ago.  If that is the case, I wonder why Dr. Humphreys can't or won't respond?

Enjoy.

http://www.increasinglearning.com/1/post/2014/02/humphreys-vs-loechelt-a-debate-on-the-age-of-the-earth.html

As always,

OldChurchGuy
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: natlegend on February 23, 2014, 11:14:45 PM
Okay Skeptic, you win. Banana.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Add Homonym on February 23, 2014, 11:40:46 PM
Your source is bogus.

Find a better one.

I am sorry but you can not just dismiss something like that without explaining why.

The main reason I would dismiss it, is that

(1) the opinion and rationale is based solely on what Dr Humphries says. Since you are not a geologist (neither is he) you are not qualified to actually figure out if what he is saying is true. Therefore he could be just saying God awful crap. One indicator of this, is whether he has any other non-biased scientists on his side.
(2) his rationale depends upon diffusion rates through a matrix of zircon, which could be anything, as evidenced by the fact that his result is anything.
(3) he requires the coincidence of 6000 years to be a whoopie moment. However, if the figure came out at 15000 years, he would still be happy, and would most likely fudge the log axis on his graph.
(4) he and you are ignoring all the evidence which says the Earth is very old. It is not acceptable to dismiss all the valid evidence, and then consider only the incorrect evidence.

In science, it is good practice to consider the correct evidence. Evidence does not become correct, when it aligns with what you want it to be. You have to make a case that the majority of evidence is on your side, rather than fabricating it using woo. Even if the majority of evidence is on your side, you may still be wrong. It is generally not a good indicator, if hardly any evidence is on your side, and the only people who endorse your position are fruity.

Good luck with your quest to join random bits of incorrect conclusions into a half baked product.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: screwtape on February 24, 2014, 11:26:37 AM
Since both of them are based on guesses and speculation,

They're not both based on guesses and speculation. That is called a false equivalence.  Stop doing that.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on February 24, 2014, 11:53:06 AM
Since both of them are based on guesses and speculation,

They're not both based on guesses and speculation. That is called a false equivalence.  Stop doing that.

Yes, it is both guesses and speculation. Uniformitarianism is an assumption, not an empirical fact.

Uniformitarianism is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: mrbiscoop on February 24, 2014, 12:13:02 PM
Check out Talk Origins
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/

http replaced with tidier version (I hope)
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: screwtape on February 24, 2014, 12:39:45 PM
Yes, it is both guesses and speculation. Uniformitarianism is an assumption, not an empirical fact.

You did it again.  Guesses and speculation are not the same as an assumption.  That would be one of those false equivalences I asked you to stop making.

Also, you just shifted the goal posts.  Uniformitarianism was not mentioned in that post.  It was about polonium halos and some cockamamie idea that you allege is being suppressed because of religious bias or some bullshit like that.  All of which you offered without any supporting evidence, I might add. 

This looks a lot like a really dishonest argument skep.  I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt here.  But you are floundering. 




Uniformitarianism is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism

In case you haven't noticed, the only people pushing against this idea are people who desperately need it to be false, ie, young earth creationists.  If you would like to establish that uniformitarianism is wrong, go ahead, get your science on.  But until you have a better reason than an iron age book of myths, I invite you to stfu about it.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: skeptic54768 on February 24, 2014, 01:14:04 PM
Yes, it is both guesses and speculation. Uniformitarianism is an assumption, not an empirical fact.

You did it again.  Guesses and speculation are not the same as an assumption.  That would be one of those false equivalences I asked you to stop making.

Also, you just shifted the goal posts.  Uniformitarianism was not mentioned in that post.  It was about polonium halos and some cockamamie idea that you allege is being suppressed because of religious bias or some bullshit like that.  All of which you offered without any supporting evidence, I might add. 

This looks a lot like a really dishonest argument skep.  I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt here.  But you are floundering. 




Uniformitarianism is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism

In case you haven't noticed, the only people pushing against this idea are people who desperately need it to be false, ie, young earth creationists.  If you would like to establish that uniformitarianism is wrong, go ahead, get your science on.  But until you have a better reason than an iron age book of myths, I invite you to stfu about it.

But if I told you, "Please prove that the Bible is NOT the Word of God," you would scream, "Unfair! Prove it is the Word of God!"

But, it's fair to say "Prove uniformitarianism wrong" instead of saying "Prove it right?"

Something is a miss here and doesn't quite add up on the fairness scale....
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: screwtape on February 24, 2014, 01:48:16 PM
But if I told you, "Please prove that the Bible is NOT the Word of God," you would scream, "Unfair! Prove it is the Word of God!"

But, it's fair to say "Prove uniformitarianism wrong" instead of saying "Prove it right?"

Something is a miss here and doesn't quite add up on the fairness scale....

That is not even in the same categorical ballpark and it is a dodge. 

If you are going to posit that the laws of the universe change, cough up the data.  You should be able to measure the rate of change, explain the mechanism of change, and why you would even think they change in the first place!  I'm open to it.  No one has said uniformitarianism is 100% incontrovertible.  If it is false, it means certain things.  You should be able to predict that and find evidence.  As I have said before, I want to believe what is true.

So far most of what you have argued has been an attempt to say "we don't know anything at all, thus every conclusion is as good as every other" in an attempt to put your religious ideas on par with science.  Do you realize that demolished your own arguments? 

Sorry, Sunny Jim.  That's not going to fly. 
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: mrbiscoop on February 24, 2014, 03:34:56 PM
Check out Talk Originshttp://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=polonium%20halos&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CCQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.talkorigins.org%2Ffaqs%2Fpo-halos%2F&ei=53wLU_CXJ8PEyQHE0YHADg&usg=AFQjCNFoopTCFV2pOSTGZxeScs8EQR-HWA
Sorry about this mess. :-\
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: screwtape on February 24, 2014, 04:29:06 PM
Sorry about this mess. :-\

let me know if I fixed it.
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: median on February 24, 2014, 06:35:10 PM

But if I told you, "Please prove that the Bible is NOT the Word of God," you would scream, "Unfair! Prove it is the Word of God!"

But, it's fair to say "Prove uniformitarianism wrong" instead of saying "Prove it right?"

Something is a miss here and doesn't quite add up on the fairness scale....


Yes, that's right. Something doesn't add up here and that something is your capacity to reason properly.

The burden of proof is on you on both accounts. Demonstrate how you think you know your bible is "The Word of God" and also how you think you know that natural law, and the natural order of our universe, was not as we now experience it (aka - that it changed uniformity at some point in the past).
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: Foxy Freedom on February 24, 2014, 06:49:45 PM

But if I told you, "Please prove that the Bible is NOT the Word of God," you would scream, "Unfair! Prove it is the Word of God!"

But, it's fair to say "Prove uniformitarianism wrong" instead of saying "Prove it right?"

Something is a miss here and doesn't quite add up on the fairness scale....

On the contrary many have already come to the conclusion that the bible is NOT the word of any god, and they would be very happy to tell you why.

First, why would a genuine god base a religion on fake documents and with false and contradictory information ?
Title: Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
Post by: mrbiscoop on February 24, 2014, 11:15:28 PM
Sorry about this mess. :-\

let me know if I fixed it.
You did. Thanks.