FC Community
Discussion Boards => Off-Topic => Debate & Discuss => Topic started by: hitch0403 on July 04, 2012, 07:16:45 am
-
Just read some of that briefly and see the question of why did he God create.Bible says God is love...He created outta love
Also the part of God knowing past and present.If he chooses to do so.
Christendom <Babylon the great,empire of false religeon put doctrine going to hell after death>Bible says man goes back to dust,his thoughts perish at death.EX:Told Adam back to dust you will go.EX:Jesus said Lazarus was asleep.Lazarus was resurrected never spoke of heavenly bliss or firey hell.
Before you put garbage up like that know what ur speaking about.You put up all of mans BS and doctrines.
-
Just read some of that briefly and see the question of why did he God create.Bible says God is love...He created outta love
Also the part of God knowing past and present.If he chooses to do so.
Christendom <Babylon the great,empire of false religeon put doctrine going to hell after death>Bible says man goes back to dust,his thoughts perish at death.EX:Told Adam back to dust you will go.EX:Jesus said Lazarus was asleep.Lazarus was resurrected never spoke of heavenly bliss or firey hell.
Before you put garbage up like that know what ur speaking about.You put up all of mans BS and doctrines.
Are you babbling in general to no one or, babbling specifically to a strawman?
There has been no "logical" evidence of the "existence of g-d" presented. There's a reason for that; can you guess what it is?
-
The existence of any sort of god is illogical on multiple counts. If you disagree, you fail to discern what logic really is.
-
The existence of any sort of god is illogical on multiple counts. If you disagree, you fail to discern what logic really is.
I concur. There's a qualitive difference between 'rational' and 'rationale', (hence the "e").
-
The existence of any sort of god is illogical on multiple counts. If you disagree, you fail to discern what logic really is.
Our existence is illogical on every count, and if you disagree with that you fail to discern what logic really is -- and yet here we are.
If our existence is finite (as is implied) and the universe's existence is finite then our existence is 'imaginary' and it would be true to say that in such a place our state would eventually become "never existed" (if such could be pondered). The only way we cannot have an imaginary existence in a finite duration universe is if we have an infinite anchor point (such as is represented by a 'soul', e.g.). I am speaking to you with pure logic here, mathematics (including imaginary numbers and limits) and physics (relations of time space with the universe and information loss). For those that might wish to inject thoughts on the possibility of an infinite universe you must consider the basic implications of what physics tells us and that we have placed an age upon the universe and such dispels any pretense of an infinite existence, regardless of what extends beyond -- at best it can only be considered 'imaginary' in terms of mathematics.
What I present here is not a conundrum or brain teaser, it is a simple fact of mathematics and physics. Those of you that profess to understand and know so much and comprehend what is real and isn't or what is logical or illogical had better consider what sort of a fool decides what the answer is without even understanding the problem.
-
Our existence is illogical on every count, and if you disagree with that you fail to discern what logic really is -- and yet here we are.
No, our existence is improbable, (not illogical), and yet here we are - against the odds. Sometimes, longshots occur yet, there is no logically-valid reason to attribute this to some hypothetically supernatural egregore.
If our existence is finite (as is implied) and the universe's existence is finite then our existence is 'imaginary' ...
That premise is speculative and not strictly logical whereas the hypothetical existence of any supernatural egregores is "imaginary" without valid supportive evidence.
The only way we cannot have an imaginary existence in a finite duration universe is if we have an infinite anchor point (such as is represented by a 'soul', e.g.).
No, that syllogism is not logically-valid since it's conclusion, (" ... if we have an infinite anchor point ..."), is conditional, not mandatory.
I am speaking to you with pure logic here ...
No, you're attempting to conflate a mathematical term, ("imaginary", as in "imaginary numbers"), with 'existence'. That's a false parallel/strawman argument; mathematics is used as a tool to partially describe aspects of existence; there is no indepent evidence that it is "existence" itself.
... mathematics (including imaginary numbers and limits) and physics (relations of time space with the universe and information loss).
Are you seriously trying to justify a mathematical existence for a supernatural egregore of your preference, (or for all such supernatural egregores)?
For those that might wish to inject thoughts on the possibility of an infinite universe you must consider the basic implications of what physics tells us and that we have placed an age upon the universe and such dispels any pretense of an infinite existence, regardless of what extends beyond -- at best it can only be considered 'imaginary' in terms of mathematics.
Speaking of physics, (or more specifically, astrophysics); the 'usual' mathematical restrictions of the "universe" don't apply within the event horizons of black holes/singularities within that same 'universe'. Therefore, the 'universe' is not a closed set, (finite), due to the distinct mathematics pertaining to singularities, (and "white holes").
Those of you that profess to understand and know so much and comprehend what is real and isn't or what is logical or illogical had better consider what sort of a fool decides what the answer is without even understanding the problem.
Would that be a different sort of fool than the one who "... by 'knowing' the answers before they start, and then forcing nature into the straitjacket of their discredited preconceptions, lie outside the domain of science - or any honest intellectual inquiry", (quote from Stephen J. Gould in reference to freligious fundamentalists)?
-
So that means a guy was magically born, walked on water, got murdered, came back to life, then 100 years after his death, proclaimed the son of God?
I'm willing to concede a possibility of a God but not a certainty of a homophobic, zombie carpenter.
-
Our existence is the square root of negative one?
-
The existence of any sort of god is illogical on multiple counts. If you disagree, you fail to discern what logic really is.
Our existence is illogical on every count, and if you disagree with that you fail to discern what logic really is -- and yet here we are.
If our existence is finite (as is implied) and the universe's existence is finite then our existence is 'imaginary' and it would be true to say that in such a place our state would eventually become "never existed" (if such could be pondered). The only way we cannot have an imaginary existence in a finite duration universe is if we have an infinite anchor point (such as is represented by a 'soul', e.g.). I am speaking to you with pure logic here, mathematics (including imaginary numbers and limits) and physics (relations of time space with the universe and information loss). For those that might wish to inject thoughts on the possibility of an infinite universe you must consider the basic implications of what physics tells us and that we have placed an age upon the universe and such dispels any pretense of an infinite existence, regardless of what extends beyond -- at best it can only be considered 'imaginary' in terms of mathematics.
What I present here is not a conundrum or brain teaser, it is a simple fact of mathematics and physics. Those of you that profess to understand and know so much and comprehend what is real and isn't or what is logical or illogical had better consider what sort of a fool decides what the answer is without even understanding the problem.
I hope to be one of the first, if not the first, to congratulate you on your bizarre and entertaining interpretation of logical argument. You're a classical half-idiot, you're able to articulate your points in a clear and sensible manner (your intelligent side) but your points entirely defy logic and display a superb example of your entirely confused understanding of the nature of the universe we live in and the nature of our existence. I congratulate you for feebly trying to explain nonsensical and childishly improbable beliefs in a (usually) articulate manner, in contrast to some of the other idiots who need to learn a new language, English. May your own beloved and personal god bless you and keep you (sarcasm was intended).
-
Our existence is illogical on every count
Illogical was the correct word in my instance, but it's not in this one. Anthropic principle and yadda, yadda.
If our existence is finite (as is implied) and the universe's existence is finite then our existence is 'imaginary' and it would be true to say that in such a place our state would eventually become "never existed"
How do you figure that? Our longevity has nothing to do with the universe's. Something is not "imaginary" just because it is fleeting (dead pets and grandmas can attest to this). Just because on a grand scale it makes no difference whether you existed at all does not mean you didn't actually exist at one point in time.
we have placed an age upon the universe and such dispels any pretense of an infinite existence
No it doesn't! We have placed an age on this universe, the current one. That by no means discounts previous universes or multiple universes.
-
So that means a guy was magically born, walked on water, got murdered, came back to life, then 100 years after his death, proclaimed the son of God?
(http://i45.tinypic.com/2lbat3.gif)
That's pretty much it, in a literal 'nutshell'.
I'm willing to concede a possibility of a God but not a certainty of a homophobic, zombie carpenter.
Really? According to the faith-based religious beliefs of catholics, those are essentially the same hypothetical egregore "trinity", (a concept the xtians directly-stole from the prior pagan Egyptian beliefs in triad-neteru - 3 god/desses - except the xtians made 'em all "male" mythological entities to make it look like a different, misogynistic fabrication).
-
Our existence is illogical on every count, and if you disagree with that you fail to discern what logic really is -- and yet here we are.
No, our existence is improbable, (not illogical), and yet here we are - against the odds. Sometimes, longshots occur yet, there is no logically-valid reason to attribute this to some hypothetically supernatural egregore.
There is no longshot possible within an empty set, and thus there is no probability of an event occurring.
The only way we cannot have an imaginary existence in a finite duration universe is if we have an infinite anchor point (such as is represented by a 'soul', e.g.).
No, that syllogism is not logically-valid since it's conclusion, (" ... if we have an infinite anchor point ..."), is conditional, not mandatory.
It is perfectly logical. If our time space is not infinite, then nothing within it could persist outside its scope -- ergo when that scope ceases so does all within and because of information loss none of it would have ever existed. There would be no "well it used to exist" as that time space has been removed from the equation. The paradox is removed if there is an external reference as information loss no longer becomes a factor.
I am speaking to you with pure logic here ...
No, you're attempting to conflate a mathematical term, ("imaginary", as in "imaginary numbers"), with 'existence'. That's a false parallel/strawman argument; mathematics is used as a tool to partially describe aspects of existence; there is no indepent evidence that it is "existence" itself.
It is not a strawman as it isn't subject to an attack. If you wish to try and claim it to be a false parallel you are most welcome to give it the old college try. I will give you a hint to get you started, using relativity, solve for c when under effect of an entropy sink and you will see the relation to existence in the measure of light that is revealed.
... mathematics (including imaginary numbers and limits) and physics (relations of time space with the universe and information loss).
Are you seriously trying to justify a mathematical existence for a supernatural egregore of your preference, (or for all such supernatural egregores)?
No, I am not trying to justify anything specific here (the interpretation or alternate explanations/theories are open -- but I did allude to an example that would qualify and I denoted it with a 'for instance'. Your own prejudice and limitation has blinded you to what I posited. Since you are confused you should reread what I posted.
For those that might wish to inject thoughts on the possibility of an infinite universe you must consider the basic implications of what physics tells us and that we have placed an age upon the universe and such dispels any pretense of an infinite existence, regardless of what extends beyond -- at best it can only be considered 'imaginary' in terms of mathematics.
Speaking of physics, (or more specifically, astrophysics); the 'usual' mathematical restrictions of the "universe" don't apply within the event horizons of black holes/singularities within that same 'universe'. Therefore, the 'universe' is not a closed set, (finite), due to the distinct mathematics pertaining to singularities, (and "white holes").
That is exactly what is being calculated on here. Singularities are not a continuation of space time, and in fact they might well be considered an end.
Those of you that profess to understand and know so much and comprehend what is real and isn't or what is logical or illogical had better consider what sort of a fool decides what the answer is without even understanding the problem.
Would that be a different sort of fool than the one who "... by 'knowing' the answers before they start, and then forcing nature into the straitjacket of their discredited preconceptions, lie outside the domain of science - or any honest intellectual inquiry", (quote from Stephen J. Gould in reference to freligious fundamentalists)?
Yes it would be different than the sort of fool you point out in your scripture that you are presenting here.
-
Our existence is the square root of negative one?
I didn't say it was 'i' I said it would be imaginary and that could extend to any product/quotient of 'i' and even that would be a volatile description.
-
The existence of any sort of god is illogical on multiple counts. If you disagree, you fail to discern what logic really is.
Our existence is illogical on every count, and if you disagree with that you fail to discern what logic really is -- and yet here we are.
If our existence is finite (as is implied) and the universe's existence is finite then our existence is 'imaginary' and it would be true to say that in such a place our state would eventually become "never existed" (if such could be pondered). The only way we cannot have an imaginary existence in a finite duration universe is if we have an infinite anchor point (such as is represented by a 'soul', e.g.). I am speaking to you with pure logic here, mathematics (including imaginary numbers and limits) and physics (relations of time space with the universe and information loss). For those that might wish to inject thoughts on the possibility of an infinite universe you must consider the basic implications of what physics tells us and that we have placed an age upon the universe and such dispels any pretense of an infinite existence, regardless of what extends beyond -- at best it can only be considered 'imaginary' in terms of mathematics.
What I present here is not a conundrum or brain teaser, it is a simple fact of mathematics and physics. Those of you that profess to understand and know so much and comprehend what is real and isn't or what is logical or illogical had better consider what sort of a fool decides what the answer is without even understanding the problem.
I hope to be one of the first, if not the first, to congratulate you on your bizarre and entertaining interpretation of logical argument. You're a classical half-idiot, you're able to articulate your points in a clear and sensible manner (your intelligent side) but your points entirely defy logic and display a superb example of your entirely confused understanding of the nature of the universe we live in and the nature of our existence. I congratulate you for feebly trying to explain nonsensical and childishly improbable beliefs in a (usually) articulate manner, in contrast to some of the other idiots who need to learn a new language, English. May your own beloved and personal god bless you and keep you (sarcasm was intended).
Would such reasoning as yours, then, make you a complete-idiot? Why would I pose such a query to you -- well, the reason is that you were prejudicial in what you comprehended when you read my post. I was particularly deliberate in the method of my posting and instead of reading my allusion to a plausible conditional as the convenient 'such as' qualifier that it was you instead read it discriminatorily. I think you should go back to your previous spell checking of posters and then you can graduate to grammar checking or comprehension depending upon your perceived affinity.
-
Our existence is illogical on every count, and if you disagree with that you fail to discern what logic really is -- and yet here we are.
No, our existence is improbable, (not illogical), and yet here we are - against the odds. Sometimes, longshots occur yet, there is no logically-valid reason to attribute this to some hypothetically supernatural egregore.
There is no longshot possible within an empty set, and thus there is no probability of an event occurring.
The empty set claim is unsupported by evidence. It's a theory, (and not even your theory).
The only way we cannot have an imaginary existence in a finite duration universe is if we have an infinite anchor point (such as is represented by a 'soul', e.g.).
No, that syllogism is not logically-valid since it's conclusion, (" ... if we have an infinite anchor point ..."), is conditional, not mandatory.
It is perfectly logical. If our time space is not infinite, then nothing within it could persist outside its scope -- ergo when that scope ceases so does all within and because of information loss none of it would have ever existed.
Such an "if" premise is implausible since it makes a two-part a priori assumption which is unsubstantiated. The conclusion which follows from that invalid assumption is itself, invalid because it does not logically follow from a false/unsubstantiated premise, (which, in turn, means that your claim that "it is perfectly logical" is invalidated as a false claim).
There would be no "well it used to exist" as that time space has been removed from the equation. The paradox is removed if there is an external reference as information loss no longer becomes a factor.
Presenting some 'null jargon' doesn't advance your "proofs" an iota. The assumptions made regarding "space-time do not mathematically-apply to 'supra-existing' universe(s), (e.g., those "parallel" or, alternately-configured 'dimensions' which exist "outside of" so-called normal, (4D), space-time. There's no paradox when this universe is mathematically-considered to be a subset of a larger set, (rather than an "empty set").
I am speaking to you with pure logic here ...
No, you're attempting to conflate a mathematical term, ("imaginary", as in "imaginary numbers"), with 'existence'. That's a false parallel/strawman argument; mathematics is used as a tool to partially describe aspects of existence; there is no indepent evidence that it is "existence" itself.
It is not a strawman as it isn't subject to an attack.
That's not accurate; by conflating a mathematical term, ("imaginary"), with the colloquial, ("not real/tangibly-extant"), you are presenting a tangential strawman argument to draw attacks, rather than have your invalid premise(s) attacked. I'm merely pointing out that the attempt failed because either way, it was caught in a enfilade.
If you wish to try and claim it to be a false parallel you are most welcome to give it the old college try. I will give you a hint to get you started, using relativity, solve for c when under effect of an entropy sink and you will see the relation to existence in the measure of light that is revealed.
I've haven't done differential or tensor field equations in years however, I am familar with the Einstein-Rosen bridge equations. Go look them up, if you are not.
I am not trying to justify anything specific here (the interpretation or alternate explanations/theories are open -- but I did allude to an example that would qualify and I denoted it with a 'for instance'.
That must have been an implied "for instance" since there is no such overt designation. Regardless, you imply lots of things which are dubious and therefore, disregarded as non sequiturs.
Your own prejudice and limitation has blinded you to what I posited. Since you are confused you should reread what I posted.
Nice try projecting your own inherent blind religious faith onto me; the only trouble with that is, I'm not a religious fundie, nor am I easily "confused" by one unless they descend into an opaque morass of irrationality, (which is a rhetorical condition for xtians, admittedly).
For those that might wish to inject thoughts on the possibility of an infinite universe you must consider the basic implications of what physics tells us and that we have placed an age upon the universe and such dispels any pretense of an infinite existence, regardless of what extends beyond -- at best it can only be considered 'imaginary' in terms of mathematics.
Speaking of physics, (or more specifically, astrophysics); the 'usual' mathematical restrictions of the "universe" don't apply within the event horizons of black holes/singularities within that same 'universe'. Therefore, the 'universe' is not a closed set, (finite), due to the distinct mathematics pertaining to singularities, (and "white holes").
That is exactly what is being calculated on here. Singularities are not a continuation of space time, and in fact they might well be considered an end.
Singularities are 'overlapping sets' since they are able to interact via their event horizons which physical objects in this universe while extending a different sort of influence 'outside' of this 4D space-time continium.
Those of you that profess to understand and know so much and comprehend what is real and isn't or what is logical or illogical had better consider what sort of a fool decides what the answer is without even understanding the problem.
Would that be a different sort of fool than the one who "... by 'knowing' the answers before they start, and then forcing nature into the straitjacket of their discredited preconceptions, lie outside the domain of science - or any honest intellectual inquiry", (quote from Stephen J. Gould in reference to freligious fundamentalists)?
Yes it would be different than the sort of fool you point out in your scripture that you are presenting here.
I'm not the fool relying upon dubious religious "scripture" here; you xtians are.
-
Our existence is illogical on every count
Illogical was the correct word in my instance, but it's not in this one. Anthropic principle and yadda, yadda.
Well please go on then as I am most curious to hear more of a reason than you citing of a deus ex machina.
If our existence is finite (as is implied) and the universe's existence is finite then our existence is 'imaginary' and it would be true to say that in such a place our state would eventually become "never existed"
How do you figure that? Our longevity has nothing to do with the universe's. Something is not "imaginary" just because it is fleeting (dead pets and grandmas can attest to this). Just because on a grand scale it makes no difference whether you existed at all does not mean you didn't actually exist at one point in time.
It is most certainly tied into our universe's existence. Realize, that if our universe ceases, then it isn't simply that the record of us ceases it is actually true to say that we never existed as we only 'ever existed' within the space time of our universe and not outside it.
we have placed an age upon the universe and such dispels any pretense of an infinite existence
No it doesn't! We have placed an age on this universe, the current one. That by no means discounts previous universes or multiple universes.
Again, you may not quite appreciate your own proposal here (I mean this as no insult as the speculation on the event challenges the actuality suggested by the possibility). As a bit of a paradox along the lines of what you are saying, suppose there was a previous universe that no longer exists and that there were inhabitants of such a universe...well, they never existed -- they existed within their own time space and it is no more and with it is the 'record' of it. By 'record' I am not simply saying 'proof' I am saying that it only existed within itself and no further (except if there is an infinite anchor/external observer/etc) -- unless you are suggesting the universe is Schrödinger's cat.
-
Just read some of that briefly and see the question of why did he God create.Bible says God is love...He created outta love
Also the part of God knowing past and present.If he chooses to do so.
Christendom <Babylon the great,empire of false religeon put doctrine going to hell after death>Bible says man goes back to dust,his thoughts perish at death.EX:Told Adam back to dust you will go.EX:Jesus said Lazarus was asleep.Lazarus was resurrected never spoke of heavenly bliss or firey hell.
Before you put garbage up like that know what ur speaking about.You put up all of mans BS and doctrines.
Huh? Was this supposed to be the logical proof? I just... I don't... Huh?
-
Just read some of that briefly and see the question of why did he God create.Bible says God is love...He created outta love
Also the part of God knowing past and present.If he chooses to do so.
Christendom <Babylon the great,empire of false religeon put doctrine going to hell after death>Bible says man goes back to dust,his thoughts perish at death.EX:Told Adam back to dust you will go.EX:Jesus said Lazarus was asleep.Lazarus was resurrected never spoke of heavenly bliss or firey hell.
Before you put garbage up like that know what ur speaking about.You put up all of mans BS and doctrines.
Huh? Was this supposed to be the logical proof? I just... I don't... Huh?
Apparently, the incoherent ramblings of a semi-literate xtian fundie and logical proof have never met.
-
Just read some of that briefly and see the question of why did he God create.Bible says God is love...He created outta love
Also the part of God knowing past and present.If he chooses to do so.
Christendom <Babylon the great,empire of false religeon put doctrine going to hell after death>Bible says man goes back to dust,his thoughts perish at death.EX:Told Adam back to dust you will go.EX:Jesus said Lazarus was asleep.Lazarus was resurrected never spoke of heavenly bliss or firey hell.
Before you put garbage up like that know what ur speaking about.You put up all of mans BS and doctrines.
Give him a little credit, around here Hitch has become the court jester entertaining all the rest of us. He's a comedian, we should all enjoy his goofy and self-insulting comedy. He makes a fool of himself in order to entertain those of us who aren't idiots. If I knew where his cup is, I would throw a few small coins in. We can't really do that, but he's crying for attention in his unfulfilled and disappointing life, so at least keep answering his idiotic drivel.
Huh? Was this supposed to be the logical proof? I just... I don't... Huh?
-
Just read some of that briefly and see the question of why did he God create.Bible says God is love...He created outta love
Also the part of God knowing past and present.If he chooses to do so.
Christendom <Babylon the great,empire of false religeon put doctrine going to hell after death>Bible says man goes back to dust,his thoughts perish at death.EX:Told Adam back to dust you will go.EX:Jesus said Lazarus was asleep.Lazarus was resurrected never spoke of heavenly bliss or firey hell.
Before you put garbage up like that know what ur speaking about.You put up all of mans BS and doctrines.
Give him a little credit, around here Hitch has become the court jester entertaining all the rest of us. He's a comedian, we should all enjoy his goofy and self-insulting comedy. He makes a fool of himself in order to entertain those of us who aren't idiots. If I knew where his cup is, I would throw a few small coins in. We can't really do that, but he's crying for attention in his unfulfilled and disappointing life, so at least keep answering his idiotic drivel.
Huh? Was this supposed to be the logical proof? I just... I don't... Huh?
Given his posts thusfar, doubtless logic and "hitch" have never made acquaintance.
-
(http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/5914/55567933504618324301515.jpg)
-
Love your picture, Sheryl. The line about the beauty of God inspiring me reminded me of this picture:
-
(http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/5914/55567933504618324301515.jpg)
Such a superstitious religious belief does not constitute any evidence supporting the "logical existence of g-d", (since blind faith requires no such evidence).
"G-d for you is where you sweep away all the mysteries of the world, all the challenges to our intelligence.
You simply turn your mind off and say G-d did it." - Carl Sagan
-
"G-d for you is where you sweep away all the mysteries of the world, all the challenges to our intelligence.
You simply turn your mind off and say G-d did it." - Carl Sagan
Just curious. Anyone know why (or how) quotes from the hell-bound are supposed to be impressive? :dontknow:
-
"G-d for you is where you sweep away all the mysteries of the world, all the challenges to our intelligence.
You simply turn your mind off and say G-d did it." - Carl Sagan
Just curious. Anyone know why (or how) quotes from the hell-bound are supposed to be impressive? :dontknow:
What would the unsupported, irrational religious beliefs of the superstitious have to do with the post-mortem status of anybody? Carl's quote is apropos to the illogical faith-based belief in "g-d".
-
Still waiting for an answer on how repetitious quotes from people who chose to "miss out", "miss the boat", "live lives of 'lack' are supposed to carry some "weight", or be "impressive".
Wherever I am--God is. For someone to dismiss Him from their lives is their stupidity. Perhaps their words sound brilliant to some because hey, these people were/are "well-known" and they said things that reflected the rebellion they had in their hearts toward God. Feel free to grab ahold of those words for dear life but in the end, those words of the foolish won't be saving anybody.
-
Still waiting for an answer on how repetitious quotes from people who chose to "miss out", "miss the boat", "live lives of 'lack' are supposed to carry some "weight", or be "impressive".
Those aren't nearly as repetitious as quoting specious/'weightless', (based upon insubstantial "faith"), biblical "verses" over and over in a mindless droning of religious propaganda.
Wherever I am--God is.
That's merely a religious belief which has no basis in evidence.
For someone to dismiss Him from their lives is their stupidity.
Logically, it's more stupid to hold religious belief based upon blind faith, (nothing), than to dismiss an irrational superstition.
Feel free to grab ahold of those words for dear life but in the end, those words of the foolish won't be saving anybody.
You'd *see* that your opinion applies more to the various xtian "bibles", were you not blinded by your faith.
-
Still waiting for an answer on how repetitious quotes from people who chose to "miss out", "miss the boat", "live lives of 'lack' are supposed to carry some "weight", or be "impressive".
Those aren't nearly as repetitious as quoting specious/'weightless', (based upon insubstantial "faith"), biblical "verses" over and over in a mindless droning of religious propaganda.
While only one is religious, BOTH are as repetitious. The forums have become so boring with the same old repetition that never stops. Surely you have some ideas on how to "jazz" them up a bit since you were a mod and all...??? (Hopefully????) :dontknow:
Wherever I am--God is.
That's merely a religious belief which has no basis in evidence.
I don't belong to any "religion", therefore it's a personal belief which has basis in evidence in that others have seen the evidence of something existing in my life that doesn't exist in theirs and they've told me so...frequently. How can anyone deny the Supernatural exists just because the "evidence required" doesn't fit into their "scientific dimensions"? You've never had any friends or relatives that "dabbled" (or more than "dabbled") in the occult? You've never seen first-hand what "spirits" can do? There's no scientific basis of evidence for that either, yet so many know that it exists.
For someone to dismiss Him from their lives is their stupidity.
Logically, it's more stupid to hold religious belief based upon blind faith, (nothing), than to dismiss an irrational superstition.
Yes, you would be correct...IF ALL religious beliefs were based upon nothing, however there is one that isn't. Those that have found it could care less if others wish to consider it "nothing", as it doesn't diminish anything in any way.
Feel free to grab ahold of those words for dear life but in the end, those words of the foolish won't be saving anybody.
You'd *see* that your opinion applies more to the various xtian "bibles", were you not blinded by your faith.
The end hasn't arrived yet, so how would you KNOW? You can guess, you can have an opinion, you can think, you can hope...but you don't KNOW. You have your "scientific evidence" and so called "rationality", however so do I. I have all that...and MORE. I have God's Word. You can joke and call it "words of the superstitious whatever" but you don't have anything more powerful than that.
(Not trying to scare you, but gosh forbid this thread closed because once again here's another thread with only the same few members responding back and forth which is "prohibited". I never knew that one before...did you??) ???
-
Still waiting for an answer on how repetitious quotes from people who chose to "miss out", "miss the boat", "live lives of 'lack' are supposed to carry some "weight", or be "impressive".
Those aren't nearly as repetitious as quoting specious/'weightless', (based upon insubstantial "faith"), biblical "verses" over and over in a mindless droning of religious propaganda.
While only one is religious, BOTH are as repetitious. The forums have become so boring with the same old repetition that never stops. Surely you have some ideas on how to "jazz" them up a bit since you were a mod and all...??? (Hopefully????) :dontknow:
If the xtian propaganda threads keep repeating content, it is unreasonable to expect opposition responses to be "jazzed-up". Although an alternate thread was initiated concerning wicca, some xtians soon trolled it. Perhaps a thread on 'satanism' would "jazz" things up?
Wherever I am--God is.
That's merely a religious belief which has no basis in evidence.
I don't belong to any "religion", therefore it's a personal belief which has basis in evidence in that others have seen the evidence of something existing in my life that doesn't exist in theirs and they've told me so...frequently.
These are inaccurate attributions of effects to supernatural causes. Much as our ancestors used to attribute lightening, volcanos, personal fortune and misfortune to 'god/desses', 'daemons', 'sprites', 'fae', egregores, etc. Some still hold such supersitious beliefs, others do not.
How can anyone deny the Supernatural exists just because the "evidence required" doesn't fit into their "scientific dimensions"?
That is as easily done as disregarding any supernatural belief which lacks substantive evidence since not rejecting the specious means accepting any specious belief sans evidence.
You've never had any friends or relatives that "dabbled" (or more than "dabbled") in the occult?
Yes, a few.
You've never seen first-hand what "spirits" can do? There's no scientific basis of evidence for that either, yet so many know that it exists.
Nothing occurred which was not inaccurately attributed to "supernatural" causes, (sans a direct and irrefutable chain of evidence). "Many know" no such thing - they merely claim it, which is not teh same thing.
For someone to dismiss Him from their lives is their stupidity.
Logically, it's more stupid to hold religious belief based upon blind faith, (nothing), than to dismiss an irrational superstition.
Yes, you would be correct...IF ALL religious beliefs were based upon nothing, however there is one that isn't. Those that have found it could care less if others wish to consider it "nothing", as it doesn't diminish anything in any way.
How pretentious and sanctimonious to claim, (again, without evidence), to claim that "one" religion isn't based upon empty faith, )nothing substantive), when xtianity is no exception. If it were, there would be evidence, (and that would mean that the empty faith required wouldn't be required in light of attributable evidence). Whether the believers in an empty faith-based religion fail to see this about their preferred religious superstition or not is largely irrelavent, (most will cling to such blind faith in spite of it being based upon nothing substantive).
Feel free to grab ahold of those words for dear life but in the end, those words of the foolish won't be saving anybody.
You'd *see* that your opinion applies more to the various xtian "bibles", were you not blinded by your faith.
The end hasn't arrived yet, so how would you KNOW?
Your religion doesn't accurately predict anything either. This is either because it's "prophesies" are so vague that any post facto events can be 'creatively-interpreted' as a 'prediction'. That's disingenuous and invalidates the nonfunctionality of that religion's non-predictions.
You have your "scientific evidence" and so called "rationality", however so do I. I have all that...and MORE. I have God's Word. You can joke and call it "words of the superstitious whatever" but you don't have anything more powerful than that.
The irrational belief system espoused has no demonstrable 'power' other than what it's followers concede it in self-delusion. Not being deluded is much more "powerful" than being trapped by the mirrored-halls of a religious delusion.
(Not trying to scare you, but gosh forbid this thread closed because once again here's another thread with only the same few members responding back and forth which is "prohibited". I never knew that one before...did you??) ???
There is nothing in the FAQ or TOS stating that as a prohibition ... maybe it's a moderator policy?
-
Sorry, no quotes...the content is getting too long.
I'm not sure what would "jazz" things up, I thought since falcon9 had been a mod (at the minimum of at least one other forum) that he would have some ideas on what might make things "rock" around here. It's like the only thing the FC forums have become is a place to sling out Bible verses and nursery rhymes (one can't help but wonder about copyright issues, especially when the OP is getting paid to be copying them and passing them on to others). I didn't mean to totally lay the burden of "jazz" on falcon9 though...if ANYONE has any ideas that would be so great!! These forums have never looked so "hum-drum". One thread reads like another, what happened to the "FUN" ? ???
I'm aware that some ancestors held superstitious beliefs...and some STILL do (ex: Friday the 13th). That wasn't what I previously meant. How close are you, falcon9 to friends that are into the occult? I ask because if one spends any amount of time with one at all, one can't help but experience unexplainable things first-hand of the paranormal kind. And no, I'm not the only one that knows that. There's many others (relatives, friends, co-workers, aquaintances) that aren't spiritual at all that also have been around these people and have experienced the same things. Some of us together even, at various events. We've all compared notes on the "odd instances". Funny thing is, those that don't have their selves ready with God run scared when any unexplainable events happen--- they are ready to bolt out the first available exit in fright. It's kind of funny.
Nothing "pretentious and sanctimonious" at all, even the Bible states there are many ways which "seem right" but end in death and that is actually stated Twice in the book of Proverbs (14:12 and 16:25). It also says the path to Heaven is narrow and few go there, as well as Jesus is the only way to salvation. I realize any "religion" can claim this however, they all lack something that Christianity doesn't. That would be the "power in the blood of Jesus"...there is nothing more powerful than that. When one has things right with God, they KNOW it. So, until someone can come up with some actual valid proof that the Bible isn't the best source of direction to having a personal relationship with God then I'm "going by the Book". (Proof as in something other than the repetitious, ridiculous questions found on all the "atheistic" websites which may serve as a "pacifier" for some but leave others with more questions than they answer.) Guess it all depends on what is the "foundation" for one's life, I prefer building mine on "the Rock" vs. quicksand.
*It seems to be a moderator policy. Since there are NUMEROUS other threads that have ended in "personal chats" between the same few members but only one that was locked--- seems to be ok to bash the Bible to bits here but not ok to poo-poo on voo-doo. :-X
-
Just curious. Anyone know why (or how) quotes from the hell-bound are supposed to be impressive? :dontknow:
I have no idea.I suppose the athiests feel left out,not having a "bible" of their own to quote from.Their quotes don't mean any more to me,then mine to them.
-
have no idea.I suppose the athiests feel left out,not having a "bible" of their own to quote from.Their quotes don't mean any more to me,then mine to them.
Well we do quote your ancient texts (and other religious texts occasionally). Your quotes do mean a lot to the freethinkers here because they usually involve massive fallacies, contradictions, or outright misinformation. When we point this out though, it's fairly obvious you do not wish to listen to the problems being presented and rather stick out your tongue, fold your arms, and walk away like an uneducated child until you find another illogical thing to present (tl;dnr- Trollin' trollin' trollin').
!! These forums have never looked so "hum-drum". One thread reads like another, what happened to the "FUN" ?
Did you want to debate about how your god is malevolent? Though I've stated it will be a simple argument from my side, you seemed to have ran from it a couple of times now.
-
"Quotes on the internet are rarely, if ever, credible"
- Abraham Lincoln
-
Sorry, no quotes...the content is getting too long.
I'm not sure what would "jazz" things up, I thought since falcon9 had been a mod (at the minimum of at least one other forum) that he would have some ideas on what might make things "rock" around here. It's like the only thing the FC forums have become is a place to sling out Bible verses and nursery rhymes (one can't help but wonder about copyright issues, especially when the OP is getting paid to be copying them and passing them on to others). I didn't mean to totally lay the burden of "jazz" on falcon9 though...if ANYONE has any ideas that would be so great!! These forums have never looked so "hum-drum". One thread reads like another, what happened to the "FUN" ? ???
I'm aware that some ancestors held superstitious beliefs...and some STILL do (ex: Friday the 13th). That wasn't what I previously meant. How close are you, falcon9 to friends that are into the occult? I ask because if one spends any amount of time with one at all, one can't help but experience unexplainable things first-hand of the paranormal kind. And no, I'm not the only one that knows that. There's many others (relatives, friends, co-workers, aquaintances) that aren't spiritual at all that also have been around these people and have experienced the same things. Some of us together even, at various events. We've all compared notes on the "odd instances". Funny thing is, those that don't have their selves ready with God run scared when any unexplainable events happen--- they are ready to bolt out the first available exit in fright. It's kind of funny.
Nothing "pretentious and sanctimonious" at all, even the Bible states there are many ways which "seem right" but end in death and that is actually stated Twice in the book of Proverbs (14:12 and 16:25). It also says the path to Heaven is narrow and few go there, as well as Jesus is the only way to salvation. I realize any "religion" can claim this however, they all lack something that Christianity doesn't. That would be the "power in the blood of Jesus"...there is nothing more powerful than that. When one has things right with God, they KNOW it. So, until someone can come up with some actual valid proof that the Bible isn't the best source of direction to having a personal relationship with God then I'm "going by the Book". (Proof as in something other than the repetitious, ridiculous questions found on all the "atheistic" websites which may serve as a "pacifier" for some but leave others with more questions than they answer.) Guess it all depends on what is the "foundation" for one's life, I prefer building mine on "the Rock" vs. quicksand.
*It seems to be a moderator policy. Since there are NUMEROUS other threads that have ended in "personal chats" between the same few members but only one that was locked--- seems to be ok to bash the Bible to bits here but not ok to poo-poo on voo-doo. :-X
I totally agree with you. It was more fun before the "same ole, same ole" took over. And yes, I'm part of that for various reasons, some to where I felt I needed/wanted to defend others when their beliefs were bashed. I tend to go overboard for others - it just is sad when some can't speak of opposite views, as adults, in conversations, but instead are mocked, bashed, and chastised repeatedly, with the same words, over and over and over. Like you said, where is the fun now? Where is the joy of enjoying the forum like many used to?
I love collages, by the way. I really love your new profile pic! :)
-
It's like the only thing the FC forums have become is a place to sling out Bible verses and nursery rhymes (one can't help but wonder about copyright issues, especially when the OP is getting paid to be copying them and passing them on to others). These forums have never looked so "hum-drum". One thread reads like another, what happened to the "FUN" ? ???
The various copied and recopied biblical quotes aren't protected by copyright and the public is protected from them being repetitiously reposted.
I'm aware that some ancestors held superstitious beliefs...and some STILL do (ex: Friday the 13th). That wasn't what I previously meant. How close are you, falcon9 to friends that are into the occult? I ask because if one spends any amount of time with one at all, one can't help but experience unexplainable things first-hand of the paranormal kind. And no, I'm not the only one that knows that. There's many others (relatives, friends, co-workers, aquaintances) that aren't spiritual at all that also have been around these people and have experienced the same things. Some of us together even, at various events. We've all compared notes on the "odd instances".
Many events get misattributed. If you wish to discuss vague occult things, try the 'book of shadows' thread or, start an "occult" d+d thread. This thread's context concerns the lack of "logic" for the "existence of g-d".
Nothing "pretentious and sanctimonious" at all, even the Bible states ...
Quoting the disputed reference source is circular. The sanctimonious and pretentious parts referred to the belief that a religious belief is "true" and other "beliefs", (or non-beliefs), aren't. This would be clearer were the context not omitted just because "the content getting too long."
So, until someone can come up with some actual valid proof that the Bible isn't ...
There you go again, wanting proof of a negative assertion, (for instance; 'prove fae don't exist, otherwise they do' is a logical fallacy). The burden of proof rests with those who claim the "bible" is {insert claim here}. Pointing to empty faith isn't proof/evidence, it's merely a religious opinion of no validity.
(Proof as in something other than the repetitious, ridiculous questions found on all the "atheistic" websites which may serve as a "pacifier" for some but leave others with more questions than they answer.) Guess it all depends on what is the "foundation" for one's life, I prefer building mine on "the Rock" vs. quicksand.
In metaphysical matters, (such as superstitious beliefs, secular philosophies or other intangible constructs), one either relies upon logical lines of reasoning or, one wings it with illogical non-reasoning. A number of non-religious lines of reasoning do rely upon consistant internal logic while the non-reasoning of religious adherents relies upon the irrational circularity of blind faith and baseless belief. Characterizing the "quicksand" of illogical non-reasoning as a "rock" is ... irrational.
-
.......people who chose to "miss out", "miss the boat", "live lives of 'lack'.......
For someone to dismiss Him from their lives is their stupidity. Perhaps their words sound brilliant to some because hey, these people were/are "well-known" and they said things that reflected the rebellion they had in their hearts toward God. Feel free to grab ahold of those words for dear life but in the end, those words of the foolish won't be saving anybody.
Yes PLEEEuzzzz falcon9.....
SEE the error of your ways......repent your sins!
DON'T "Miss the Boat"!
STOP "living a life of lack"
CAST that rebellion towards god RIGHT out of your heart!
STOP clinging to those quoted words, however brilliant they may sound......
You will be so relieved after
(http://i.imgur.com/y5dzu.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/WZvW1.jpg)
YES, THIS relieved
Wherever I am--God is.
OR - possibly THIS instead - ?
"Wherever I is -- I is"
and falcon9....there's one more reason, maybe the most compelling of all, to GET ON THAT BOAT.........
If you DON'T you might MISS this:
(http://i.imgur.com/Ql0sP.gif)
Shoot, eben jeebus likes to behold de miracle ob de water-skiing kitty!
*I had to edit as I forgot to mention that there IS a small possibility that the cat who is doing the "laying on of hands PAWS",
and proclaiming you healed by the power of jesus, MAY burst into FLAME as soon as he places his hands PAWS on you.....:confused1:
In that case, unfortunately, I don't think you will be "FEELINs the power of jeebus"
-
"Quotes on the internet are rarely, if ever, credible"
- Abraham Lincoln
I have to chuckle at this one! Were you waiting to see how long someone would actually read and comprehend what this is really saying? Ha ha!! Good one!
-
.......people who chose to "miss out", "miss the boat", "live lives of 'lack'.......
For someone to dismiss Him from their lives is their stupidity. Perhaps their words sound brilliant to some because hey, these people were/are "well-known" and they said things that reflected the rebellion they had in their hearts toward God. Feel free to grab ahold of those words for dear life but in the end, those words of the foolish won't be saving anybody.
Yes PLEEEuzzzz falcon9.....
SEE the error of your ways......repent your sins!
DON'T "Miss the Boat"!
STOP "living a life of lack"
CAST that rebellion towards god RIGHT out of your heart!
STOP clinging to those quoted words, however brilliant they may sound......
You will be so relieved after
(http://i.imgur.com/y5dzu.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/WZvW1.jpg)
YES, THIS relieved
Wherever I am--God is.
OR - possibly THIS instead - ?
"Wherever I is -- I is"
and falcon9....there's one more reason, maybe the most compelling of all, to GET ON THAT BOAT.........
If you DON'T you might MISS this:
(http://i.imgur.com/Ql0sP.gif)
Shoot, eben jeebus likes to behold de miracle ob de water-skiing kitty!
*I had to edit as I forgot to mention that there IS a small possibility that the cat who is doing the "laying on of hands PAWS",
and proclaiming you healed by the power of jesus, MAY burst into FLAME as soon as he places his hands PAWS on you.....:confused1:
In that case, unfortunately, I don't think you will be "FEELINs the power of jeebus"
There's always that possibility, however small, (but significantly greater the the possibility that I'll ever suddenly become stupid enough to take a superstitious religious belief on faith).
-
"G-d for you is where you sweep away all the mysteries of the world, all the challenges to our intelligence.
You simply turn your mind off and say G-d did it." - Carl Sagan
Just curious. Anyone know why (or how) quotes from the hell-bound are supposed to be impressive? :dontknow:
I missed this post earlier.....
Hey...."Quotes from the HELL-BOUND"!!!! I love it!
NEW THREAD!! NEW THREAD!!
-
.......people who chose to "miss out", "miss the boat", "live lives of 'lack'.......
For someone to dismiss Him from their lives is their stupidity. Perhaps their words sound brilliant to some because hey, these people were/are "well-known" and they said things that reflected the rebellion they had in their hearts toward God. Feel free to grab ahold of those words for dear life but in the end, those words of the foolish won't be saving anybody.
Yes PLEEEuzzzz falcon9.....
SEE the error of your ways......repent your sins!
DON'T "Miss the Boat"!
STOP "living a life of lack"
CAST that rebellion towards god RIGHT out of your heart!
STOP clinging to those quoted words, however brilliant they may sound......
You will be so relieved after
(http://i.imgur.com/y5dzu.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/WZvW1.jpg)
YES, THIS relieved
Wherever I am--God is.
OR - possibly THIS instead - ?
"Wherever I is -- I is"
and falcon9....there's one more reason, maybe the most compelling of all, to GET ON THAT BOAT.........
If you DON'T you might MISS this:
(http://i.imgur.com/Ql0sP.gif)
Shoot, eben jeebus likes to behold de miracle ob de water-skiing kitty!
*I had to edit as I forgot to mention that there IS a small possibility that the cat who is doing the "laying on of hands PAWS",
and proclaiming you healed by the power of jesus, MAY burst into FLAME as soon as he places his hands PAWS on you.....:confused1:
In that case, unfortunately, I don't think you will be "FEELINs the power of jeebus"
These forums have never looked so "hum-drum". One thread reads like another, what happened to the "FUN" ? ???
Now even YOU have to admit.....this post was pretty fun!
Funny thing is, those that don't have their selves ready with God run scared when any unexplainable events happen--- they are ready to bolt out the first available exit in fright. It's kind of funny.
Really?? You're sure that ALL people not "being right with god" as you puy it, bolt out the first available exit in fright when unexplainable events happen??
Uh-uh, I don't think so. I'm sure you DO have facts to back that up, though.....
.....they all lack something that Christianity doesn't. That would be the "power in the blood of Jesus"...there is nothing more powerful than that.
Ohhhh. So.......:o Vampires then? ;D
--- seems to be ok to bash the Bible to bits here :-X
Said bashing should be OK, as it always follows the QUOTING of it to NO END
:-X
-
For someone to dismiss Him from their lives is their stupidity. These forums have never looked so "hum-drum". One thread reads like another, what happened to the "FUN" ? ???
What, some fundies took the "fun" out of fundamentalism ... again?
You will be so relieved after
(http://i.imgur.com/y5dzu.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/WZvW1.jpg)
YES, THIS relieved
(http://i.imgur.com/Ql0sP.gif)
These forums have never looked so "hum-drum". One thread reads like another, what happened to the "FUN" ? ???
-
What, some fundies took the "fun" out of fundamentalism ... again?
Well it's certainly starting to LOOK that way......
dang....ya try to keep it fun, and somebody always has to come along and spoil the fun.....
-
Re: Falconer02's quote
---"Did you want to debate about how your god is malevolent? Though I've stated it will be a simple argument from my side, you seemed to have ran from it a couple of times now."
I haven't "ran" from the topic, I dismissed it because the answer to the "argument" is a simple one. The definition, the adjectives, the synonyms for the term "malevolent" are contradictory to what the Bible teaches about God's "nature". The definition of "malevolent" defines Satan's nature ("malevolent" can't define both God and Satan as one is Good and the other is Evil. Unless you're trying to imply that Satan is "good"?).
Actual PROOF that God isn't malevolent? Perhaps consider the fact that God has allowed you to go on breathing as long as you have. Assuming God exists (for the sake of your argument) if God were really that 'malevolent'... do you really think that you would still be here? ???
Re: sigmapi1501's quote---"Quotes on the internet are rarely, if ever, credible"
- Abraham Lincoln
Loved your quote. ;D Also just wanted you to know that while I sometimes don't always agree with you, I do LOVE the way that your posts (your humor, your style) so often bring such a refreshingly fun tone to the FC forums. I think being able to make people smile/laugh is the greatest gift one can have. :thumbsup:
Re:falcon9
I did read your posts. I do realize the thread's topic is "Re logical existence of God". I would think that those that seem to have so much trouble finding any "logical existence of God" could probably find it by looking at evidence of Satan's existence instead. Sorry, my bad. All I can say is "those that search for the truth will find it. All others just wish to argue".
Re: duroz
I love your talent for always finding the humor in situations, for taking the time & effort to find all the cute graphics/photos and your sense of humor is amazing. You do put alot of fun into the forums. I know from past posts how you feel about "God-matters" and so, while I don't think that making fun of "Jeebus" is my idea of a good-time---I do understand your attempt to put the fun back in the forums. Love you for that!! :peace:
Re: Putting the fun back into the forums
Daily life can be stressful enough. I can't speak for everyone but when I check into the FC forums, it's for some "relief" from the daily grind. Things like the comic relief that sigmapi & walksalone provide, the interesting views falcon9 shares, the "quirky" posts Falconer02 is famous for (what happened to those? It's like an alien has taken over his writings...lol), yummy recipes from butterflywings, duroz's creative posts & "feline fun", any many more favorite fc members contibute great stuff I enjoy reading. It used to be nice to see an occaisional Bible verse in a thread but not anymore.
It would be really great if FC would make a "ignore" button to block out Scripture verses instead of just blocking certain posters, I would definitely use it. Why? Because I think the motives for all the posting is "the more falcon9 complains about it, the more Scripture postings that follow". Because there are websites one can join for free to have a daily Bible verse emailed or texted to them. Because the entire Bible in any translation is available on-line. Or maybe because there's a "fundie-wannabe" in my real life that has actually given me an ulcer with all her hypocritically fake and shallow religious rammerings that has made me want to barf everytime I have to deal with her. Perhaps someone that acts like that is what it takes to make a Christian realize just how "disturbing" certain words and actions can be to others. Stupid people exist. They exist outside the church...and they exist inside the church. The church is supposed to teach people some sense, however many of them don't. So duroz, falcon9, etc. don't think that I don't "feel your pain" with all the c&p re-posts...I truly do.
While it's true anyone can post anything within FC's guidelines and one has the freedom to post (or ignore) any "Scripture posting threads"...I think the world would be a better place (and the FC forums would be more fun) if everyone tried to be a blessing to others, instead of a "curse". :peace:
Note: Sorry to stray so far off topic, it's just how I am...it's what makes me friggin special. ;D
-
Re: Falconer02's quote---"Did you want to debate about how your god is malevolent? Though I've stated it will be a simple argument from my side, you seemed to have ran from it a couple of times now."
I haven't "ran" from the topic, I dismissed it because the answer to the "argument" is a simple one. The definition, the adjectives, the synonyms for the term "malevolent" are contradictory to what the Bible teaches about God's "nature". The definition of "malevolent" defines Satan's nature ("malevolent" can't define both God and Satan as one is Good and the other is Evil. Unless you're trying to imply that Satan is "good"?).
Actual PROOF that God isn't malevolent? Perhaps consider the fact that God has allowed you to go on breathing as long as you have. Assuming God exists (for the sake of your argument) if God were really that 'malevolent'... do you really think that you would still be here? ???
Assuming that there is a "satan", (and I'm not), isn't the xtian g-d attributed with 'creating' that "archangel" adversary and therefore, for creating "evil", (which cannot be logically attributed to a secondary cause - "satan")? It follows that the 'creator' of evil is evil/malevolent 'itself'.
Re:falcon9
I did read your posts. I do realize the thread's topic is "Re logical existence of God". I would think that those that seem to have so much trouble finding any "logical existence of God" could probably find it by looking at evidence of Satan's existence instead. Sorry, my bad. All I can say is "those that search for the truth will find it. All others just wish to argue".
There is no valid evidence of the existence of either the xtian g-d or "satan", (xtians attributing everything they don't like to "satan" and everything they prefer to "g-d" has no evidentiary basis - that's unfounded religious bias without substantive evidence to attribute effects to supernatural causes). The root of mispprehension is false/unsupported attribution.
Re: Putting the fun back into the forums
Daily life can be stressful enough. I can't speak for everyone but when I check into the FC forums, it's for some "relief" from the daily grind. Things like the comic relief that sigmapi & walksalone provide, the interesting views falcon9 shares, the "quirky" posts Falconer02 is famous for (what happened to those? It's like an alien has taken over his writings...lol), yummy recipes from butterflywings, duroz's creative posts & "feline fun", any many more favorite fc members contibute great stuff I enjoy reading. It used to be nice to see an occaisional Bible verse in a thread but not anymore.
It would be really great if FC would make a "ignore" button to block out Scripture verses instead of just blocking certain posters, I would definitely use it. Why? Because I think the motives for all the posting is "the more falcon9 complains about it, the more Scripture postings that follow". Because there are websites one can join for free to have a daily Bible verse emailed or texted to them. Because the entire Bible in any translation is available on-line. Or maybe because there's a "fundie-wannabe" in my real life that has actually given me an ulcer with all her hypocritically fake and shallow religious rammerings that has made me want to barf everytime I have to deal with her. Perhaps someone that acts like that is what it takes to make a Christian realize just how "disturbing" certain words and actions can be to others. Stupid people exist. They exist outside the church...and they exist inside the church. The church is supposed to teach people some sense, however many of them don't. So duroz, falcon9, etc. don't think that I don't "feel your pain" with all the c&p re-posts...I truly do.
While it's true anyone can post anything within FC's guidelines and one has the freedom to post (or ignore) any "Scripture posting threads"...I think the world would be a better place (and the FC forums would be more fun) if everyone tried to be a blessing to others, instead of a "curse". :peace:
Note: Sorry to stray so far off topic, it's just how I am...it's what makes me friggin special. ;D
That's a refreshing response, given that you're xtian. Likely some xtians will dissent with your view, (the proselytizing ones, probably).
While it's possible to simply ignore whichever threads one wishes to, (without an 'ignore button for subject matter'), many of those posting various religious proselytizing remarks, (not just in the 'verses' threads but, spamming randomly across several forums), don't want to use the ignore function, (also, there's at least one xtian who uses the ignore function to 'not-ignore' and being disingenuous). Neither do some of those posting opposing viewpoints to such proselytizing. It remains possible however, for anyone to ignore any post in any forum and their choice to do so or not.
-
I haven't "ran" from the topic, I dismissed it because the answer to the "argument" is a simple one. The definition, the adjectives, the synonyms for the term "malevolent" are contradictory to what the Bible teaches about God's "nature". The definition of "malevolent" defines Satan's nature ("malevolent" can't define both God and Satan as one is Good and the other is Evil. Unless you're trying to imply that Satan is "good"?).
According to this book, your god kills loads of people though. It's not just the antagonist he created-- these stories specifically state that this god is or is commanding the death of people. If you think this "nature" is not malevolent, then there's an obvious moral problem with your argument here.
Actual PROOF that God isn't malevolent? Perhaps consider the fact that God has allowed you to go on breathing as long as you have. Assuming God exists (for the sake of your argument) if God were really that 'malevolent'... do you really think that you would still be here?
Perhaps you should look at the unfortunate individuals who are Christians that are suffering and die in agony from disease and pain every day (at varying ages) rather than the agnostic-atheist who's sitting infront of a nice PC listening to comfortable music with very few health issues. If anything, educated people are the reason why I'm breathing right now
-
Quote from falcon9
Assuming that there is a "satan", (and I'm not), isn't the xtian g-d attributed with 'creating' that "archangel" adversary and therefore, for creating "evil", (which cannot be logically attributed to a secondary cause - "satan")? It follows that the 'creator' of evil is evil/malevolent 'itself'.
God is attributed to creating the angels including satan. satan wasn't evil in his "original" state, he was a perfect creation. satan became evil, through pride and vanity when he decided that he wanted to be God. (It was his own choice.)
Due to His all-knowing nature, God obviously knew that Lucifer would yield to his pride and vanity, and become Satan, the Adversary of God, or the Devil. So again, God created someone who became evil by their own choice. However, because God knew that this was going to happen, and even allowed it to happen, we can say that He in fact created evil (this would be in agreement with the Bible---"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."
Isaiah 45:7, KJV).
As ironic as it may seem, while Satan opposes God, at the same time, he works for Him, to accomplish His Divine Purposes. (Ex #1: If satan hadn't inspired the scribes, the pharisees and even Judas to do what they did...Jesus may have never died on the cross for our sins leaving all lost and unsaved. Ex#2: It is through the trials, temptations and afflictions that Satan throws our way, that we become stronger, and better, Christians.)
Anyway...think of all your friends...
would you rather they be your friends because they chose to, or would you prefer people to be your friends because they have no choice? :dontknow:
-
from falcon9
That's a refreshing response, given that you're xtian. Likely some xtians will dissent with your view, (the proselytizing ones, probably).
While it's possible to simply ignore whichever threads one wishes to, (without an 'ignore button for subject matter'), many of those posting various religious proselytizing remarks, (not just in the 'verses' threads but, spamming randomly across several forums), don't want to use the ignore function, (also, there's at least one xtian who uses the ignore function to 'not-ignore' and being disingenuous). Neither do some of those posting opposing viewpoints to such proselytizing. It remains possible however, for anyone to ignore any post in any forum and their choice to do so or not.
Yes, I know it remains possible for anyone to ignore any post in any forum and their choice to do so or not. I should have clarified on that, I do/did realize that. However, having to "ignore" every other post (whether by using the "ignore" button or just by simpy "ignoring") is about as much fun as reading a newspaper with numerous articles that have been scissored out. :( ). I don't have any other answers for the problem though, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
(I wish I could hit an "ignore" button for that "big-mouthed, walking mess" that contributed to my ulcer...as do many others here as well, I'm sure! There's no way out at the moment (and yes, totally relying on prayer to solve things), the only thing anyone can do is "deal with it". >:(
So...I'll try...
-
Quote from Falconer02
According to this book, your god kills loads of people though. It's not just the antagonist he created-- these stories specifically state that this god is or is commanding the death of people. If you think this "nature" is not malevolent, then there's an obvious moral problem with your argument here.
Where in the Bible does God specifically command the death of those obeying Him?
Perhaps you should look at the unfortunate individuals who are Christians that are suffering and die in agony from disease and pain every day (at varying ages) rather than the agnostic-atheist who's sitting infront of a nice PC listening to comfortable music with very few health issues. If anything, educated people are the reason why I'm breathing right now
Actually, I have pondered that before. It's not really so much a surprise at how many Christians suffer while the non-believers seem to prosper. Perhaps that is further evidence of how satan tricks many into choosing his path with temporary "rewards". Logically seems that for those who do not know God...this earth will be the only heaven they will ever know -while- for those that know God, this earth will be the only hell they will ever know.
As great as educated people are, they can only keep a person breathing until God determine's when one takes their last breath. Where is the "logic" for putting so much "faith" into the "temporary"?
-
Due to His all-knowing nature, God obviously knew that Lucifer would yield to his pride and vanity, and become Satan, the Adversary of God, or the Devil. So again, God created someone who became evil by their own choice. However, because God knew that this was going to happen, and even allowed it to happen, we can say that He in fact created evil (this would be in agreement with the Bible---"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."
Isaiah 45:7, KJV).
I would be in disagreement with you here on the usage of the word evil (as in moral evil) as translated in the King James Version. The Hebrew word translated was 'rah' which can mean many things, and in KJV it is translated into 15 or more different meanings (including evil, but also calamity, adversity, hurt, etc). In this case I think the KJV is a poorer translation and would suggest that a more accurate translation for Isaiah 45:7 is "The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the Lord who does all these". Of course such isn't for me to decide which is correct only to offer variations based on understanding of the context (human comfort and environmental conditions). Also light contrasted with darkness makes sense, but peace contrasted with evil???
One must realize that the KJV was performed in the 1600's, and even from the span of then to now words may be viewed differently. Translations are always a tricky thing as I learned recently when trying to translate modern Russian into modern English I came up with the exact opposite meaning of what was intended. Someone familiar with the language and the context could have come up with the correct translation I am sure, but even if they were familiar with the language and not the context I think they could have possibly come up with the same incorrect conclusion I did.
-
Where in the Bible does God specifically command the death of those obeying Him?
When did I say "obeying him"? You're obviously dodging the question now. But to answer your question, he commands Abraham to sacrifice his son and then pulls out. You seem to not want to discuss the other numerous times he kills or commands people to be killed. You do realize he commits genocide more than once, correct? As long as it's not the "master race", I suppose it's okay for Hit...err...god to kill anyone in anyway he wants, right? What a kind and loving deity.
Actually, I have pondered that before. It's not really so much a surprise at how many Christians suffer while the non-believers seem to prosper. Perhaps that is further evidence of how satan tricks many into choosing his path with temporary "rewards". Logically seems that for those who do not know God...this earth will be the only heaven they will ever know -while- for those that know God, this earth will be the only hell they will ever know.
As great as educated people are, they can only keep a person breathing until God determine's when one takes their last breath. Where is the "logic" for putting so much "faith" into the "temporary"?
Because you have zero proof beyond what you dub the temporary. You have no reason to put the word "logic" in your post unless your beliefs can withstand any basic skepticism. It is unfortunate that you cannot demonstrate this. Wouldn't it seem more legitimate for someone who had a poor life to imagine another fantasy life after this one whereas a person who had a good life to not do this?
-
Where in the Bible does God specifically command the death of those obeying Him?
When did I say "obeying him"? You're obviously dodging the question now. But to answer your question, he commands Abraham to sacrifice his son and then pulls out. You seem to not want to discuss the other numerous times he kills or commands people to be killed. You do realize he commits genocide more than once, correct? As long as it's not the "master race", I suppose it's okay for Hit...err...god to kill anyone in anyway he wants, right? What a kind and loving deity.
I wasn't "dodging the question". God created His creation with a plan, a purpose in mind. A person can choose obedience to Him or they can choose to disobey and "run with the devil/and the other fallen angels". The time will come when that person no longer serves His purpose, that person isn't fitting into His plan. God will deal with them. To assume that hell is ok for satan but that God should not punish disobedient humans (for doing what satan was pushed out of heaven for and will be punished for) makes for an odd argument.
He did tell Abraham to sacrifice his son, to test Abraham's faith. http://www.gotquestions.org/Abraham-Isaac.html explains that better than I can.
Genesis states after the fall that everyone is going to die. Does it really matter how? What difference does it make if some animals kill some, stupidity kills some, some kill each other, pollution/poverty/sickness kills some, God smites some disobedient that He just no longer has a purpose for, etc.? Everything is going to die...it's just a question of when. It wasn't God's original plan for mankind to die, Eve and Adam disobeyed God and with that came the consequences.
The "Old Testament" portrays a "harsh" God when He was dealing with the disobedient. The New Testament focuses more on Jesus. However, God doesn't' "change". What angered Him in the Old Testament STILL angers Him today. He will someday be dealing with every single disobedient soul for the LAST time. I think He's given everyone enough time, enough warnings, enough chance after chance...that He could be considered a VERY kind and loving deity.
-
Still going over Abraham & Isaac?What's so hard to understand?It was a prophecy directly relating to God having to sacrifice His Son.(Something that would be fulfilled centures later) Falconer seems disappointed that God didn't make Abe go through with it.The point was still made.God had no intention of having Isaac killed,so it's not a case of God changing His mind.
-
I wasn't "dodging the question". God created His creation with a plan, a purpose in mind. A person can choose obedience to Him or they can choose to disobey and "run with the devil/and the other fallen angels". The time will come when that person no longer serves His purpose, that person isn't fitting into His plan. God will deal with them. To assume that hell is ok for satan but that God should not punish disobedient humans (for doing what satan was pushed out of heaven for and will be punished for) makes for an odd argument.
So "Obey or suffer eternally". Explain to me how this is not like a robber putting a gun to your head and saying "Give me your belongings or I'll shoot you.". How is this god granting free will again???
He did tell Abraham to sacrifice his son, to test Abraham's faith.
You asked for an example where he commands those who obey him to kill and I gave you one. That notion ended there. However you still have not addressed the genocidal actions.
Genesis states after the fall that everyone is going to die. Does it really matter how? What difference does it make if some animals kill some, stupidity kills some, some kill each other, pollution/poverty/sickness kills some, God smites some disobedient that He just no longer has a purpose for, etc.? Everything is going to die...it's just a question of when. It wasn't God's original plan for mankind to die, Eve and Adam disobeyed God and with that came the consequences.
It does matter how! How can it not matter when a god is going postal and murdering everyone!? Woman and children (and babies) too! There's a major difference with 1 guy killing another and a GOD using his powers to kill EVERYONE ON THE EARTH. I'm honestly surprised you could give such a broad and ignorant answer to cover up this god's horrifying behavior.
The "Old Testament" portrays a "harsh" God when He was dealing with the disobedient. The New Testament focuses more on Jesus. However, God doesn't' "change". What angered Him in the Old Testament STILL angers Him today. He will someday be dealing with every single disobedient soul for the LAST time. I think He's given everyone enough time, enough warnings, enough chance after chance...that He could be considered a VERY kind and loving deity.
I cannot understand how you can say "I think He's given everyone enough time, enough warnings, enough chance after chance...that He could be considered a VERY kind and loving deity" when taking into account natural disasters, famine, and plagues. Seriously-- you really need to broaden your horizons in this argument and take into consideration the vast amount of aspects you are either ignoring or are naive to. No offense thrown at your personal stature here-- just something I've noticed in the debate thus far.
It was a prophecy directly relating to God having to sacrifice His Son.(Something that would be fulfilled centures later) Falconer seems disappointed that God didn't make Abe go through with it.The point was still made.God had no intention of having Isaac killed,so it's not a case of God changing His mind.
Sheryl asked for an example of this god commanding an obedient to kill and I gave her one. That's the only reason I brought it up. I'm not sure why you invented and pinned your immoral conclusion on me. I'm not sure what's going on in that head of yours, but please keep your immoral thoughts to yourself and let the debaters debate.
-
God is attributed to creating the angels including satan. satan wasn't evil in his "original" state, he was a perfect creation. satan became evil, through pride and vanity when he decided that he wanted to be God. (It was his own choice.)
If the "creation" was "perfect", 'Lucifer' could not have become 'Satan' unless that was inherent in 'his' creation. Nevertheless, these are 'theo-illogical', (internally-inconsistant), premises for a superstitious religious belief which fail to support that belief, (because it ultimately rests upon empty faith/sans evidence - the circular belief does not constitute evidence).
Due to His all-knowing nature, God obviously knew that Lucifer would yield to his pride and vanity, and become Satan, the Adversary of God, or the Devil. So again, God created someone who became evil by their own choice.
In that case, any "blame" for "evil" rests with that which 'created' it; the xtian g-d, according to the xtian belief system. Therefore, the xtian g-d is not only responsible for any "evil" but, is "evil" itself.
Anyway...think of all your friends...
would you rather they be your friends because they chose to, or would you prefer people to be your friends because they have no choice? :dontknow:
Isn't that precisely what 'giving someone a "choice" which is not a choice', (the threats of punishment if one 'chooses' anything other than submission to a superstitious belief and dubious 'g-d')? This is like asking your friends if they'd "choose" to be your friend or, suffer "eternal damnation"? That's an attempt at coercing the 'choice' via threatening. What kind of insecure meglomaniac has to threaten 'worshippers'?
-
Isn't that precisely what 'giving someone a "choice" which is not a choice', (the threats of punishment if one 'chooses' anything other than submission to a superstitious belief and dubious 'g-d')? This is like asking your friends if they'd "choose" to be your friend or, suffer "eternal damnation"? That's an attempt at coercing the 'choice' via threatening. What kind of insecure meglomaniac has to threaten 'worshippers'?
>>a-HA! THERE you are.<<
It’s an incredible con job when you think about it, to believe something now in exchange for something after death. Even corporations with their reward systems don’t try to make it posthumous. — Gloria Steinem
-
God is attributed to creating the angels including satan. satan wasn't evil in his "original" state, he was a perfect creation. satan became evil, through pride and vanity when he decided that he wanted to be God. (It was his own choice.)
If the "creation" was "perfect", 'Lucifer' could not have become 'Satan' unless that was inherent in 'his' creation. Nevertheless, these are 'theo-illogical', (internally-inconsistant), premises for a superstitious religious belief which fail to support that belief, (because it ultimately rests upon empty faith/sans evidence - the circular belief does not constitute evidence).
This is where free will comes into play. Unless you ascribe to the beliefs of a determinist I find you must believe in free will, otherwise we are all doing exactly what we all would do and we are to have no credit or blame or consideration for any actions we take. Surely you don't think that people are doing exactly the ONLY thing they could ever do, do you?
Due to His all-knowing nature, God obviously knew that Lucifer would yield to his pride and vanity, and become Satan, the Adversary of God, or the Devil. So again, God created someone who became evil by their own choice.
In that case, any "blame" for "evil" rests with that which 'created' it; the xtian g-d, according to the xtian belief system. Therefore, the xtian g-d is not only responsible for any "evil" but, is "evil" itself.
Again, this falls under free will and also how the finite is viewed from the infinite.
All our universe would appear to occur instantaneously from an infinite view. This is hinted at in physics with concepts of space-time where "time is distance and distance is time". Also some discussions of multidimensional physics theories delve into this topic. You cannot apply the thinking of a linear and sequential period when you think of 'time' in this manner. The infinite would exists in all points of this 'time' at the same instance and across the entire reach of it (i.e. the infinite would exist simultaneously in both the end and beginning of this 'time' and all points in between). You need to abandon the illusion of what time is -- and it is an illusion and one that we fall victim to due to our faith in our physical senses. In case you wonder what scripture or religious source I gathered this information I will direct you to read up on the teachings of Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawkings and numerous other physicists.
Anyway...think of all your friends...
would you rather they be your friends because they chose to, or would you prefer people to be your friends because they have no choice? :dontknow:
Isn't that precisely what 'giving someone a "choice" which is not a choice', (the threats of punishment if one 'chooses' anything other than submission to a superstitious belief and dubious 'g-d')? This is like asking your friends if they'd "choose" to be your friend or, suffer "eternal damnation"? That's an attempt at coercing the 'choice' via threatening. What kind of insecure meglomaniac has to threaten 'worshippers'?
Here again I would say that some things are not translated as well from the hebrew/greek in some instances and these lead to a misunderstanding in this regard. This "eternal damnation" when viewed as being a "finite existence" makes more sense (and it is perfectly appropriate when considering an infinite view of the finite). When the possibility of an infinite existence for obedience then is viewed as the benevolent reward the scene changes dramatically. I am not here to tell someone how to properly research transcribed text though -- except to the point I hinted at earlier with the use of lexicons and concordances as these would be the minimum basics necessary for at least the appearance of diligence.
-
@Falconer02,
So "Obey or suffer eternally". Explain to me how this is not like a robber putting a gun to your head and saying "Give me your belongings or I'll shoot you.". How is this god granting free will again???
ok, my explanation would differ from yours in that I see it more like the top boss that hires someone to do a specific job. (God is top boss, He created everyone with a plan, for a purpose in mind.) The new hire decides rather than do the job that they were hired for, they would rather do things "their way". The boss gives them multiple written warnings (compare to Biblical warnings). More time goes by and the new hire gets to feeling really secure doing their own thing. It's only a matter of time before that new hire gets "terminated" (or "fired" in Biblical terms) as the boss no longer has any use for them.
***I think somewhere the definition of "free will" has gotten misunderstood. Free will isn't that one can do whatever they want and have a free pass to go wherever they want in the next life. Free will simply means one is free to obey God, or don't. He's not going to force anyone to obey Him. However, if one chooses not to obey God, then the time will come when He has no use for them. He's the Creator, seems He can "destroy" what doesn't obey Him any way He chooses. (Ever hear an angry mama tell her kid "I brought you into this world and I can take you out"? ;D)
You asked for an example where he commands those who obey him to kill and I gave you one. That notion ended there. However you still have not addressed the genocidal actions.
Ok, which Bible verses are you referring to for the "genocidal actions"??
It does matter how! How can it not matter when a god is going postal and murdering everyone!? Woman and children (and babies) too! There's a major difference with 1 guy killing another and a GOD using his powers to kill EVERYONE ON THE EARTH. I'm honestly surprised you could give such a broad and ignorant answer to cover up this god's horrifying behavior.
But God ISN'T going postal and murdering everyone. People go postal and murder people, do you get as "fired up" over those? When did God use His powers to kill "EVERYONE ON THE EARTH"?? I'm not covering up this "god's horrifying behavior", I'm just not aware of any so please list verses for reference purposes. Thanks.
I cannot understand how you can say "I think He's given everyone enough time, enough warnings, enough chance after chance...that He could be considered a VERY kind and loving deity" when taking into account natural disasters, famine, and plagues. Seriously-- you really need to broaden your horizons in this argument and take into consideration the vast amount of aspects you are either ignoring or are naive to. No offense thrown at your personal stature here-- just something I've noticed in the debate thus far.
Why/how does God get the "credit/blame" for ALL natural disasters, famine, and plagues?
**End Note/ personal request: It's just a personal request, you don't HAVE to comply as you have "free will". (lol) When re-quoting my posts, please specify that they are my quotes or keep them separate from other peoples quotes, so as to avoid "confusion". I don't wish for someone to mistakenly think I "said" something when I didn't. Thanks bunches in advance. :) :peace:
-
If the "creation" was "perfect", 'Lucifer' could not have become 'Satan' unless that was inherent in 'his' creation. Nevertheless, these are 'theo-illogical', (internally-inconsistant), premises for a superstitious religious belief which fail to support that belief, (because it ultimately rests upon empty faith/sans evidence - the circular belief does not constitute evidence).
I wish I had known you were going to "bring that up", I had seen that explained really well on a site recently and I don't remember where. I'll try to find it but I won't be able to for a couple of days because I'm getting ready to log off soon and have to work both jobs tomorrow...but then I'll be back. (Not a "threat", just letting you know I didn't "disappear" or "run from topic". ;))
In that case, any "blame" for "evil" rests with that which 'created' it; the xtian g-d, according to the xtian belief system. Therefore, the xtian g-d is not only responsible for any "evil" but, is "evil" itself.
This thought too goes with the above info that I will be trying to "dig up".
Anyway...think of all your friends...
would you rather they be your friends because they chose to, or would you prefer people to be your friends because they have no choice? :dontknow:
Isn't that precisely what 'giving someone a "choice" which is not a choice', (the threats of punishment if one 'chooses' anything other than submission to a superstitious belief and dubious 'g-d')? This is like asking your friends if they'd "choose" to be your friend or, suffer "eternal damnation"? That's an attempt at coercing the 'choice' via threatening. What kind of insecure meglomaniac has to threaten 'worshippers'?
Thing is, we didn't "create" our friends with the purpose of "friendship" in mind. If we had created them...with the ONLY purpose of friendship in mind, and they decided they hated our gutts...then what? Some of them would be picking fights with those that decided to be friends, they'd be stealing from them, murdering them and etc. and then what? What would you do if you had created a group of people to only be your friends, and then you had no purpose for their existance because they hated you?
-
ok, my explanation would differ from yours in that I see it more like the top boss that hires someone to do a specific job. (God is top boss, He created everyone with a plan, for a purpose in mind.) The new hire decides rather than do the job that they were hired for, they would rather do things "their way". The boss gives them multiple written warnings (compare to Biblical warnings). More time goes by and the new hire gets to feeling really secure doing their own thing. It's only a matter of time before that new hire gets "terminated" (or "fired"
in Biblical terms) as the boss no longer has any use for them.
Here's the glaring problem with your example-- nobody asked to be hired by this boss. This is forced labor with harsher consequences than simply getting fired. "Work for me or be tortured." It's a gulag!
Free will simply means one is free to obey God, or don't.
Well then that goes against the proper/common usage of the term, and this proves that it's nothing more than a coercion tactic-- the sign of an evil and unfair deity.
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kxa6qy5lPo1qax8e0o1_400.jpg
How is this not evil?
(Ever hear an angry mama tell her kid "I brought you into this world and I can take you out"? )
NUMEROUS times. Haha! Though I'm certain if my mother did kill me, she'd be in prison for immoral and horrific behavior...
Ok, which Bible verses are you referring to for the "genocidal actions"??
Well do I need to quote entire chapters? Genesis 6-8 = the flood wipes out everyone. This god caused it and thus that's genocide. You can try the "they were evil" card, but it's still genocide. Exodus 11-12 = Passover story. Rather than just popping in and scaring the Pharoah (ONE GUY) into letting them all go, he sets off plagues and kills various people including kids. As far as a verse goes-
When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you may nations...then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them and show them no mercy. Deuteronomy 7:1-2
But God ISN'T going postal and murdering everyone. People go postal and murder people, do you get as "fired up" over those? When did God use His powers to kill "EVERYONE ON THE EARTH"?? I'm not covering up this "god's horrifying behavior", I'm just not aware of any so please list verses for reference purposes. Thanks.
Of course I get mad when people get killed. Especially when it's close to home. An acquantence I knew from HS just got killed in that movie-theater shooting! I put myself in that situation and I get really angry. But the references are above for what you're asking for.
Why/how does God get the "credit/blame" for ALL natural disasters, famine, and plagues?
Because he created this faulty planet according to the bible. I'm fairly certain we didn't cause earthquakes or hurricanes throughout history. Granted desertification can be caused by over-use of land, the vast majority of it is natural. Plagues can be caused by various natural means and usually hit populations unexpectantly. A super-being with the ability to correct these flaws would be ideal but alas history proves that they've always existed.
-
I wish I had known you were going to "bring that up", I had seen that explained really well on a site recently and I don't remember where. I'll try to find it but I won't be able to for a couple of days because I'm getting ready to log off soon and have to work both jobs tomorrow...but then I'll be back. (Not a "threat", just letting you know I didn't "disappear" or "run from topic". ;))
You can save yourself the time and effort of finding that circular argument; these are 'angels-dancing-on-pinheads' types of theological nonsense for me and are tangential to the topic of the thread. That being; there is no logical support for the "existence of g-d".
Anyway...think of all your friends...
would you rather they be your friends because they chose to, or would you prefer people to be your friends because they have no choice? :dontknow:
Isn't that precisely what 'giving someone a "choice" which is not a choice', (the threats of punishment if one 'chooses' anything other than submission to a superstitious belief and dubious 'g-d')? This is like asking your friends if they'd "choose" to be your friend or, suffer "eternal damnation"? That's an attempt at coercing the 'choice' via threatening. What kind of insecure meglomaniac has to threaten 'worshippers'?
Thing is, we didn't "create" our friends with the purpose of "friendship" in mind. If we had created them...
The presumption is an invalid premise; no one creates their friends, they create friendships with others. The assumption that a "g-d" created people to be friends with has no evidentiary basis, (and is more than a little pathetically petulant to boot). Since the initial premise, (that 'g-d' created anything), is unsubstantiated, all that follows from that empty premise is rejected as specious.
-
@Falconer02:
You're right, no one did ask to be "hired by this boss". What God was thinking is a mystery to me. Noone asks to be born either, yet here we are. With life comes choices. The choices we make determines which boss we've chosen.
A coercion tactic-- the sign of an evil and unfair deity. How is it not evil?God created Satan. He seems to have blessed him with gifts that went above and beyond what the other angels were blessed with. Satan could have chosen to be happy with that and chosen to serve Him for an eternity. He chose not to. Bummer for him that it's God's Rules or the "highway". God is the Creator, we are just the "creation". It isn't considered "evil" because He gives everyone the same choice. If we were "God" we could write the rules but we aren't. I don't see how one can study God's attributes/nature and compare those with Satan's and come to the conclusion that God is the evil one...? I would rather put my trust in God ANY day than put it in satan's, based on their character.
"if my mother did kill me, she'd be in prison for immoral and horrific behavior..."
---yes, because she isn't God. I'm not saying God "kills people", just saying that He makes the rules.
"Genesis 6-8 = the flood wipes out everyone. This god caused it and thus that's genocide. You can try the "they were evil" card, but it's still genocide."
The "evil" card? I believe they went WAY BEYOND mere "evil" and that was why God needed to do something so MAJOR to end it. Ever do any reading on the "Nephilim"? The more reading I've done on that, the better I could understand how God needed to do something to end the wickedness.
Exodus 11-12 = Passover story. Rather than just popping in and scaring the Pharoah (ONE GUY) into letting them all go, he sets off plagues and kills various people including kids.
If Pharoah had obeyed God in the beginning and "let His people go", there would have been no need for the plagues or the dead children. It's when people harden their hearts against God, it's when they "try to play God", it's when they refuse to obey God that their grief begins. Pharoah was given chance after chance, after chance.... So many people are given chance after chance, after chance to obey God and they still FAIL. Why? They could prevent all the misery that comes with disobeying God if they just chose to obey Him in the first place.
(*That verse you listed, there's a reason why they were told to "destroy them totally", one would need to do some further research to see exactly what was happening at the time between both sides to know why God said that.)
Of course I get mad when people get killed. Especially when it's close to home. An acquantence I knew from HS just got killed in that movie-theater shooting! I put myself in that situation and I get really angry. But the references are above for what you're asking for.
Sorry about the loss of your HS aqaintance and for the loss to those families. It was a senseless tragedy that I wish had never happened.
Because he created this faulty planet according to the bible. I'm fairly certain we didn't cause earthquakes or hurricanes throughout history. Granted desertification can be caused by over-use of land, the vast majority of it is natural. Plagues can be caused by various natural means and usually hit populations unexpectantly. A super-being with the ability to correct these flaws would be ideal but alas history proves that they've always existed.
But God didn't create this faulty planet according to the Bible. According to the Bible, it was created perfect. Genesis says God saw all that He had made and it was very good. God was pleased, it was very good to Him. It wasn't until the fall of Eve & Adam that the curse began. Still, I'm not sure that all "earthquakes" and "hurricanes" are "works of God". It's my personal belief that a major part of that curse was that while things are "indirectly cursed by God", means that He was allowing them to be "directly cursed" by satan. In other words, perhaps it's God that "allows" the earthquakes, hurricanes, etc. to happen...but satan is actually the "cause"?
-
[quote from Falconeer02]
Because he created this faulty planet according to the bible. I'm fairly certain we didn't cause earthquakes or hurricanes throughout history. Granted desertification can be caused by over-use of land, the vast majority of it is natural. Plagues can be caused by various natural means and usually hit populations unexpectantly. A super-being with the ability to correct these flaws would be ideal but alas history proves that they've always existed.
But God didn't create this faulty planet according to the Bible. According to the Bible, it was created perfect. Genesis says God saw all that He had made and it was very good. God was pleased, it was very good to Him. It wasn't until the fall of Eve & Adam that the curse began. Still, I'm not sure that all "earthquakes" and "hurricanes" are "works of God". It's my personal belief that a major part of that curse was that while things are "indirectly cursed by God", means that He was allowing them to be "directly cursed" by satan. In other words, perhaps it's God that "allows" the earthquakes, hurricanes, etc. to happen...but satan is actually the "cause"?
After reading your reply to Falconeer02's logical objections to your illogical points, the last paragraph was chosen as an example of non-reasoning "belief". Not only is it based upon an unsupported premise, (as were the preceding paragraphs; the "bible" is not a valid premise), but the conclusions posited do not follow rationally. If one is going to base conclusions on irrational premises, any false conclusion is possible, (however improbable).
Specifically, if this planet was formed via 'deital creation', (not a given, btw), then earthquakes and other weather phenomenon are inherent in it's "design" or, the "design" was imperfect. The post hoc suggestion 'blaming' such things on "satan" is the same sort of insidious shifting of responsibility which charcterizes a major aspect of religious "faith", (e.g., 'g-d didn't do it, satan did ... although g-d created satan but, isn't responsible for what that creation does ...'). This type of nonsensical, irrational theological hair-splitting is a pointless non sequitur since the original premise, (religious belief), is not a valid basis of rational argument. Irrational xtian arguements can, of course, ensue nevertheless.
-
[quote from Falconeer02]
Because he created this faulty planet according to the bible. I'm fairly certain we didn't cause earthquakes or hurricanes throughout history. Granted desertification can be caused by over-use of land, the vast majority of it is natural. Plagues can be caused by various natural means and usually hit populations unexpectantly. A super-being with the ability to correct these flaws would be ideal but alas history proves that they've always existed.
But God didn't create this faulty planet according to the Bible. According to the Bible, it was created perfect. Genesis says God saw all that He had made and it was very good. God was pleased, it was very good to Him. It wasn't until the fall of Eve & Adam that the curse began. Still, I'm not sure that all "earthquakes" and "hurricanes" are "works of God". It's my personal belief that a major part of that curse was that while things are "indirectly cursed by God", means that He was allowing them to be "directly cursed" by satan. In other words, perhaps it's God that "allows" the earthquakes, hurricanes, etc. to happen...but satan is actually the "cause"?
After reading your reply to Falconeer02's logical objections to your illogical points, the last paragraph was chosen as an example of non-reasoning "belief". Not only is it based upon an unsupported premise, (as were the preceding paragraphs; the "bible" is not a valid premise), but the conclusions posited do not follow rationally. If one is going to base conclusions on irrational premises, any false conclusion is possible, (however improbable).
Specifically, if this planet was formed via 'deital creation', (not a given, btw), then earthquakes and other weather phenomenon are inherent in it's "design" or, the "design" was imperfect. The post hoc suggestion 'blaming' such things on "satan" is the same sort of insidious shifting of responsibility which charcterizes a major aspect of religious "faith", (e.g., 'g-d didn't do it, satan did ... although g-d created satan but, isn't responsible for what that creation does ...'). This type of nonsensical, irrational theological hair-splitting is a pointless non sequitur since the original premise, (religious belief), is not a valid basis of rational argument. Irrational xtian arguements can, of course, ensue nevertheless.
No falcon9...what I said was "God ALLOWS". Just like He created people with a purpose but ALLOWS them to make their choice. Like He created angels with a purpose but ALLOWED them to make their choice. Like He created the earth perfect, but ALLOWS "the bad". If He didn't allow the "bad", how would people ever know to choose the good? (Before the Fall, they didn't have to choose...good was all they were supposed to know. Once they decided they wanted to know more than that...they were permitted to.)
-
No falcon9...what I said was "God ALLOWS". Just like He created people with a purpose but ALLOWS them to make their choice. Like He created angels with a purpose but ALLOWED them to make their choice. Like He created the earth perfect, but ALLOWS "the bad". If He didn't allow the "bad", how would people ever know to choose the good? (Before the Fall, they didn't have to choose...good was all they were supposed to know. Once they decided they wanted to know more than that...they were permitted to.)
The premise, (of "allowance"), remains an unsupported one based on the equally unsupported premise of a supernatural entity which does any 'allowing'. Since the premise is without basis, (other than the, once again, invalid basis of non-evidentiary "faith"), any conclusions derived from an insubstantive basis are themselves, insubstantive. These baseless premises are religious beliefs and not supported facts therefore, the 'argument' exemplifies the inherent difference between irrational religious arguments and rational, non-religious refutations.
-
The Bible is clear that the only sin God will not forgive is that of continued unbelief, because it rejects the only means to obtain forgiveness—Jesus Christ and His substitutionary death on the cross.
-
The Bible is clear that the only sin God will not forgive is that of continued unbelief, because it rejects the only means to obtain forgiveness—Jesus Christ and His substitutionary death on the cross.
Using the jumble of hearsay of the "bible" as a basis for irrational "faith" negates any circular conclusions derived from it. They're circular, (and therefore, irrational), because they're self-referential. Lastly, the "soteriological" theological premise lacks any rational basis whatsoever and is instead entirely reliant upon religious belief/faith.
The context of this thread, ("logical existence of 'g-d'"), has not been supported by any valid evidentiary basis/argument. Arguing that 'the bible says so because the bible says so' or, that 'belief requires faith which requires belief ...' ad infinitum is considered to be an invalid and irrational circular basis.
-
Arguing that 'the bible says so because the bible says so' or, that 'belief requires faith which requires belief ...' ad infinitum is considered to be an invalid and irrational circular basis.
If you were implying that I was "arguing", I wasn't. I was simply posting what I believe and why. While it's my hope that everyone gets their hearts right with God before it's too late, I wasn't trying to convert anyone to any particular religion. There's nothing wrong with someone posting/sharing what they believe and their basis for it. Do you realize, if everyone thought like you...there would be NO d&D??? :binkybaby:
-
If you were implying that I was "arguing", I wasn't. I was simply posting what I believe and why.
This is the debate & discussion subforum of the off-topic forum - not the 'presentation of specious beliefs which cannot be supported by logical arguement' forum. Nor is it an 'irrational proselytization' forum, (although threads containing such are not disallowed, they can be refuted by replied counter-arguments). An "argument", in the sense/context of d&d is a presented premise, not an inarguable declaration.
While it's my hope that everyone gets their hearts right with God before it's too late, I wasn't trying to convert anyone to any particular religion. There's nothing wrong with someone posting/sharing what they believe and their basis for it. Do you realize, if everyone thought like you...there would be NO d&D??? :binkybaby:
The problem is that there is no rational basis for religious beliefs, which leaves only an irrational basis. While holding an irrational belief/faith is a choice made by an individual, so too is the choice not to hold an irrational religious belief. Neither does choosing reason over unreason mean that everyone would think alike, (as opposed to a bunch of religious adherents sharing the same general delusion and thinking generally alike).
-
You're right, no one did ask to be "hired by this boss". What God was thinking is a mystery to me. Noone asks to be born either, yet here we are. With life comes choices. The choices we make determines which boss we've chosen.
I suppose so. Those choices fortunately stem to not walking into the gulags with the terrible bosses.
God created Satan. He seems to have blessed him with gifts that went above and beyond what the other angels were blessed with. Satan could have chosen to be happy with that and chosen to serve Him for an eternity. He chose not to. Bummer for him that it's God's Rules or the "highway". God is the Creator, we are just the "creation". It isn't considered "evil" because He gives everyone the same choice. If we were "God" we could write the rules but we aren't. I don't see how one can study God's attributes/nature and compare those with Satan's and come to the conclusion that God is the evil one...? I would rather put my trust in God ANY day than put it in satan's, based on their character.
If we were "God", I'm sure anyone with a moral compass wouldn't create a hell or an individual who they know would turn into the primary antagonist of themselves and their creations. It would obviously be immoral and malevolent.
Omniscient God + pointlessly creates evil antagonist = God is malevolent (which is an evil trait). You put your trust in this god?
---yes, because she isn't God. I'm not saying God "kills people", just saying that He makes the rules.
But your god does/has kill(ed) people. You know that throughout history individuals who put themselves above the laws/rules that are made are usually deemed evil and immoral themselves, right? Whether it be simple cops to national political figures, people just want to spit in their faces. But with this god, you bow and praise him for this behavior. How can one be dignified and praised for such blind behavior?
If Pharoah had obeyed God in the beginning and "let His people go", there would have been no need for the plagues or the dead children. It's when people harden their hearts against God, it's when they "try to play God", it's when they refuse to obey God that their grief begins. Pharoah was given chance after chance, after chance.... So many people are given chance after chance, after chance to obey God and they still FAIL. Why? They could prevent all the misery that comes with disobeying God if they just chose to obey Him in the first place.
Wouldn't having your god just come down and scaring the pharoah have been enough? Maybe just smashing a pyramid down with his pinky? I'm sure that'd scare anyone into saying "OKAY! LEAVE PLZ!". Did he really have to go with the dead kids and plague route? How is that not the sign of evil? And the fact that you used the words "could prevent misery" in your argument only solidifies that this is a Godfather coercion tactic...
But God didn't create this faulty planet according to the Bible. According to the Bible, it was created perfect. Genesis says God saw all that He had made and it was very good. God was pleased, it was very good to Him. It wasn't until the fall of Eve & Adam that the curse began. Still, I'm not sure that all "earthquakes" and "hurricanes" are "works of God". It's my personal belief that a major part of that curse was that while things are "indirectly cursed by God", means that He was allowing them to be "directly cursed" by satan. In other words, perhaps it's God that "allows" the earthquakes, hurricanes, etc. to happen...but satan is actually the "cause"?
I'd recommend opening a science book instead of the bible here because apparently the bible knows nothing about the our planet really runs. If you're telling me Satan is causing plate tectonics (something that has always happened since our planet was formed), I have no other answer than to facepalm and end the argument since this is the exact same thing as saying "Thunder is caused by angels bowling!".