christopher hitchens

[Retro Rob]

You didn't read what it said. It said all or most.

Now, we are arguing semantics.

Now, tell us how your god is alive, but doesn't fit the definition of alive.

You should understand how believers reason on this. No God, no Universe, and by extension, no life in the non-existing Universe.

 

[buckshot24]

So I've missed a few pages of useless bickering about semantics. I don't see a single citation to any lab result where a self replicating molecule formed on its own then started replicating under any conditions let alone realistic conditions.

Hacks hide behind word games when they know they don't have a case.

I think I've identified who this Cerpin dude is. He's the atheist version of Sye Ten Bruggencate.

 

[buckshot24]

I guess my question is: How does the biological definition of life bear on whether or not "my god" is alive?

I'd place him on ignore if I were you. His idiocy is much more palatable when you don't see it.

 

[sandorski]

Now, we are arguing semantics.



You should understand how believers reason on this. No God, no Universe, and by extension, no life in the non-existing Universe.

The Universe exists and Life exists, does god(s) exist? Doesn't appear so, certainly not as clearly as the Universe and Life.

 

[norseamd]

Doesn't appear so, certainly not as clearly as the Universe and Life.

There is no appearing for existence or no existence of Yahweh. But I do not need to bow down and worship something just because I can not prove he does not exist at all.

Plus there is a very real reality, which we can prove beyond all doubt through logic and thought, known to many under the name of The Problem Of Evil.

 

[buckshot24]

Plus there is a very real reality, which we can prove beyond all doubt through logic and thought, known to many under the name of The Problem Of Evil.

Because evil exists God doesn't?

If God doesn't exist there is no true evil just opinion. If you disagree with certain actions based upon your opinion then that is hardly an adequate basis to "prove beyond all doubt" that God doesn't exist.

 

[sandorski]

Because evil exists God doesn't?

If God doesn't exist there is no true evil just opinion. If you disagree with certain actions based upon your opinion then that is hardly a an adequate basis to "prove beyond all doubt" that God doesn't exist.

If God is Good and Perfect, how could Evil be the result of its' perfect act of Creation?

 

[norseamd]

There is no true evil or good just existence?

Possibly.

 

[norseamd]

If God is Good and Perfect, how could Evil be the result of its' perfect act of Creation?

And in Genesis does the serpent not seem to be something of foreign origin to the creations of God? A hidden trespasser?

 

[JD50]

I'd place him on ignore if I were you. His idiocy is much more palatable when you don't see it.

Maybe he's mature enough to not place half the forum on ignore.

 

[JD50]

And in Genesis does the serpent not seem to be something of foreign origin to the creations of God? A hidden trespasser?

The Christian God created everything, so that doesn't work.

 

[Retro Rob]

If God is Good and Perfect, how could Evil be the result of its' perfect act of Creation?

In what way was evil the "result"? If you remember the story, evil didn't come to be until Eve was tricked -- so up to THAT point, they were fine, and there was no evil.

This is fundamental to the story. Evil was not the result of perfect creation, but that of what evidently became known as a fallen angel.

 

[buckshot24]

Possibly.

Is dishonesty wrong?

 

[buckshot24]

Apparently God has so much power He can do anything at all but is totally helpless in giving people freedom of choice.

 

[MongGrel]

Maybe he's mature enough to not place half the forum on ignore.

I thought he all ready had.

Might explain things a bit.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

What if God is really alive, but doesn't fit the biological definition of life?

That doesn't make any sense. Biology is the study of life. "Non-biological life" is as absurd as a "Non-geometrical triangle."

In fact, why would a non-biological being need to fit the biological definition?a

Because that's is how we define the word "alive."

That's almost like saying silicon based life can't be alive because they don't fit the carbon based definition of life.

Did you see any stipulation about carbon vis-a-vis silicon in the reference I linked?

Look, if you want to use a word that already has a commonly accepted meaning to describe something, then you better make sure that thing fits the commonly accepted description. That's why I wanted to know what your definition is that should justify your silly claim that your god is alive. You couldn't supply any such definition.

THE PEOPLE WHO MAKE IT THEIR BUSINESS TO STUDY LIFE -- i.e. biologists -- use the one that I cited. If you think that it is inadequate in some way, then speak the fuck up and propose a useful revision.

Holy shit. I am constantly amazed at how dense you are.

 

[Retro Rob]

I thought he all ready had.

Might explain things a bit.

I have no one on ignore. Sure, stupidity sometimes deserves a non-response, but that can be handled on a case-by-case basis by simply not replying.

 

[norseamd]

Is dishonesty wrong?

That would depend on whether or not you mean inherently, or based off a ideology or philosophy, such as the beliefs of someone.

To me personally it depends on the situation. Often being dishonest is a bad thing, but if you are lying to a slaveowner to hide a runaway slave, then I think that is not only probably not morally wrong, but even probably morally good

 

[Retro Rob]

That doesn't make any sense. Biology is the study of life. "Non-biological life" is as absurd as a "Non-geometrical triangle."

I used "non-biological life" in the same sense as I would "non-material being".

 

[sandorski]

In what way was evil the "result"? If you remember the story, evil didn't come to be until Eve was tricked -- so up to THAT point, they were fine, and there was no evil.

This is fundamental to the story. Evil was not the result of perfect creation, but that of what evidently became known as a fallen angel.

It most certainly is the result of it. How could it exist otherwise if God created all things?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

If God doesn't exist there is no true evil just opinion.

That's a common non-sequitur propagated by half-wit fundies like you. Even assuming that morality is totally subjective, then subjective evil would be "true" evil. To suggest that evil isn't "true" unless morality is objective is blatant question-begging.

Moreover, the implication of the statement is clearly that we should believe that an objective morality exists because there is an allegedly undesirable consequence of objective morality being false ("No true evil"?!?! Oh noez!). This is itself a fallacious line of reasoning.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I used "non-biological life" in the same sense as I would "non-material being".

That's great, so fucking what? It doesn't make it less absurd.

 

[Retro Rob]

It most certainly is the result of it. How could it exist otherwise if God created all things?

How is it? If it were, there would have been no need for Satan to "trick" Eve -- evil would have simply come into play automatically.

Since an external source was needed to bring evil, according to the story, it wasn't at all a part of creation.

People aren't born "evil". Without external influences, there would be no evil now. Evil is learned.

 

[Retro Rob]

That's great, so fucking what? It doesn't make it less absurd.

It puts my point into context, bruh.

 

[buckshot24]

That would depend on whether or not you mean inherently, or based off a ideology or philosophy, such as the beliefs of someone.

To me personally it depends on the situation. Often being dishonest is a bad thing, but if you are lying to a slaveowner to hide a runaway slave, then I think that is not only probably not morally wrong, but even probably morally good

Is misquoting me wrong?