LMFAO.. Satanists makes formal request to open meeting with prayer to his god

[MasterOfUsers]

Christians see God as the perfect example of a Father. A father who loves deeply and knows our hearts so deeply that he knows all our choices, needs and desires. So, Christians take that example (understanding we are limited by being humans) and try to be the best Fathers/Mothers we can be. So, no, comparing God to a parent is never ineffectual.

Here is someone else using a similar example,

Honestly, you have taken this discussion to the basest of levels. It's like your squirming from one response to the other so you won't be proven wrong.

It seems like you still don't have an understanding of the faith that you left. It seems like you went from blindly following Christianity to blindly trying to tear it down.

You seem to be missing the entire issue here. You are also conflating "being a parent" with being an all knowing being and your original argument was that fathers have the same sort of omniscience as god (this is a common JW argument BTW).

The issue is NOT whether god make our choices, it is that we cannot since they are known ahead of time and thus pre-determined.

Pre determination (as in having the future known) excludes free will simply because we can never make any choices of our own free will, we cannot go against the choice that is known.

If god knows you will murder someone tomorrow, can you choose not to?

 

[Retro Rob]

who says?

Me...

I guess it doesn't matter too much if God is a Wizard, Sky Daddy, or Magic Carpet-Riding Cloud Genie zapping humans into existence with a magic wand, it doesn't change whether it/he exists or not.

These terms should be embraced by believers nonetheless, as these terms are indicative of a glaring inability of non-believers to prove us wrong.

I know, I know, you cannot prove a negative. But that's the point, and the reason why I embrace all of these terms.

 

[JD50]

I don't want to start with you because you twist everything like above. I don't assume my brain to be made out of cake because that would be absurd, but miraculous if true. Now would you say it is more likely that a virgin gave birth to the son of god or some woman lied about getting knocked up to probably avoid getting stoned? Which option is closer to my example of having cake for a brain vs. reality?

The bible says things happened a certain way. We've found much of what the bible says to simply be not true. If the bible can't get things like the Earth's place in the universe or a global flood right, why would I buy into the even more outrages stories?

There is plenty of reason to doubt the bible, which in turn means there is plenty of reason to doubt the christian god.

By the way, still waiting for you to pray for a mountain to move from one of our discussions some weeks back. Any day now....

Oh man... you are going down a deep dark hole that you do not want to go down.

 

[Retro Rob]

I don't want to start with you because you twist everything like above. I don't assume my brain to be made out of cake because that would be absurd, but miraculous if true. Now would you say it is more likely that a virgin gave birth to the son of god or some woman lied about getting knocked up to probably avoid getting stoned? Which option is closer to my example of having cake for a brain vs. reality?

The bible says things happened a certain way. We've found much of what the bible says to simply be not true. If the bible can't get things like the Earth's place in the universe or a global flood right, why would I buy into the even more outrages stories?

There is plenty of reason to doubt the bible, which in turn means there is plenty of reason to doubt the christian god.

By the way, still waiting for you to pray for a mountain to move from one of our discussions some weeks back. Any day now....

Well, OK.

But I thought you had evidence for atheism. Many Christians doubt the Bible too, but they're not atheists. So proving the Bible wrong doesn't prove atheism right no more than proving evolution wrong proves creationism right.

 

[realibrad]

Try understanding what you're reading, for a change.

I have been posting on this forum for maybe 2 weeks, and that is the 2nd time you have directly impugned my character. I cannot see why you feel the need to do this. Its very petty and only servers to weaken your argument.

Now, you ask why I commented about religion not being necessary, its because of this comment you posted.

"Christians own and operate Universities and privates schools, hospitals, etc, as well, and contribute to the economy by opening businesses and employing people.

Leave it to atheism, and they'd ignore everything positive about religion, as you've demonstrated perfectly."

How else am I supposed to take your words? It sure seems like you are saying that all those things Christians do are because of their beliefs. I was thus replying that religion is not needed to do those things.

Instead, you attacked my character by saying that I needed to pay attention and that I should attempt to understand things and implied that I willing did not attempt to to so, because I should try. Defend your arguments or attack mine, but don't attack my character.

 

[Retro Rob]

I have been posting on this forum for maybe 2 weeks, and that is the 2nd time you have directly impugned my character. I cannot see why you feel the need to do this. Its very petty and only servers to weaken your argument.

Welcome to the P&N. Maybe you need some thicker skin.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Well, OK.

But I thought you had evidence for atheism. Many Christians doubt the Bible too, but they're not atheists. So proving the Bible wrong doesn't prove atheism right no more than proving evolution wrong proves creationism right.

Then what are they basing their beliefs on? Peer pressure? Social acceptance? Where do christians who doubt the bible get their knowledge of god from?


Proving the bible wrong is a lot different than a major branch of science being proved wrong. The bible is the infallible word of god. Science is learning and is open to being wrong, it self corrects. Christians on the other hand try and bend reality to fit the bible. The bible being proven wrong is a knock to christianity's credibility, I don't see how it can be anything else.

 

[Retro Rob]

Then what are they basing their beliefs on? Peer pressure? Social acceptance? Where do christians who doubt the bible get their knowledge of god from?

I don't know. Perhaps you should ask them.

Proving the bible wrong is a lot different than a major branch of science being proved wrong. The bible is the infallible word of god. Science is learning and is open to being wrong, it self corrects. Christians on the other hand try and bend reality to fit the bible. The bible being proven wrong is a knock to christianity's credibility, I don't see how it can be anything else.

But I think what I'm saying is that you'd be proving the Christian version of God wrong, not the actual existence of God -- that's the reason why Christians who doubt the Bible still believe in God.

In other words, you cannot prove God doesn't exists, even if you prove religious texts wrong.

So atheism doesn't win by default, no matter how much you want it to.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

Me...

I guess it doesn't matter too much if God is a Wizard, Sky Daddy, or Magic Carpet-Riding Cloud Genie zapping humans into existence with a magic wand, it doesn't change whether it/he exists or not.

These terms should be embraced by believers nonetheless, as these terms are indicative of a glaring inability of non-believers to prove us wrong.

I know, I know, you cannot prove a negative. But that's the point, and the reason why I embrace all of these terms.

You can prove a negative just fine. What you cannot do is test something that is per definition un-falsifiable.

I can make the claim that I am in fact the undying soul that is god. This is a claim that has the same exact amount of evidence for and against the claim that a god exists.

You can't prove it wrong because you can't test it, you'll just have to accept it upon faith or burn in hell for eternity.

 

[JD50]

I don't know. Perhaps you should ask them.



But I think what I'm saying is that you'd be proving the Christian version of God wrong, not the actual existence of God -- that's the reason why Christians who doubt the Bible still believe in God.

In other words, you cannot prove God doesn't exists, even if you prove religious texts wrong.

So atheism doesn't win by default, no matter how much you want it to.

Atheism is the default.

 

[Retro Rob]

Atheism is the default.

This reminds me of something.

I recall hearing Matt Dillahaunty (that atheist experience guy) and Matt Slick arguing over logic and fallacies.

One thing they both agreed on was absolutely clear: If there is a Rock floating in space, its still a Rock and still exists even if no logical minds (humans) exists.

So, if God doesn't exists, then even in the absence of logical minds that reality still remains. If God does exists, then that reality still remains even in the absence of logical minds as well.

Logically, atheism can be the default, but in reality, it could be the stupid position. It could also be the actual position in reality as well, and theism could be the stupid position.

We simply do not know.

 

[JD50]

This reminds me of something.

I recall hearing Matt Dillahaunty (that atheist experience guy) and Matt Slick arguing over logic and fallacies.

One thing they both agreed on was absolutely clear: If there is a Rock floating in space, its still a Rock and still exists even if no logical minds (humans) exists.

So, if God doesn't exists, then even in the absence of logical minds that reality still remains. If God does exists, then that reality still remains even in the absence of logical minds as well.

Logically, atheism can be the default, but in reality, it could be the stupid position. It could also be the actual position in reality as well, and theism could be the stupid position.

We simply do not know.

And in reality, I could be god, we simply do not know.

 

[Retro Rob]

And in reality, I could be god, we simply do not know.

You're absolutely correct.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

You're absolutely correct.

Or this could be the Matrix.

Or any other of the incredible number of possibilites there are out there (limited only by what ever you can make up).

The problem then becomes, are these things testable? Is there a way to find out?

If not then it's just a game of the least outrageous position being the most likely.

You don't actually believe that he or I am god and the reason for that, the ONLY reason for that is that there is no evidence for it being true.

That's the same reason why I'm an atheist.

 

[WelshBloke]

Well, OK.

But I thought you had evidence for atheism. Many Christians doubt the Bible too, but they're not atheists. So proving the Bible wrong doesn't prove atheism right no more than proving evolution wrong proves creationism right.

Atheism doesn't need evidence. It's the logical position to take while waiting for someone to bring evidence of something.

 

[Retro Rob]

You can prove a negative just fine. What you cannot do is test something that is per definition un-falsifiable.

I agree with this and thanks for explaining.

I can make the claim that I am in fact the undying soul that is god. This is a claim that has the same exact amount of evidence for and against the claim that a god exists.

Actually, your claim is falsifiable because you're a human and can be examined scientifically.

God (in the religious sense) cannot be. And just because we cannot test it doesn't make your claim false...we just need a science (or some other means) that can test it.

You're trying to equivocate, but untestable claims are not false claims -- they're just untestable claims.

There was a point in time when no one could test the age of the Universe, but that didn't mean the old universe belief was false, did it?

Obviously, no.

 

[Retro Rob]

Atheism doesn't need evidence. It's the logical position to take while waiting for someone to bring evidence of something.

But slowpider said he chose atheism because of the evidence in its favor.

You should point your post to him, and not me.

 

[Retro Rob]

Or this could be the Matrix.

Or any other of the incredible number of possibilites there are out there (limited only by what ever you can make up).

The problem then becomes, are these things testable? Is there a way to find out?

If not then it's just a game of the least outrageous position being the most likely.

You don't actually believe that he or I am god and the reason for that, the ONLY reason for that is that there is no evidence for it being true.

That's the same reason why I'm an atheist.

Good for you. But I applaud your attempts at conversion.

 

[WelshBloke]

But slowpider said he chose atheism because of the evidence in its favor.

You should point your post to him, and not me.

Maybe he's taking the total lack of evidence for something as a reason not to put belief into that thing. That would be a reasonable position yes?

 

[Retro Rob]

Maybe he's taking the total lack of evidence for something as a reason not to put belief into that thing. That would be a reasonable position yes?

Just ask him what he means.

 

[WelshBloke]

Just ask him what he means.

You've said that atheism can't prove that god doesn't exist. Why don't you address my point?

 

[Retro Rob]

You've said that atheism can't prove that god doesn't exist. Why don't you address my point?

What point?

 

[WelshBloke]

What point?

Atheism doesn't need evidence. It's the logical position to take while waiting for someone to bring evidence of something.

...

 

[Retro Rob]

...

Ahh... logic doesn't equal reality as logic deals with language.

As I stated earlier, a rock exist apart from logic. No matter how "logical" a position is, it doesn't change reality, nor equal reality.

Using the above atheists examples, it could be logical that you aren't God in the flesh, but if you ARE God in the flesh, my logical position cannot affect or change that reality.

Basically, "so what" if atheism is the logical position.

 

[WelshBloke]

Basically, "so what" if atheism is the logical position.

Well then that leaves you in the position of basically believing in something just because you want to.
Which is fine but why try to dress it up, why not just leave it at that you believe because you want to?