Athiest's are wrong, God Exists, Science proves it

[Trakar]

Let's see, god respects my free will so he will not give evidence of his existence but I'm also told he inspired a bible that proves his existence.

Of course if I don't believe in his existence , which he will not give me evidence for, he will send me to hell.

Two issues, and again, purely in the interest of discussion:

who is telling you that the bible is "proof" of God's existence? Someone who believes the bible is literal and inerrant?

Hell, from the perspective of the major Christian denomination (Roman Catholicism) is simply the separation from God. The holders of those beliefs can imagine no worse torture or torment than the eternal separation from God who they see as the source and essence of love, peace and joy, when all they had to do was accept and embrace faith in His existence for the few short years while they were alive. Why do you see it as cruel and unfair to be excluded from something that you choose not to believe in?

 

[thaiboxerken]

not at all. The "They" being referred to in that quote refers back to the earlier post in that thread

Gotcha.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Two issues, and again, purely in the interest of discussion:

who is telling you that the bible is "proof" of God's existence? Someone who believes the bible is literal and inerrant?

Hell, from the perspective of the major Christian denomination (Roman Catholicism) is simply the separation from God. The holders of those beliefs can imagine no worse torture or torment than the eternal separation from God who they see as the source and essence of love, peace and joy, when all they had to do was accept and embrace faith in His existence for the few short years while they were alive. Why do you see it as cruel and unfair to be excluded from something that you choose not to believe in?

The god in question would be the one that is cruel and unfair.

 

[Leumas]

Let's see, god respects my free will so he will not give evidence of his existence but I'm also told he inspired a bible that proves his existence.

Of course if I don't believe in his existence , which he will not give me evidence for, he will send me to hell.

only if you believe in a literalist and inerrant interpretation of scripture.

And if you insist that it is the case and since you are an atheist that implies you are a fundamentalist atheist who does not understand that the majority of Christians have no idea what they believe in.

And if you press them on anything embarrassing in the book they thump at every occasion they quickly hide behind

You are being as fundamentalist as the fundamentalists you nasty atheist.

Your atheism is as much of a religion as the one of those crazy Not True Scots Christians who are not the same as Us The True Scots Christians since we have no idea what is what and you cannot convince us of anything since we do not know what to believe in the first place.

And another rousing game of "There is no conflict between rationality and woo as long as the woo side gets to define what things rationality is allowed to have opinions on, what argumentative and intellectual tactics it is allowed to use, rewrite the definition of both sides as it seems fit, and basically control every aspect of the discussion." apologetics.

Well said.... that is exactly it.

It is pure casuistry that they use as a ruse.

How desperate and pathetic would one have to be to pick up a sandwich right out of a sewer then pick out the nasty bits and pieces out of it and promptly proceed to eat it? Then when he feels a crunchy bit between his teeth he tells himself that it is a metaphor for a raisin and even when the aroma of its fetid true nature wafts right up his nostrils he convinces himself that it is only the smell of a filthy atheist nearby.

 

[Leumas]

who is telling you that the bible is "proof" of God's existence? Someone who believes the bible is literal and inerrant?

So your entire argument is basically the illogical fallacy of Not A True Scotsman?

If we go by your stance it looks like no one in Scotland is a true Scot unless they are from your side of the tracks of your own kirk.

 

[Trakar]

The god in question would be the one that is cruel and unfair.

Why? Because he did not force you to believe in his existence and have you share in being united with him when you chose not to believe in him? Look at it this way, if you don't believe in an afterlife and then you die and discover that there is an afterlife but that you will exist eternally without knowing about or being in communion with God, how is that a punishment to you?

The only way you would feel any real distress over this situation is if you believe in God and knowingly reject him. If you don't believe in him and find out that there is an afterlife, being cut off from God would not be a big deal.

 

[Leumas]

Why? Because he did not force you to believe in his existence and have you share in being united with him when you chose not to believe in him? Look at it this way, if you don't believe in an afterlife and then you die and discover that there is an afterlife but that you will exist eternally without knowing about or being in communion with God, how is that a punishment to you?

The only way you would feel any real distress over this situation is if you believe in God and knowingly reject him. If you don't believe in him and find out that there is an afterlife, being cut off from God would not be a big deal.

Pascal's Wager anyone?

All your arguments in this thread so far are nothing but hackneyed illogical fallacies used by casuists for millennia.

 

[Trakar]

And if you insist that it is the case and since you are an atheist that implies you are a fundamentalist atheist who does not understand that the majority of Christians have no idea what they believe in.

And if you press them on anything embarrassing in the book they thump at every occasion they quickly hide behind

I am unclear on what precisely you are saying, and to whom you are directing your statements

 

[Leumas]

I am unclear on what precisely you are saying, and to whom you are directing your statements

Much like the Bible then.... I must have learned the literary style of the Biblical god writers bamboozlers ..... huzzah!!!!

 

[Trakar]

So your entire argument is basically the illogical fallacy of Not A True Scotsman?

If we go by your stance it looks like no one in Scotland is a true Scot unless they are from your side of the tracks of your own kirk.

Again, your assertions seem rather jumbled and unclear.

There are many denominations of Christianity, and yes, many Christians, regardless of the denomination they profess allegiance to, are unclear and often confused about the basic tenets of that denomination, because it is generally are more social groups rather than being composed solely of serious religious devotion. Now, I am not saying that there are no Christians who believe that the bible and scripture in general are both literal and inerrant, indeed there are many such. I am merely saying that this is not the position of all Christian denominations.

 

[Trakar]

Pascal's Wager anyone?

All your arguments in this thread so far are nothing but hackneyed illogical fallacies used by casuists for millennia.

And who am I to offer a counter opinion to one so eloquently and thoughtfully presented.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Why?

Because that god will punish those who require evidence.

 

[Leumas]

Again, your assertions seem rather jumbled and unclear.

There are many denominations of Christianity, and yes, many Christians, regardless of the denomination they profess allegiance to, are unclear and often confused about the basic tenets of that denomination, because it is generally are more social groups rather than being composed solely of serious religious devotion. Now, I am not saying that there are no Christians who believe that the bible and scripture in general are both literal and inerrant, indeed there are many such. I am merely saying that this is not the position of all Christian denominations.

So Christianity is a shambles of "unclear and confused" "networking socialites"?

 

[Trakar]

You will never convince the folks here that theists aren't scientifically illiterate morons. I've given up trying.

I see what you mean. Many who look at those they consider their opposition see only the things they perceive as their own flaws and it infuriates them

 

[thaiboxerken]

I see what you mean.

I don't believe that theists are scientifically ilterate morons, just the ones that believe in creationism and gods.

 

[Trakar]

I don't believe that theists are scientifically ilterate morons, just the ones that believe in creationism and gods.

I see.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

And another rousing game of "There is no conflict between rationality and woo as long as the woo side gets to define what things rationality is allowed to have opinions on, what argumentative and intellectual tactics it is allowed to use, rewrite the definition of both sides as it seems fit, and basically control every aspect of the discussion." apologetics.

So who defines what rationality is?

 

[tsig]

Two issues, and again, purely in the interest of discussion:

who is telling you that the bible is "proof" of God's existence? Someone who believes the bible is literal and inerrant?

Hell, from the perspective of the major Christian denomination (Roman Catholicism) is simply the separation from God. The holders of those beliefs can imagine no worse torture or torment than the eternal separation from God who they see as the source and essence of love, peace and joy, when all they had to do was accept and embrace faith in His existence for the few short years while they were alive. Why do you see it as cruel and unfair to be excluded from something that you choose not to believe in?

You don't see any contradiction with a god who wants to stay hidden to protect our free will yet also sends a book to tell us all about him?


Whether the pain god inflicts in hell is mental or physical is irrelevant.

 

[Leumas]

You don't see any contradiction with a god who wants to stay hidden to protect our free will yet also sends a book to tell us all about him?


Whether the pain god inflicts in hell is mental or physical is irrelevant.

Don't forget revealing himself to thousands if not millions in the privacy of their thoughts.

Of course let's remember all those miraculous images of his unruly son on toasts and toilet doors and dirty windows.

Consider all those efforts of his girlfriend Mary who seems to love to mess with people's free will all the time.

Also ponder over all those grace healings of drug addicts and alcoholics and prisoners as well as answering prayers of football players while ignoring the screechings of agony and suffering of millions of violated and tormented children because he does not want to interfere with the free will of their tormentors.

 

[Pup]

Well, from my understanding, being Christian is all about embracing the new testament teachings and perspectives of the Christ. But there are a lot of fundamentalist evangelicals who seem enthralled with the vengeful precepts of the old testament and become quite uncomfortable with the compassion that fills the new testament.

Here's the problem, or at least the problem I see. A Christian says he (or she) believes in the Bible. Okay. But it turns out that he only believes in certain parts, and ignores or explains away other parts as not relevant, and considers yet other parts allegorical. Okay, that's fine too.

But then he makes the argument that atheists don't have any moral code to guide them and therefore there's nothing to prevent them from stealing, raping, murdering, etc.

The Christian doesn't realize that if he changes the Bible's literal words to suit what he believes is right, he doesn't have a moral code to guide him either, at least not an external one. He's relying on the same internal decision-making and conscience that atheists do, and using that to decide which parts of the Bible to accept or reject.