Proof of God

[edge]

It's so simple the gap is not in the world around us or in the universe but in your heart.
If he's not there then the whole universe is a big gap to you.
He's all around if you could perceive, and that's where you are lacking.
It is because You purposefully reject the word of God.


Spaghetti monster says,

To my knowledge, there is no science that is in the business of teaching the "greed the love of money," although I would argue that religion might more properly teach that type of lesson.

And finally, presidents come in all shapes and flavors and our image of a proper president evolves over time. Who knows what the future will hold? Some might say that the current administration proves that even the mentally challenged can hold office.

Inadvertently this is what happens, what science brings, besides the original concept, Greed, vanity, lust of flesh, lust of money, envy, contempt of our neighbors, war.
Who can make war unto the beast?

although I would argue that religion might more properly teach that type of lesson.

Show me, in the New Testaments of the Bible where it does that.

And finally, presidents come in all shapes and flavors and our image of a proper president evolves over time. Who knows what the future will hold?

Revelation tells us what that might be.
The number of the beast is already on everything we buy or sell!
Except for fruits and vegetables, I wonder why that is?
Bet you don’t know.
They are already taking the mark in China in the form of implantations, that’s an entity we deal with everyday, how long till you take it here?
The quick pass will be in your wrist soon and some have it now, and all in the name of convenience.


This is a day the Lord has made rejoice and be glad in it.

If you see it you will understand this statement, if not you will ridicule it.

 

[Paulhoff]

Inadvertently this is what happens, what science brings, besides the original concept, Greed, vanity, lust of flesh, lust of money, envy, contempt of our neighbors, war.

That has nothing to do with science, that is just what people in general can bring with them, all this crap happen way before science edge.

Paul



You have shown, like Herzblut, a very poor understanding of science.

 

[Paulhoff]

Revelation

Is one book that should have been left out of the bible, it hasn't done any good for humankind.

Paul

 

[edge]

That has nothing to do with science, that is just what people in general can bring with them, all this crap happen way before science edge.

Paul



You have shown, like Herzblut, a very poor understanding of science.

You my friend show a very poor understanding of Christianity.
I got As in the sciences, biology, and none of them have anything to do with morality.

Who is the greatest scientist of all?

We can’t even figure out all that there is to know about it.
We can’t know all there is to know even the devil wanted that, how to create life from nothing.
We can’t have all the answers in this universe but in the next all those questions will be answered.
But will you make it to the next level?
That’s what this one is about Now.
It wasn’t before sin entered into it.
I am one of those who want to know.
Don’t you?

all this crap happen way before science edge.

When exactly Paul?

 

[edge]

When exactly Paul?

Is one book that should have been left out of the bible, it hasn't done any good for humankind.

It is a prophesy from God to us, it is proof in a vague way, with out giving it away, to us with out us losing freewill, it is a comfort for those that have turned to God and a revelation to those who are about to.
It is a warning about deception in the end times and marks the end times so that believers will have faith in the things to come. These times are going to be the most trying times and it appears we are well on our way.
I am glad to see it because I believe to others and myself it is a great joy to know for sure that all is not lost in the end.
One of the greatest is that Christ comes back to fix it and end the misery and evil.
We get to see it, do you know how that feels?

 

[BillyJoe]

Billy, Why do you say something came from nothing ?
Why would time have a beginning ?

I made the statement that one of the following has to be true: "something from nothing OR time without beginning"
Please understand that your two questions are nonsense in this context.
Please think about that.

And therefore has no effect on this universe, whatsoever.
What a useful chap.

So useful that he actually created the whole shebang.
(Before you spew out your one-liner, remember we said "if god created the universe.....etc..etc" )



Back later.

 

[Herzblut]

You my friend show a very poor understanding of Christianity.

None.

You have to admit though that your emotional science bashing (greed, vanity...) was also rather ..eh.. suboptimal. However, what you said thereafter

There are some good comforts but then there are some bad.
Science is a tool that should be used under morality for good.

was so much better that it dissuaded me from zinging your post.

I got As in the sciences, biology, and none of them have anything to do with morality.

That's the point. Science is neither moral nor unmoral, it is amoral. It has got no intrinsic morality. Moral codes telling what is good or bad science deployment must come from somewhere outside the realm of science itself. You said it nicely: science is a tool. You cannot blame a tool for being misused, the misuser is to blame.

Science tells: What can I know?
Moral tells: What shall I do?
Belief tells: What may I hope for?

Still awaiting evidence for a science that teaches me what I shall do.

Who is the greatest scientist of all?

Newton, I think. Why?

Herzblut

 

[Faithkills]

IF God is in no way detectable, THEN God is absolutely irrelevant. Even if God created the Universe.

More important than that, if God is undetectable then any claims about his existence are necessarily fabrications.

If he is detectable then the assertion that he does not exist is falsifiable.

So either god is made up, or it is possible to show he exists. One must be true. Both may not be true.

 

[Paulhoff]

You my friend show a very poor understanding of Christianity.

I know it only to well edge, you forget I'm surrounded by it.
It is base on many lies, a so-called god, a so-called son of a so-called god, a virgin birth, which is not a new idea and use by many so-called gods before Jesus.

I got As in the sciences, biology, and none of them have anything to do with morality.
And religion does, where? Ask the slaves, ask the women of second class status in the bible, ask the child kill in the bible for having the wrong parents, the list is long, there is no morality in the bible, only how to kiss up to a childless idea of a so-called god.

Who is the greatest scientist of all?
Straw man.

We can’t even figure out all that there is to know about it.
And what in the bible tells you anything about feeding yourself, clothing yourself, housing yourself, it is not in the bible, all the bare essentials are not even in the bible.

We can’t know all there is to know even the devil wanted that, how to create life from nothing.
There is no devil, get over that one, creating life from nothing will come, and it has many times in this universe and will happen many more times in the future.

We can’t have all the answers in this universe but in the next all those questions will be answered.
What answers, name some.

But will you make it to the next level?
Nothing, there is no next level, and once again given me the answers besides kissing your so-called god's butt, what does the bible tell you, not to use to big a stick when you beat your slave.

That’s what this one is about Now.
It wasn’t before sin entered into it.
I am one of those who want to know.
Don’t you?
Coming from a dowser, oh please edge tell me. Your all powerful all knowing so-called god didn’t see that coming and did nothing to stop it, oh please.

When exactly Paul?
When you get enlighten.........

Paul

 

[FSM]

It's so simple the gap is not in the world around us or in the universe but in your heart.
If he's not there then the whole universe is a big gap to you.
He's all around if you could perceive, and that's where you are lacking.
It is because You purposefully reject the word of God.


Spaghetti monster says,


Inadvertently this is what happens, what science brings, besides the original concept, Greed, vanity, lust of flesh, lust of money, envy, contempt of our neighbors, war.
Who can make war unto the beast?



Show me, in the New Testaments of the Bible where it does that.



Revelation tells us what that might be.
The number of the beast is already on everything we buy or sell!
Except for fruits and vegetables, I wonder why that is?
Bet you don’t know.
They are already taking the mark in China in the form of implantations, that’s an entity we deal with everyday, how long till you take it here?
The quick pass will be in your wrist soon and some have it now, and all in the name of convenience.


This is a day the Lord has made rejoice and be glad in it.

If you see it you will understand this statement, if not you will ridicule it.

Dear Edge,

I try not to ridicule people when I disagree with them. Although what is true for you certainly seems to be a closely held belief, I do not share your beliefs. Except for maybe about fruits and veg... I have noticed several times that my fruits do not have the number of the beast upon them. On that we can clearly agree.

Science as an entity does nothing but test and observe, test and observe. People can misuse science to hurt people, certainly. I would argue, however, that more often, religion properly used as prescribed hurts people a plenty... I thought about giving you links, but this is such a common argument I was certain you would agree that certain religion based activites were hurtful in the past, like the Crusades, the Inquisition, 9/11.

The New Testament may not contain reference to the lust for money, but I am sure that you are familiar with the troubles some religions have when it comes to money. The Vatican, for example, does just fine monetarily and always has. Martin Luther's 'protest' creating Protestantism had much to do with his refusal to think paying money to priests for forgiveness was holy. Further, Scientology is fundamentally a "Cult of Greed" as mentioned in the Time article from 1990, bilking people of money with weird promises of OT powers while essentially forcing them into a life of penniless servitude.

In short, Edge, if you choose to believe in god and that makes you have a great day, wonderful. If you choose to dowse your heart out for fun and fufillment, good for you. Neither of those activities would make me feel happy. I do rejoice everyday, however, that I have wonderful friends and family, that I get to help kids who have been abused, that I get to sneak and read the meme thread a few times a day for a giggle... those are the things I rejoice in and I need no god to do so.

Thank you for your thoughts. I wish you a wonderful evening and good luck in the future.

FSM

 

[Herzblut]

Science as an entity does nothing but test and observe, test and observe.

Well, that would be quite ..eh.. random. Science first of all puts down theories to predict the outcome of a test. If you know that outcome, you don't have to repeat the bloody test over and over.

People can misuse science to hurt people, certainly. I would argue, however, that more often, religion properly used as prescribed hurts people a plenty...

I disagree and regard the examples you mention not as "proper use" but as a clear misuse or abuse of religion/belief. It is valid to critizise that a religious belief can pretty easily be abused. But I'd argue that atheism is abusable in the same way.

I thought about giving you links, but this is such a common argument I was certain you would agree that certain religion based activites were hurtful in the past, like the Crusades, the Inquisition, 9/11.

I strongly believe that hatred, violence, wars etc. happen regardless of any religion. If religion is unavailable to manipulate people, other means are applied. I see no sign that faithless societies have shown less cruelty than others. But maybe you can give some indication for that because you seem to imply this.

Herzblut

 

[FSM]

Well, that would be quite ..eh.. random. Science first of all puts down theories to predict the outcome of a test. If you know that outcome, you don't have to repeat the bloody test over and over.


I disagree and regard the examples you mention not as "proper use" but as a clear misuse or abuse of religion/belief. It is valid to critizise that a religious belief can pretty easily be abused. But I'd argue that atheism is abusable in the same way.


I strongly believe that hatred, violence, wars etc. happen regardless of any religion. If religion is unavailable to manipulate people, other means are applied. I see no sign that faithless societies have shown less cruelty than others. But maybe you can give some indication for that because you seem to imply this.

Herzblut

Hi Herzblut,

Before we begin discussing this issue, may we both agree that neither of us have ever witnessed a fruit or vegetable bearing the mark of the beast? I always feel that it is good to begin a discussion on common ground.

Additionally, I agree that in science the "bloody" test need not be performed over and over again. I said that the business of science is in observing and testing and perhaps repeated myself needlessly as to that point.

As to the examples that I gave: The Crusades, the Inquisition and 9/11-- I suppose that we have to define our operating terms more clearly to discuss the issue fully. I would define an action taken by a religious person in the name of his religion "proper use" if the following conditions existed:

1. That the activity is suggested, condoned, authorized, or demanded by those who hold a higher level of power in the religious institution or organization, and
2. That the activity is performed subjectively by the religious person with the intent to serve his faith and that he intends to further his standing in the religious organization itself or will get some reward in an afterlife by performing the activity.

Further, I would define "proper use" as being considered proper only at the time of the activity and I would not look to how the religion later defines the event in retrospect.

Moreover, I would define "proper use" as applicable to any faith or religion and would not discriminate against any one religion as "fringe" or "improper" solely because the belief system may differ from the mainstream version of that religion.

Under the conditions stated above, I still maintain that the Crusades, the Inquisition and 9/11 fufill the conditions of the "proper use" of that religion.

You put forward an argument that I am interested in hearing your support for: "But I'd argue that atheism is abusable in the same way." I would like to know how and where atheism has been abusable in the same way as in the Crusades, the Inquisition and 9/11.

Finally, please note that I agree with you completely that hatred, violence, war and cruelty happen with or without religion. However, particularly in the examples that I have discussed above, religion has a particularly "bloody" track record.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts,

FSM

 

[edge]

FSM asks,

You put forward an argument that I am interested in hearing your support for: "But I'd argue that atheism is abusable in the same way." I would like to know how and where atheism has been abusable in the same way as in the Crusades, the Inquisition and 9/11.

First off from my perspective, all were produced by false religions or twisted doctrines.


So you understand false religions.

The Vatican, for example, does just fine monetarily and always has. Martin Luther's 'protest' creating Protestantism had much to do with his refusal to think paying money to priests for forgiveness was holy. Further, Scientology is fundamentally a "Cult of Greed" as mentioned in the Time article from 1990, bilking people of money with weird promises of OT powers while essentially forcing them into a life of penniless servitude.

A step in the right direction.

You say this,

religion properly used as prescribed hurts people a plenty...

If it is false it can.
The teaching of Christ hurt who, anybody?
People start wars and twist the word toward there own means and they heed not the outcome of such actions but they have been warned about those actions, I would not want to be them.

I do rejoice everyday, however, that I have wonderful friends and family, that I get to help kids who have been abused, that I get to sneak and read the meme thread a few times a day for a giggle... those are the things I rejoice in and I need no god to do so.

You have been blessed.
You just don’t know it yet, there is no fault in that alone.
FSM says,

You put forward an argument that I am interested in hearing your support for: "But I'd argue that atheism is abusable in the same way." I would like to know how and where atheism has been abusable in the same way as in the Crusades, the Inquisition and 9/11.

Look to the future. It will be much worse than anything yet experienced.
Herzblut May be able to answer that better than I.

Paul says,

I know it only to well edge, you forget I'm surrounded by it.

Does your wife still believe Paul?

And religion does, where? Ask the slaves, ask the women of second class status in the bible, ask the child kill in the bible for having the wrong parents, the list is long, there is no morality in the bible, only how to kiss up to a childless idea of a so-called god.

Should I ask the Hebrew slaves Paul?
And in which time period, the lesson is what goes around turns around.
He who lives by the sword dies by the sword.

Who is the greatest scientist of all?
Straw man.

No it was the lion.
The tin man was invented without a heart, no God there.

And what in the bible tells you anything about feeding yourself, clothing yourself, housing yourself, it is not in the bible, all the bare essentials are not even in the bible.

All knowledge comes from God and science too.
God feeds all, even the sparrows.
He also taught us how to build the ark the most stable of sea going vessels.
Proved by science.

There is no devil, get over that one, creating life from nothing will come, and it has many times in this universe and will happen many more times in the future.

Tin man argument

The anger inside you comes from where, why write in red?
Can you prove any thing that you say in that tin man answer ?

What answers, name some.

Why? The greatest question of all.

Nothing, there is no next level, and once again given me the answers besides kissing your so-called god's butt, what does the bible tell you, not to use to big a stick when you beat your slave.

Your impactions that I have slaves is really quit a bore.
We all are slaves to the world and the system.

Coming from a dowser, oh please edge tell me. Your all powerful all knowing so-called god didn’t see that coming and did nothing to stop it, oh please.

When exactly Paul?
When you get enlighten Paul you’ll figure out that free will is one of the greatest gifts he gave us.
The test is to see how we use it.

Who gave Newton the ability to see?

 

[Herzblut]

Before we begin discussing this issue, may we both agree that neither of us have ever witnessed a fruit or vegetable bearing the mark of the beast?

Sorry, I'm honestly clueless.

The mark of the beast? Is that "Made in Germany"?

As to the examples that I gave: The Crusades, the Inquisition and 9/11-- I suppose that we have to define our operating terms more clearly to discuss the issue fully.

I agree.

I would define an action taken by a religious person in the name of his religion "proper use" if the following conditions existed:

1. That the activity is suggested, condoned, authorized, or demanded by those who hold a higher level of power in the religious institution or organization, and
2. That the activity is performed subjectively by the religious person with the intent to serve his faith and that he intends to further his standing in the religious organization itself or will get some reward in an afterlife by performing the activity.

I see no distiguishing factor from "misuse". The same criteria are applicable in case of misuse. Assume for instance the case where the Pope calls for a crusade action in favor of emperor X where the Pope as well as the emperor only have strategic and/or economic interests whereas the troups act in good faith, trusting the Pope. That is a clear abuse for me.

Secondly, if a person acts "in the name of C" (christianity) this does not tell anything about whether C is the root cause of the whole action!

You seem to imply that e.g. all crusades have predominantly religious motives, but not strategic and/or economic reasons. What if actions have religious AND other motives?

Further, I would define "proper use" as being considered proper only at the time of the activity and I would not look to how the religion later defines the event in retrospect.

If you delete the word "only", I agree to the first sentence. But I am interested also in nowadays religious and secular judgments because this e.g. shows in how far churches develop - or not!

Moreover, I would define "proper use" as applicable to any faith or religion and would not discriminate against any one religion as "fringe" or "improper" solely because the belief system may differ from the mainstream version of that religion.

OK, but the belief must still be qualifiable as "religious".

Under the conditions stated above, I still maintain that the Crusades, the Inquisition and 9/11 fufill the conditions of the "proper use" of that religion.

Well, the crusades may also fulfill the conditions of proper sward use. Does that mean swards caused those actions? That's your missing link. Saying something is properly used doesn't make it the culprit.

Hmmm.....

You put forward an argument that I am interested in hearing your support for: "But I'd argue that atheism is abusable in the same way." I would like to know how and where atheism has been abusable in the same way as in the Crusades, the Inquisition and 9/11.

The communist atrocities clearly demonstrate that atheism is no barrier against indoctrination and manipulation to commit horrible crimes.

However, particularly in the examples that I have discussed above, religion has a particularly "bloody" track record.

Only if religion can be qualified as root cause. And I would also be cautious with numbers since communist terror caused more casualties than any other ideology based violence.

Herzblut

 

[BillyJoe]

And yet they STILL both do not exist.

Your argument is one from ignorance.

Oh ? Why not ?

Oh NO! I've answered with one-liners again!

Yeah, oh well, they're already in the trash can.

 

[FSM]

Sorry, I'm honestly clueless.

The mark of the beast? Is that "Made in Germany"?


<snipparoo>

I see no distiguishing factor from "misuse". The same criteria are applicable in case of misuse. Assume for instance the case where the Pope calls for a crusade action in favor of emperor X where the Pope as well as the emperor only have strategic and/or economic interests whereas the troups act in good faith, trusting the Pope. That is a clear abuse for me.


Herzblut

Take a look again at post #990, particularly in Edge's quote. I think he believes that most products are marked with the number of the beast except for fruits and vegetables. I will to my dying breath agree with Edge on this matter and take a hard stance on the fact that, indeed, none of my fruits or veg have ever been marked by said beast. I was hoping that you would share our committment in this matter.

Before we discuss anything further, I'd like to say thank you Hertz, for pointing out the issue of communist atrocities. Although I certainly recall learning about communism in the past, I was in woeful need of a refresher course regarding the terrible things done, most particularly by Stalin and Lenin, in the name of communism. I enjoy this forum not only because it is a "place to discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly and lively way," but it also demands that I learn more about things so that I can avoid talking out of my ass whenever possible.

Now, on to your first point: In your example Pope X had a subjective intent that involved strategic and economic reasons for the religious activity. Please note that my condition #1 did not discuss the subjective intent of the person in power, only that a person of higher authority in the religion has "suggested, condoned, authorized, or demanded" that the activity take place. My condition #2 deals with the subjective intent of the person actually performing the religious activity and in those cases the actor, by my own definition, must believe fundamentally in the religious aspect of the activity and that religious belief must have caused the event to occur regardless of other social or economic opinions held by the actor. Thus, your Pope X encouraging the crusade embraced by priests and believers would, in my opinion, be acting properly within the role of his religion as would his followers.

Overall, I believe that it is a tautological argument to say that religion is good, thus, anything that is bad can't by definition be religious and cannot fit into the "proper use" definition.

The communist atrocities clearly demonstrate that atheism is no barrier against indoctrination and manipulation to commit horrible crimes.


Only if religion can be qualified as root cause. And I would also be cautious with numbers since communist terror caused more casualties than any other ideology based violence.

Herzblut

As to your second point, I never argued that atheism was a barrier against indoctrination and manipulation. In fact, I agreed with you that war, hate, cruelty, etc. happen for many different reasons in many different ways. You argued that "atheism is abusable in the same way" as religion was abused in the Crusades, the Inquisition and 9/11. Although I agree that the communist atrocities are evil and terrible and make up an amazingly sad number of tragic deaths, I would need evidence showing that lack of a belief in god resulted in the communist atrocities as noted in my two conditions.

Thanks again for taking the time to discuss this issue with me.

FSM

 

[BillyJoe]

Yes, that is what I am claiming. I am not claiming the existence of god, which is what you seemed to be suggesting.

Not sure how you read that into my reply.

Think of it this way: If god created the universe, but left absolutely no trace of himself, then if or when we discover what 'caused' the universe to happen, we will be able to completely explain it without god. As such, god would not be a necessary condition for the existence of the universe.

I couldn't possibly disagree with that because it is a re-stating of what I just said in reply to your last post:

"Whether or not god was necessary depends on whether or not it is possible for the universe to have come into existence without god. Therefore we can only conclusively dismiss god as being necessary once we discover how the universe could have existed without him."

You posit an unfalsifiable deity who is not necessary for the universe to exist. As such, you can remove god from this equation entirely, and you are left with an unfalsifiable god that does nothing. The excuse that you used to grant god a superior status to the tooth fairy (or the atom-fairy) disappears in your own definition of such a god.

"You can remove god from this equation entirely" only if and "when we discover what 'caused' the universe to happen"
(The quotes are from your own post).

Ugh - the whole point being that if we can explain the beginning of the universe without god, why would we include god in our explanations?

What makes you think I would disagree?

I think I have caused confusion by saying: "That still, of course, would not exclude him from existing, just that he is not necessary." That bit only makes sense in the context of the part of your post that I was responding to. You commenced that part of your post with: "if god created the universe...". I was just coming back to that hypothetical scenario where god created the universe. Science showing how it could have been created without god, doesn't prove god did not create the universe (seeing as he did, according to this hypothetical scenario).

Sorry, that is a mouthfull, but that is all I meant.

Fine, you want to play that game?

Prove that the tooth fairy does not exist. You seem so damn sure that the tooth fairy and god are in separate leagues? If you're serious, then prove that the tooth fairy does not exist.

That is not the reason I say god cannot be as easily dismissed as the tooth faerie.
I don't know why I have to keep repeating this:
There is no gap in our knowledge for the tooth faerie to occupy.
There is a gap for the deistic god - and it is the ultimate gap - and it has not and may never be filled by science.

You are quickly going to discover just why burden of proof and falsifiability are important.

I am using another argument entirely (see above).
The "burden of proof and falsifiability" argument against the deistic god fails.
I submitted a reply to volatile which goes to the heart of why I think that is so.
I am happy to have it refuted.

No, you are holding god to a lower standard than that of the tooth fairy. If you disagree, then I put it to you that you cannot conclusively prove that the tooth fairy does not exist, and I challenge you to prove me wrong.

I cannot prove the tooth faerie doesn't exist, but I think the question of the tooth faerie's existence is unimportant and irrelevant. The tooth faerie doesn't do, has never done, and was never intended to do, anything. That gap has never existed. It's always been parents who have exchanged the tooth for money.

The deistic god, on the other hand, is posited to fill the ultimate gap not yet filled by science and possibly never to be filled by science. If that gap is ever filled by science, my position of agnosticism will go from category 6 to category 7. The tooth faerie is already there, not because I can prove he doesn't exist but because there is no gap, and never has been a gap, for him to fill.


regards,
BillyJoe

 

[Paulhoff]

Does your wife still believe Paul?
No, she has that monkey off her back, and all the lies that there told to her, now life makes much more sense to her.

Should I ask the Hebrew slaves Paul?
Oh, so it matters who the slave is, and not that they are a slave?

And in which time period, the lesson is what goes around turns around.
It does not matter, I still hear people say that some people should be slaves again, and can you please get the sayings right "What goes around COMES around".

He who lives by the sword dies by the sword.
Straw-man

No it was the lion.
Staw-man
The tin man was invented without a heart, no God there.
Staw-man

All knowledge comes from God and science too.
God feeds all, even the sparrows.
No so-called god, and you but into the sparrow BS, how about the babies dying of cancer, I know you will make excuses up for your so-called god.

He also taught us how to build the ark the most stable of sea going vessels.
So-called Noah was only given the size, there is nothing on how to build the so-called ark.

Proved by science.
What is proved by science?
Tin man argument
Straw-man, you just can't get it right can you.
The anger inside you comes from where, why write in red?
No anger, it is just what you don't what to hear, red is a color, would blue make the words different.

Can you prove any thing that you say in that tin man answer ?
Straw-man, look it up on the internet.

Why? The greatest question of all.
Straw-man.

Your impactions that I have slaves is really quit a bore.
Straw-man.

We all are slaves to the world and the system.
Straw-man, the bible says nothing against slavery, nothing and nothing and nothing.

When exactly Paul?
When you get enlighten Paul you’ll figure out that free will is one of the greatest gifts he gave us.
Free will is not a gift, that would mean that their was something that gave us this so-called free will, nothing did, so there is no gift of free-will.

The test is to see how we use it.
And who tests the tester. This all-powerful all-knowing so-called god already has the answer, so what is the big deal then. Why does this so-called god always surprised by the outcome. Why is his best answer to things it thinks are wrong, death, not a very understanding so-called god is he.

This so-called god makes a man and a woman, in one part of the bible he makes them at the same time, in an other first the man and then the woman from the man. He puts a so-called tree in the center of so-called Eden, tell them not to eat of the tree of knowledge, (wants them to stay dumb I guess), knows dam will that they will eat of the tree and losses it when they do, daaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

Then the BS about man having to work to get food, (why are the animals punish too, now they have to work for food, they didn’t eat of the tree). Woman with the childbirth pain BS. They have children, one kills one, they go and get wives over the mountain, where to hell did the wives come from.

And the Noah thing, oh please, two of every kind, millions of kinds and he gets them all. And not only that, but Noah is a drunk. After the flood, well my friend it is incest time, no one else around.

Oh the list of the BS in the bible goes on and on.

Paul
Who gave Newton the ability to see?
No, it wasn't any so-called god, besides remember the tree of knowage, your so-called god doesn't what people to know anything, because if they do, they will see he isn't any god that any thinking man would what.

Paul

 

[Herzblut]

Before we discuss anything further, I'd like to say thank you Hertz, for pointing out the issue of communist atrocities. Although I certainly recall learning about communism in the past, I was in woeful need of a refresher course regarding the terrible things done, most particularly by Stalin and Lenin,

This "terrible thing" is called genocide. Check out

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

for names like Stalin, Mao, PolPot, Kim-Il-Sung, Putin et. al.
Communist terror is supposed to have killed between 85 and 258 million people.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roter_Holocaust#_note-7

Now, on to your first point: In your example Pope X had a subjective intent that involved strategic and economic reasons for the religious activity. Please note that my condition #1 did not discuss the subjective intent of the person in power, only that a person of higher authority in the religion has "suggested, condoned, authorized, or demanded" that the activity take place.

Right. Just that I told you I disagreed with your definiton. Unless we come to the strange agreement that you omit what you naturally requested:

Although I agree that the communist atrocities are evil and terrible and make up an amazingly sad number of tragic deaths, I would need evidence showing that lack of a belief in god resulted in the communist atrocities as noted in my two conditions.

and accept that

we not discuss the subjective intent of the person in power, only that a person of higher authority in an atheist country has "suggested, condoned, authorized, or demanded" that the activity take place.

as you nicely stated. Well, in that case: up to 258 million casualties due to atheist genocides. We are monsters! You would not like that, would you? Nice try though!

So, what is your point at all? Would you clarify?

Overall, I believe that it is a tautological argument to say that religion is good, thus, anything that is bad can't by definition be religious and cannot fit into the "proper use" definition.

Right. Who said that?

Herzblut

 

[Belz...]

You didn't? Well, then you have hidden it well in your statement that I'm citing now for the millionth time:

Not sticking to this crap until total refutation would have served your credibility. But you wanted it like that.

This drains your credibilty even further. Presenting a wrong statement and then finally claiming the others simply didn't understand you is grossly dishonest.

It wasn't a wrong statement...

Oh, but I see what you're doing. You're the kind of person for whom, in a conversation, everything that's implied in one's words must be explicitely stated, otherwise you can declare their statement false.

You could say "it's cold today" is false because, in reality, it's simply less hot, not actually colder, than yesterday because "cold" is not actually a thing.

Yeah. Sophistry.

You made a claim, do the work and prove it!

What's "ethics", Herz ?

I love "ubiquitous". It's funny that the corresponding Spanish word "ubicuo" is hardly known, the German "ubiquitär" totally unknown. I like "facetious" as well.

Herzblut[/QUOTE]