When confronted with a blatant contradiction, or impossibility about Christianity, christians will simply answer "God can do anything he wants" or "We don't know why god does what he does, he does it for a reason"

Anyone else find the similar shitty responses? Because after reading some of evil bible, I was really looking forward to owning some believers :(

They're not a huge fan of facts.

People don't react well when they see their beliefs crumbling down around them.

People are attached to their beliefs. They'll use every last drop of their imagination to support their view of reality and if they fail they'll feel like less of a person because of it.
When it comes down to people arguing beliefs it's an ego driven battle and nothing more.

wooo! ego!

Ya, it's pointless to argue with people who would never change there mind, even if the stone cold truth was sitting right there infront of there face.

Ya, it's pointless to argue with people who would never change there mind, even if the stone cold truth was sitting right there infront of there face.

That goes both ways.

People place different levels of importance on different concepts. Some people put religion above logic. Some people put logic above religion. It's all pleasantly arbitrary.

I'd say that since logic actually helps us figure shit out so that we might improve our existence and the existence of others, putting it on a higher level of importance over "I believe this therefore it MUST be true" isn't really that arbitrary.

Arguably Christianity improves our existence and the existence of others. And considerations of improving the state of existence are themselves only arbitrarily important.

That goes both ways.

Actually Atheists are open to anything that is proven or that they have seen with their own eyes. They arn't close minded, they just want facts, which is pretty normal I think.

If one day God appeared infront of all of us, and said something or some shit and there was no way of it beeing fake, All the atheists would become christians too, because then it's a fact! But we all know that will never happen :)

When confronted with a blatant contradiction, or impossibility about Christianity, christians will simply answer "God can do anything he wants" or "We don't know why god does what he does, he does it for a reason"

Anyone else find the similar shitty responses? Because after reading some of evil bible, I was really looking forward to owning some believers :(

Ask them why their religion is crumbling, ask them why they are losing their overall power and influence on the world, and more importantly: North America. The traditional values coalition utterly FAILS to accomplish their goals to expel all homosexuals, ban all porn, bring back the archaic bullshit "decency laws" ban abortion etc.

The way they describe God is the essence of the balance of powers of the universe, what goes around comes around. And why is God biting them back in the ass? "God" obviously isn't on their side anymore.

So, they are right: God does what he wants and he does it for a good reason, his reason is that most Christian cunts dont deserve any fortune from now on. Obviously, God does not like highly religious people, God wants us to be independant, he created us to live our lives and MAKE THINGS HAPPEN not to "devote our lives to God" and to useless rituals.

Of course, I'm not referring to any omniscient being when I use the word "God."

people need religion in their lives.
because the idea of a higher power creating them for a purpose makes them more comfortable than logic does
no use arguing with them

Actually Atheists are open to anything that is proven or that they have seen with their own eyes. They arn't close minded, they just want facts, which is pretty normal I think.

If one day God appeared infront of all of us, and said something or some shit and there was no way of it beeing fake, All the atheists would become christians too, because then it's a fact! But we all know that will never happen :)

You guys are open-minded?

There are literally BILLIONS of people that have had religious experiences and you dismiss that as some kind of mass hallucination.

You dont want proof, you want to ridicule the faithful because they think differently than you do. To me, that is not open-mindedness, its prejudice.

"You guys are open-minded?

There are literally BILLIONS of people that have had religious experiences and you dismiss that as some kind of mass hallucination."

There are logical, scientific explainations for near death experiences, explainations that are far more likely than dying and seeing a god. Same goes for alien abductions and the like.

"You dont want proof, you want to ridicule the faithful because they think differently than you do. To me, that is not open-mindedness, its prejudice."

If any one of you religious dumb fucks could actually for a second back up ANY of your ridiculous claims with some kind of proof, I'd be the first to congratulate you. Unfortunately, the vast majority of you don't seem to have even the ability to think about your twisted, ass backwards belief systems rationally, much less prove that they are true.

I mean, look at you. You started your post with a fucking logical fallacy, and then claimed that those that can recognize that are close minded and bigoted; why the fuck should I or anyone for that matter, take anything you say seriously? Everything about your post indicates that you're a fucking imbecile.

This pissed me off so much this fundy basically ruined my day. So I go to spanish class and I sit next to this fundy who just bitches all day about how great god is. Anyway she has these scraps of paper on her desk that she just sweeped on the floor. So I confront her about her littering and not caring about our environment. She replies with something to the extent of "Well I'll be going to a better place when I die". Fucking christians just because you think you're going to heaven doesn't mean you shouldn't care about the here and now! I wanted to kill that bitch I mean this isn't her world we have to cooperate and live together and we can't do that with her attitude.

Actually Atheists are open to anything that is proven or that they have seen with their own eyes. They arn't close minded, they just want facts, which is pretty normal I think.

If one day God appeared infront of all of us, and said something or some shit and there was no way of it beeing fake, All the atheists would become christians too, because then it's a fact! But we all know that will never happen :)

lololol

that's going to happen too, except you're all going to be tricked.

your "facts" are subjective opinion.

There are logical, scientific explainations for near death experiences, explainations that are far more likely than dying and seeing a god. Same goes for alien abductions and the like.



If any one of you religious dumb fucks could actually for a second back up ANY of your ridiculous claims with some kind of proof, I'd be the first to congratulate you. Unfortunately, the vast majority of you don't seem to have even the ability to think about your twisted, ass backwards belief systems rationally, much less prove that they are true.

I mean, look at you. You started your post with a fucking logical fallacy, and then claimed that those that can recognize that are close minded and bigoted; why the fuck should I or anyone for that matter, take anything you say seriously? Everything about your post indicates that you're a fucking imbecile.

I see, instead of actually providing an argument, you proceed into the hate-spewing and name calling.

You just made my point. Thanks.

This pissed me off so much this fundy basically ruined my day. So I go to spanish class and I sit next to this fundy who just bitches all day about how great god is. Anyway she has these scraps of paper on her desk that she just sweeped on the floor. So I confront her about her littering and not caring about our environment. She replies with something to the extent of "Well I'll be going to a better place when I die". Fucking christians just because you think you're going to heaven doesn't mean you shouldn't care about the here and now! I wanted to kill that bitch I mean this isn't her world we have to cooperate and live together and we can't do that with her attitude.

That is fucked up and, unfortunately, is typical of christians.

for the record, I am not a christian. I do have faith, however, based on what I personally have experienced. And, until someone comes up with a better explanation for what I have experienced, I will continue to believe what I believe.

for the record, I am not a christian. I do have faith, however, based on what I personally have experienced. And, until someone comes up with a better explanation for what I have experienced, I will continue to believe what I believe.

Would you like to share your faith and seemingly life changing experience?

Would you like to share your faith and seemingly life changing experience?

I have already tried that here on totse and was basicaly defamed by most of the athiests on here. I shall not repeat the same mistake again. I willingly admit that it is not proof, I have simply failed to find a better explanation as yet.

Besides, by the wording of your request, you are already biased toward not believing in a damn thing I have to say, so why even bother?

I see, instead of actually providing an argument, you proceed into the hate-spewing and name calling.

You just made my point. Thanks.

You show your wisdom with what you say, not what you don't say, and you haven't said anything worth of any significance. HE made more sense than you, if you can put aside your whineyness and accept criticism, you would see that his post contains much more sense and value than yours.

The OP is correct in stating that the majority of Christians cannot have a debate about their religion without making logical fallacies. But this is because they just don't know their own religions and they don't know the books their religions are supposedly based on. Learning and knowing one's religion within the Christian doctrine is not a requirement. Christian's aren't really required to read or learn anything unless they will become servants of their respective churches, which is rare.

In general, the majority of Christians are of two types:

Lazy western types that do not do more than they need to. This means going to church only on religious holidays and never picking up the Bible. But when asked about their "faith", they reply with words like devout or saved.
Less educated 3rd worlders that were original worshipping who knows what, then turned to Christianity when the missionaries came along with industrialization imported from the west.I for one, am lucky enough to encounter both. I live in America, but from a family that came from a backward country where Christianity took over along side the world market's intervention through exploitive Capitalism. Americans know jack shit about the Bible or even the doctrines of their own religion (except LDS and ze Amish). The 3rd worlders in the East only know the Bible by literally reading it with no translation. No one to give them a lesson in history or the use of metaphors.

However, if the OP really read the Bible to debate religion, a better debate will be had with Jewish people. For them, reading the first 5 books is enough. They, unlike Christians, have requirements. But lets be serious, who the hell wants to debate with a Jew? They run circles around people in whatever they do. I take it is because they are required to be studious at an early age because of their religion. But I am also not the type to deny T3H J00iSH CUNSPIRASYZ!!!

Well, since I don't know what your experience specifically was, I can't argue it pointedly, but whatever it was, I don't know why you would decide a god figure is responsible.

Why are you people picking on Christians only? Islam and Judaism follow the same stuff; why not give them a whack?

And why must you Atheists "argue" over religion? Are we hurting you? Do you feel threatened that someone believes in a higher power?

* "God" must hate you, Christians! "He's" turn his back on you.

Yeah, he probably withdrew his blessings from us because we've withdrawn him from our life by not following his teachings.

Why are you people picking on Christians only? Islam and Judaism follow the same stuff; why not give them a whack?


Christians are just so much more obstinate, and so much more imposing; and besides, how many Jews and Muslims have you seen in the U.S. If I lived in the Middle East, I'd be professing my beliefs to them too (actually, considering the location, I'd probably keep my mouth shut).
We debate Christians more just because there are more of them and they are more steadfast and annoying in their beliefs, but we also debate the entire concept of a god; for example, Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" argues the whole concept rather than trying to disprove Christianity.

And why must you Atheists "argue" over religion? Are we hurting you? Do you feel threatened that someone believes in a higher power?

Many atheists have trouble in directly identifying their beliefs, for example, if asked at school, I reply that I am an atheist, but in reality, my beliefs are an amalgamation of true Atheism, Deism, Pantheism, Buddhism, Taoism, Agnosticism, and other middle ground semi-beliefs, this spurs most of the debate with atheists among each other.
There's an obvious reason that we debate people of other religions, mainly because religion has long outlived what usefulness it did have during and before the Neolithic Era. That is, it wastes time, money, creates delusions, stifles education, hampers progress, but most of all, atheists just want converts just like people of any other religion. :D

* "God" must hate you, Christians! "He's" turn his back on you.

Yeah, he probably withdrew his blessings from us because we've withdrawn him from our life by not following his teachings.
I'm going to assume that was sarcasm, but if not, I agree; spirituality is far more important than religion, and is an integral part of the lives of most atheists as well.
Hope that cleared it up.

"And why must you Atheists "argue" over religion? Are we hurting you?"

YES, YOU STUPID SHIT. You people promote an entire culture of ignorance, generations of idiots that think mere belief in an idea makes it true, generations of fools that try to impose their beliefs and morality on others for no reason other than that they think their god wants them to!

Stem cell research is held back by Christians, gay people can't marry their partners because of Christians, scientific facts like evolution are being buried by myth like creation in schools because of -you guessed it!- CHRISTIANS. Yes, there are those of you that aren't fuckasses, people that keep to themselves. Those people however are HORRIFICALLY OUTNUMBERED by the ones that seek only to dominate our society in any way they can. And you, who are "moderate"? You only give those fuckasses a pass when they pull this shit!

You assholes actually make me appreciate the Muslim extremists; at least they're only trying to kill me! Not your religion, though. Oh no, Christians have to assimilate entire countries and cultures into it's bullshit. You people are like the fucking Borg.

You ask if your bronze age, childish beliefs hurt people? The answer is FUCK YES, THEY DO.

YES, YOU STUPID SHIT.

Yes, there are those of you that aren't fuckasses, people that keep to themselves. Those people however are HORRIFICALLY OUTNUMBERED by the ones that seek only to dominate our society in any way they can. And you, who are "moderate"? You only give those fuckasses a pass when they pull this shit!



Ehhh...
The non-imposing christians in the world far outnumber those who are trying to impose their values. The difference, as with most groups, is that the ones who are bat shit insane tend to be the most outspoken, and consequently, get the most attention.
Additionally though, I think in a good deal of cases the term 'moderate' would be more appropriately called 'apathetic.'

From what I'm gathering, you're talking about North American bible-thumper-Christians, whose "beliefs" are worth about as much as skid-marked underwear.

Christians are just so much more obstinate, and so much more imposing; and besides, how many Jews and Muslims have you seen in the U.S. If I lived in the Middle East, I'd be professing my beliefs to them too (actually, considering the location, I'd probably keep my mouth shut).

Well, see, God (Speaking for myself, here) does not blow sunshine up the ass of the United States-and ONLY the United States. There is a world out there, and God loves it all. Again, these "true Christians" have twisted their teachings to serve their own twisted ways.

There's an obvious reason that we debate people of other religions, mainly because religion has long outlived what usefulness it did have during and before the Neolithic Era. That is, it wastes time, money, creates delusions, stifles education, hampers progress, but most of all, atheists just want converts just like people of any other religion.

That's not Christianity that does that, it's the fools that misrepresent and manipulate it to cover their insecurities. I see no moral issue with something like stem-cell research, Da Vinci didn't have a problem with splitting a body open to figure out how it worked, Galileo didn't have a problem with defying the church to understand space.

It is my belief that if something can turn the death of one thing into the salvation of another, then it should happen. That is what I was taught from a very young age.

Thanks for your insight, also.



YES, YOU STUPID SHIT. You people promote an entire culture of ignorance, generations of idiots that think mere belief in an idea makes it true, generations of fools that try to impose their beliefs and morality on others for no reason other than that they think their god wants them to!

Stem cell research is held back by Christians, gay people can't marry their partners because of Christians, scientific facts like evolution are being buried by myth like creation in schools because of -you guessed it!- CHRISTIANS. Yes, there are those of you that aren't fuckasses, people that keep to themselves. Those people however are HORRIFICALLY OUTNUMBERED by the ones that seek only to dominate our society in any way they can. And you, who are "moderate"? You only give those fuckasses a pass when they pull this shit!

You assholes actually make me appreciate the Muslim extremists; at least they're only trying to kill me! Not your religion, though. Oh no, Christians have to assimilate entire countries and cultures into it's bullshit. You people are like the fucking Borg.

You ask if your bronze age, childish beliefs hurt people? The answer is FUCK YES, THEY DO.

Who the hell are you calling a moderate? I'm no "moderate", I follow the teachings of my God to the best of my ability. And no, I don't give a pass to any-goddamn-body. I'll go bare-knuckle with any man, regardless of his title, especially if he's an intolerant piece of shit that seeks to impose his will.

A priest is not supposed to be a goddamn conqueror, he's supposed to be a spiritual doctor - which means he'll treat anybody without regard to their religious preference, and if one exists that would ostracize a person or group of people for their faults, then he needs to rethink himself and his profession. That goes for any man that would seek to do God's will; lead right or fucking move.

A person that will accept God on their own is the type of person I would prefer to be in the congregation, because they would make it THEIR belief and not have it forced on them. But a person that would believe something else is entitled to it without any bullshit from me. It's called respect for human-beings.


Now I made a long and boring-ass rant, and I regret it because I just had a couple of shots of brandy and I have to piss. So, to shorten it, I'll just say that I do not believe that it is Christianity that is flawed, but the followers that fail to understand it.

From what I'm gathering, you're talking about North American bible-thumper-Christians, whose "beliefs" are worth about as much as skid-marked underwear.



Well, see, God (Speaking for myself, here) does not blow sunshine up the ass of the United States-and ONLY the United States. There is a world out there, and God loves it all. Again, these "true Christians" have twisted their teachings to serve their own twisted ways.



That's not Christianity that does that, it's the fools that misrepresent and manipulate it to cover their insecurities. I see no moral issue with something like stem-cell research, Da Vinci didn't have a problem with splitting a body open to figure out how it worked, Galileo didn't have a problem with defying the church to understand space.

It is my belief that if something can turn the death of one thing into the salvation of another, then it should happen. That is what I was taught from a very young age.

Thanks for your insight, also.


I see where you're coming from, you're one of those good Christians, you oppose hardcore fundamentalism, and only need to give up your basic delusion. But much like I do not differentiate between a child who believes in Santa Claus and one who doesn't, I won't differentiate between you and a generic atheist as long as you support basic things like secular education, scientific progress, separation of church and state, and other basic secular principles. That is really what religion is; a 5 year old that doesn't believe in Santa Claus isn't necesarily more correct (because we all know we can't disprove Santa) than one who doesn't, but a child who asks Santa Claus for toys for an hour every Sunday (goes to church), writes letters to Santa Claus (gives money to the church), and opposes the sharing of games (stem cells) and doesn't believe in addition (evolution), that child, my friend, is sadly misled, and certainly is incorrect, and is hampering human progress at the very least. But a child who believes in the Claus casually has no more problem with me than one who doesn't, one is just better informed, and that's why we hate fundamentalist Christians. It's simply a stereotype; when somebody says "Mexican", you (or at least the average American) think border, when atheists hear Christian, we think Bible thumping anti-evolution, radically conservative, end times, Jesus saves Southern Baptists. Sorry that you don't fit that profile, but sadly enough, many Christians do, and that is the kind of Christianity that atheists oppose. So don't be offended when atheists say Christians are stupid, because that statement doesn't pertain to you, but rather, the stereotypical Christian.

"I'll just say that I do not believe that it is Christianity that is flawed, but the followers that fail to understand it."

Then sadly, I can only conclude that you are a willfully ignorant moron. Go. Read. Your. Fucking. Holy Book.

I see where you're coming from, you're one of those good Christians, you oppose hardcore fundamentalism, and only need to give up your basic delusion. But much like I do not differentiate between a child who believes in Santa Claus and one who doesn't, I won't differentiate between you and a generic atheist as long as you support basic things like secular education, scientific progress, separation of church and state, and other basic secular principles. That is really what religion is; a 5 year old that doesn't believe in Santa Claus isn't necesarily more correct (because we all know we can't disprove Santa) than one who doesn't, but a child who asks Santa Claus for toys for an hour every Sunday (goes to church), writes letters to Santa Claus (gives money to the church), and opposes the sharing of games (stem cells) and doesn't believe in addition (evolution), that child, my friend, is sadly misled, and certainly is incorrect, and is hampering human progress at the very least. But a child who believes in the Claus casually has no more problem with me than one who doesn't, one is just better informed, and that's why we hate fundamentalist Christians. It's simply a stereotype; when somebody says "Mexican", you (or at least the average American) think border, when atheists hear Christian, we think Bible thumping anti-evolution, radically conservative, end times, Jesus saves Southern Baptists. Sorry that you don't fit that profile, but sadly enough, many Christians do, and that is the kind of Christianity that atheists oppose. So don't be offended when atheists say Christians are stupid, because that statement doesn't pertain to you, but rather, the stereotypical Christian.

Well, you should study more about other Christian congregations (other than Catholic) Catholicism was a pathetic misinterpretation of the original teachings of Jesus, which promoted peace and tolerating other people's beliefs. Catholicism has grown away from all that and evolved into a pathetic, oppressive, fucked up religion that somehow became the majority (my guess is because most of the original Christian followers were too dumbshit to understand what they are even getting into in the first place, so would accept any changes without applying any critical thought.) Also, I'd say the portion of all Christians who are hardcore fundamentalists would be 20% and not 95 as you express in your post (but I'll admit it's still a high number considering that's 1 in every 5 of them) Then about 50% of them are moderate 'balanced' Christians who sometimes get offtrack and end up sinning :p but are mostly accepted as primary believers, and finally the other 30% are minor followers (pretty much Atheists) who don't really believe in any omniscient being as a "God" and do whatever the fuck they want but are still moral in their own way and wouldn't do harm to anyone without a good reason (like me.)

Another thing, ANY type of fanatic (Chrisitan fanatic, Atheist fanatic) is equally irrational, ignorant and fucked up. An overzealous Christian would be an extremely oppressive dictatorlike person who would force his beliefs onto others even if it involves physical violence because he believes he is enforcing Gods law. And an overzealous Atheist believes there are no limits and he can do whatever the fuck he wants, with no capacity or recognition for other people's rights (like my father who would beat the hell out of me and my mom whenever he saw fit.)

You don't need a book like the so-called Holy Bible to teach you how to have moral capacity, all it takes is the good ol' free 12 years of basic education and common sense.

Then sadly, I can only conclude that you are a willfully ignorant moron. Go. Read. Your. Fucking. Holy Book.

Oh no! He can grasp metaphor! He must be a willfully ignorant moron!

Fundamentalists, people who don't have a creative spark in their whole brain unless it comes to disenfranchising someone, read a literary work said to be inspired by what its authors believed to be a god as LITERAL. Now, say for example, someone has a brain that functions properly. Do you think this person might be able to recognize blatant metaphor and allegory? If so, they MAY, JUST MAY, be able to be Christian, or just generic theist, believe the Bible to be true, and not be a hateful, ignorant, asshole.

And btw, most of the things 'Christianity' holds society back from is outlawed in Leviticus...the handbook for priesthood...I don't think a Christian is being soft or weak when he doesn't live with total accordance to rabbinical laws that the Bible says aren't even for the gentiles in the first place.

I have a question for both Christians and atheists, though. For atheists - if you believe the people who adhere to religious beliefs are truly of that belief because they are weak minded, emotionally distraught, brainwashed, or some other reason...what makes you think these people could function just because one conclusion their fucked up head came to has been removed? What makes you think their religion did the damage? Didn't they have to be screwed up in the first place to accept ridiculous shit as true?
For Christians - if you believe atheists are immoral, weak spirited, blind to Truth, or any other reason...what makes you think they would accept God? What makes you think they wouldn't have already? Don't they live in the same world as you, in which you found God?

Every time I dream of the day people awaken to the reality that they're just full of shit, my balls twinkle and my penis starts to enlarge.

for Christians - if you believe atheists are immoral, weak spirited, blind to Truth, or any other reason...what makes you think they would accept God? What makes you think they wouldn't have already? Don't they live in the same world as you, in which you found God?

I am not a christian, but have spiritual beliefs. I do not expect anyone to adhere to my beliefs and do not try to share them with anyone unless they want to know. If they choose not to believe in anything, that is their business. I believe what I believe because of MY experiences, and I cannot expect others to believe my beliefs because others have not lived my life.

Then sadly, I can only conclude that you are a willfully ignorant moron. Go. Read. Your. Fucking. Holy Book.


I do. What are you trying to get at?

All atheists are fucking morons (agnostics I dont have as much as a problem with) even Einstein understood that there HAD to be a "great spirit" that created what we see now its just me and people like me choose christianity, and just because you dont belive in a God dosnt mean we are wrong it just means we are accepting that what we see now cant be a product of some bullshit "big bang" therefore there MUST be a god.

BTW I can agree that some christians dont know their Bible but dont lump us all in the blame really falls on the leader of that church.

All atheists are fucking morons (agnostics I dont have as much as a problem with) even Einstein understood that there HAD to be a "great spirit" that created what we see now its just me and people like me choose christianity, and just because you dont belive in a God dosnt mean we are wrong it just means we are accepting that what we see now cant be a product of some bullshit "big bang" therefore there MUST be a god.

BTW I can agree that some christians dont know their Bible but dont lump us all in the blame really falls on the leader of that church.

Jesus Christ I swear I explained all of this in my post, but I'll say it again, when atheists think Christian they naturally assume fundamentalist, much like when fundies think atheists they think of evil wicked people burning in hell (I assume). Einstein also spent years upon years trying to unify gravity and electromagnetism even though there were 2 new forces that were already discovered. The scientists of today are far brighter than Einstein in that they know what's going on in the community, but let's assume you're right for now. Einstein was referring to a deist god, I'll let you Wiki it. That in no way proves your Christian bullshit (bullshit, Jon, or bullfact?). Your OMFGODDIDIT "proof" has been humiliated many times on this forum, so please read up on it before you continue to spew it. The argument from design has been disproven well enough in biology, the only thing you could possibly be referring to is a Fine-tuned Universe. For that, I direct you to The Godess: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe#Naturalistic_possibilities
I made a post about this here (http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?p=8117159#post8117159), hope it clarifies things.
Before you begin to criticize the Big Bang, I ask you, have you taken a college astronomy course on it? Have you even read a Wiki on it? Does all your information come from creationist web sites?

The discovery of the CMB in 1964 led to general acceptance among physicists that the Big Bang is the best model for the origin and evolution of the universe.
Physicists have a high percentage of religious believers, higher than biologists, geneticists, and science in general (photographic memory, so no source :(). So why would you doubt what they say? Where is the proof to back 6 day creationism? I'll be content if you believe the Big Bang was started by a deity or even that the 6 days were a metaphor, but to completely disown the Big Bang is ridiculous and a shame to human progress.

Well, you should study more about other Christian congregations (other than Catholic) Catholicism was a pathetic misinterpretation of the original teachings of Jesus, which promoted peace and tolerating other people's beliefs. Catholicism has grown away from all that and evolved into a pathetic, oppressive, fucked up religion that somehow became the majority (my guess is because most of the original Christian followers were too dumbshit to understand what they are even getting into in the first place, so would accept any changes without applying any critical thought.)

Catholicism was centered in a European city, so it was able to gain Western converts easily. And who are you to judge which religion is a false misinterpritation, for all anybody knows, your beliefs could be wrong and Vishnu sent his son Krishna down from heaven to absolve mankind from its sin (not a metaphor, a true Hindu belief).
Also, I'd say the portion of all Christians who are hardcore fundamentalists would be 20% and not 95as you express in your post (but I'll admit it's still a high number considering that's 1 in every 5 of them) Then about 50% of them are moderate 'balanced' Christians who sometimes get offtrack and end up sinning :p but are mostly accepted as primary believers, and finally the other 30% are minor followers (pretty much Atheists) who don't really believe in any omniscient being as a "God" and do whatever the fuck they want but are still moral in their own way and wouldn't do harm to anyone without a good reason (like me.)
Your statistics may sound good to you, but according to this page (http://www.religioustolerance.org/reac_ter18a.htm), fundies comprise 35% of Christians too bad you didn't cite a source, I would have believed you.
Another thing, ANY type of fanatic (Chrisitan fanatic, Atheist fanatic) is equally irrational, ignorant and fucked up. An overzealous Christian would be an extremely oppressive dictatorlike person who would force his beliefs onto others even if it involves physical violence because he believes he is enforcing Gods law. And an overzealous Atheist believes there are no limits and he can do whatever the fuck he wants, with no capacity or recognition for other people's rights (like my father who would beat the hell out of me and my mom whenever he saw fit.)

Actually, many atheists are more moral than mainline Christians, while there are no statistics to back/falsify this directly, I'll refer you to these nuggets of fact.

Atheist Prison Population
Canadian Prisons 1925 Ca. prisoners Atheist/ Agnostic, non-religious Uniterain 0% 0 of 1,2061 Steiner and Swancara
Prison Population executed for murder at Sing-sing 1925 US Sing-Sing Pen. non-religious 0.33% * "The New Criminology," Max D. Schlapp and Edward E. Smith
Prison Population 1925 US Prisoners convicts without
religious training 0.1% * "The New Criminology," Max D. Schlapp and Edward E. Smith
Prison Population 1997 U.S. Prisoners Atheist 0.209% 156 of 74,731 Federal Bureau of Prisons +

As well as this:

Divorce rates by religion (U.S.)

Religion % have been divorced
Jews 30%
Born-again Christians 27%
Other Christians 24%
Atheists, Agnostics 21%

And this:

The Associated Press computed divorce statistics from data supplied by the U.S. Census Bureau and the National Center for Health. They showed that the highest divorce rates were found in the 'Bible Belt'. "Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama and Oklahoma round out the Top Five in frequency of divorce...the divorce rates in these conservative states are roughly 50 percent above the national average" of 4.2/1000 people.

And The Grande Finale:

"Out of convicted rapists, 57% admitted to reading
pornography. 95% admitted to reading the Bible."

You lose...Good day, Sir. (http://youlose.ytmnd.com/)

Jesus Christ I swear I explained all of this in my post, but I'll say it again, when atheists think Christian they naturally assume fundamentalist, much like when fundies think atheists they think of evil wicked people burning in hell (I assume). Einstein also spent years upon years trying to unify gravity and electromagnetism even though there were 2 new forces that were already discovered. The scientists of today are far brighter than Einstein in that they know what's going on in the community, but let's assume you're right for now. Einstein was referring to a deist god, I'll let you Wiki it. That in no way proves your Christian bullshit (bullshit, Jon, or bullfact?). Your OMFGODDIDIT "proof" has been humiliated many times on this forum, so please read up on it before you continue to spew it. The argument from design has been disproven well enough in biology, the only thing you could possibly be referring to is a Fine-tuned Universe. For that, I direct you to The Godess: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe#Naturalistic_possibilities
I made a post about this here (http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?p=8117159#post8117159), hope it clarifies things.
Before you begin to criticize the Big Bang, I ask you, have you taken a college astronomy course on it? Have you even read a Wiki on it? Does all your information come from creationist web sites?

Physicists have a high percentage of religious believers, higher than biologists, geneticists, and science in general (photographic memory, so no source :(). So why would you doubt what they say? Where is the proof to back 6 day creationism? I'll be content if you believe the Big Bang was started by a deity or even that the 6 days were a metaphor, but to completely disown the Big Bang is ridiculous and a shame to human progress.

Your views on astronomy and evolution are dead on as far as I am concerned. Anyone who doesnt believe that evolution is a fact are simply lying to themselves by trying to literally interpret the bible.

I do not see how extremely religious people cannot reconcile the big bang and evolution as part of a grand plan. Unless maybe it has something to do with genetic defects or something like that.

Catholicism was centered in a European city, so it was able to gain Western converts easily. And who are you to judge which religion is a false misinterpritation, for all anybody knows, your beliefs could be wrong and Vishnu sent his son Krishna down from heaven to absolve mankind from its sin (not a metaphor, a true Hindu belief).

That wasn't the point, I'm saying Protestant and Orthodox are far less oppressive Christian congregations than Catholicism is. They believe in personal freedom, for example Greece may be the first country where abortion was legal, they are the origins of Orthodox anyway.

Your statistics may sound good to you, but according to this page (http://www.religioustolerance.org/reac_ter18a.htm), fundies comprise 35% of Christians too bad you didn't cite a source, I would have believed you.

I didn't present these statistics as factual, they are my estimation based on all the people I've seen in my city. I figured 35% was a more accurate number anyway. Also, I don't live in the USA.

Actually, many atheists are more moral than mainline Christians, while there are no statistics to back/falsify this directly, I'll refer you to these nuggets of fact.

True.

As well as this:

And this:

And The Grande Finale:

HOLY SHIT! That is interesting, 95% of rapists read the bible? Damn! But, I'm finding it a little hard to believe that 0.2% of prisoners are Atheists... you sure this is accurate? Maybe many atheists BECOME Christians during their time.

You lose...Good day, Sir. (http://youlose.ytmnd.com/)

Are you too dumb to deduce from my posts that I am an atheist? I just said I don't believe in any type of extreme including extreme atheism, because any type of zeal would be as irrational as Christian fundies are.

its all the same you numb-nuts. You believe in god...cool. You believe in science...cool. People are stupid...no shit. Religion is about finding inner peace, its just the stupid fucks that make things difficult. And by stupid fucks i mean all you fundementalist christians, fanatic muslims, and asshole atheists that just want to shit all over everything. Why does it matter what other people think? just live you're own god damn life.



ps. best way to beat a christian is to prove him wrong with his own logic.

Why does it matter what other people think? just live you're own god damn life.

I approve.

That wasn't the point, I'm saying Protestant and Orthodox are far less oppressive Christian congregations than Catholicism is. They believe in personal freedom, for example Greece may be the first country where abortion was legal, they are the origins of Orthodox anyway.

Greece the origins of Orthodoxy? Read up on your shit, before the Great Schism, there were 4 Christian centers, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Rome. Not a single Greek city. Orthodox? No, the Christians were first called apostles in Antioch. http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/church_history/audi_first_called_christians.htm

Maybe many atheists BECOME Christians during their time.

Prisons and drug rehab centers have the highest rates of conversion to Christianity of any institution state or otherwise. Fact

Are you too dumb to deduce from my posts that I am an atheist? I just said I don't believe in any type of extreme including extreme atheism, because any type of zeal would be as irrational as Christian fundies are.
Sorry, I can't tell where one post in response to a retarded fundie ends and another in response to a semi-intelligent (although I did assume you were Xian) user ends.

Greece the origins of Orthodoxy? Read up on your shit, before the Great Schism, there were 4 Christian centers, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Rome. Not a single Greek city. Orthodox? No, the Christians were first called apostles in Antioch. http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/church_history/audi_first_called_christians.htm

Well I admit I'm pretty ignorant on that topic, I'm just saying what one Orthodox buddy of mine said: that Orthodox and Protestant are far less oppressive than the Catholics, in fact: they HATE each other. Many countries bore much animosity towards Serbia because they were Protestant/Orthodox such as France, England and United States got pissed and bombed them in 1999 when they refused to help them fight against Muslims. In fact, the dispute between Catholic and Protestant are very similar to the atheism vs. christianity -- the Protestants don't believe in many of controlling and quasi-philosophical nature of them scum Catholics who believe they are better than everybody else and everyone must succumb to their wrong beliefs.

Sadly, Catholicism is the majority (you can't expect the majority to be intelligent, could you? So what can you expect) -- if it wasn't, I wouldn't have a problem with Christianity in general.

Prisons and drug rehab centers have the highest rates of conversion to Christianity of any institution state or otherwise. Fact

Well then I guess most of them were atheist at the time they committed the crime, they just converted to Christianity when they got rehabilitated.

Sorry, I can't tell where one post in response to a retarded fundie ends and another in response to a semi-intelligent (although I did assume you were Xian) user ends.

Ehh??

Well I admit I'm pretty ignorant on that topic, I'm just saying what one Orthodox buddy of mine said: that Orthodox and Protestant are far less oppressive than the Catholics, in fact: they HATE each other. Many countries bore much animosity towards Serbia because they were Protestant/Orthodox such as France, England and United States got pissed and bombed them in 1999 when they refused to help them fight against Muslims. In fact, the dispute between Catholic and Protestant are very similar to the atheism vs. christianity -- the Protestants don't believe in many of controlling and quasi-philosophical nature of them scum Catholics who believe they are better than everybody else and everyone must succumb to their wrong beliefs.

Sadly, Catholicism is the majority (you can't expect the majority to be intelligent, could you? So what can you expect) -- if it wasn't, I wouldn't have a problem with Christianity in general.



Well then I guess most of them were atheist at the time they committed the crime, they just converted to Christianity when they got rehabilitated.



Ehh??

Protestantism and Orthodoxy are only linked in that they both oppose Catholicism. Referring to the U.S., Catholicism is the single biggest religion, but there are more Protestants than Catholics. That is, Catholics outnumber Baptists, Episcopaleans, Mormons, Presbyterians, and Lutherans, but not when they are combined (and note, they are only allied in the sense that they hate Catholics and have a ridiculously high % of fundamentalists). I just realized this: even if the majority of prisoners are Christian, that still doesn't mean they're bad because of it; much like Stalin didn't kill in the name of atheism, neither do prisoners who happen to be Christians. Just thought you'd like to know. I personally don't have a problem with Catholics, because most are secular/agnostics and only go to church on Easter and Xmas. They also have a low percentage of fundamentalism and don't take up the airwaves as much as the Protestants. Catholicism has actually pragmatized quite nicely since John Paul II, better relations with other sects, metaphorical hell, even stupidity is now a gift from god :D. Serbia is Orthodox only, Serbs are Slavs, and hence, orthodox; I would know, I used to go to an orthodox church where a majority was held by the Serbs and Russians. I'm pretty sure those countries bombed Serbia because of Milosevic and all the stuff he was doing to the Muslims rather than lack of violence towards them, but who knows, I may have my timetable off.

Oh, and England and the U.S. are Protestant; France is completely secular, although the large Muslim influx may change things in the future. Also, I was referring to a post I wrote to the other guy who was arguing with me, but has apparently left.

Something like this happened to me today. This guy at my school asked me what Pastafarianism was about (I was reading the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster) and I explained it to him. He said that it was a load of shit, so I told him there is more "proof" backing up Pastafarianism than there is for Christianity. I explained this to him, and he told me that if I don't believe in Jesus, he would kick my ass. Being the small, scrawny guy that I am, facing a 6"9' 300lb redneck, I agreed that Christianity was awesome.

-NS

Something like this happened to me today. This guy at my school asked me what Pastafarianism was about (I was reading the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster) and I explained it to him. He said that it was a load of shit, so I told him there is more "proof" backing up Pastafarianism than there is for Christianity. I explained this to him, and he told me that if I don't believe in Jesus, he would kick my ass. Being the small, scrawny guy that I am, facing a 6"9' 300lb redneck, I agreed that Christianity was awesome.

-NS

And one more thing: Only a bitch won't take an ass kicking for what he believes. And only a bastard will look to kick an ass for what he believes.

It's bad enough that bastard got his way...but you took the bitch route and didn't even stand for what you believe just because you'd get bruised up.

That moron who quoted those statistics need a bitch slap from logic because maybe you have convinently forgotten athiests are a small minority when compared to people of faith so logically that would dictate that the same majority would show up in other statistics.

What I see Atheists doing alot is attacking the logic behind Christian beliefs and not the actual Morals. This is probably one of the reasons you will get replies like "God works in mysterious ways". Good luck attacking the actual morals of Christian beliefs too. I mean lets see anyone debunk being a nice person to everyone even people out to hurt you. How about someone actually attacks Christianity without attacking God. How about you attack it's moral base if it's so bad afterall. The beliefs like Turn the other cheek, Respect your neighbors, Don't lie, Don't steal. Attack some of these ideas because at the core this is what Christianity is all about.

What I see Atheists doing alot is attacking the logic behind Christian beliefs and not the actual Morals. This is probably one of the reasons you will get replies like "God works in mysterious ways". Good luck attacking the actual morals of Christian beliefs too. I mean lets see anyone debunk being a nice person to everyone even people out to hurt you. How about someone actually attacks Christianity without attacking God. How about you attack it's moral base if it's so bad afterall. The beliefs like Turn the other cheek, Respect your neighbors, Don't lie, Don't steal. Attack some of these ideas because at the core this is what Christianity is all about.

*Waits for someone to talk about the misconseption that the Christian Bible constantly demeans women*

. How about someone actually attacks Christianity without attacking God. How about you attack it's moral base if it's so bad afterall.

An "attack" on the "moral" base of Christianity? Don't mind if I do:

Christians who believe in an omnipotent god worship a god who needlessly allows horrific atrocities to happen. Worshiping such a despicable being is the height if immorality.

Nobody is saying that all of Christianity is immoral or bad; we're saying a substantial part of it is. When their whole existence - above all those nice things you mention like turning the other cheek and respecting their neighbors - is based around the worship of a supernatural being that has all the time, energy, resources and skill to end all suffering in the world in a heartbeat, yet deliberately doesn't, then they aren't even close to reaching the moral high ground; they are setting a new low.

An "attack" on the "moral" base of Christianity? Don't mind if I do:

Christians who believe in an omnipotent god worship a god who needlessly allows horrific atrocities to happen. Worshiping such a despicable being is the height if immorality.

Nobody is saying that all of Christianity is immoral or bad; we're saying a substantial part of it is. When their whole existence - above all those nice things you mention like turning the other cheek and respecting their neighbors - is based around the worship of a supernatural being that has all the time, energy, resources and skill to end all suffering in the world in a heartbeat, yet deliberately doesn't, then they aren't even close to reaching the moral high ground; they are setting a new low.

Wow somehow im still wondering if your a complete dipshit or a complete moron because you somehow can not grasp free will.

Wow somehow im still wondering if your a complete dipshit or a complete moron because you somehow can not grasp free will.

If he were omnipotent then, by definition, he must have the power to preserve free will while at the same time stopping these atrocities. Not to mention the fact that there are a humongous amount of things which have absolutely nothing to do with free will; hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes...

Do yourself a favor and shut the fuck up because you're clearly way over your head here.

Do tell, Rust, why an omnipotent god would be morally obligated to help out people down on their luck. Such an arguement you posted would seem to me to depend on such an obligation to exist, lest it not be immoral to worship such a figure.

That moron who quoted those statistics need a bitch slap from logic because maybe you have convinently forgotten athiests are a small minority when compared to people of faith so logically that would dictate that the same majority would show up in other statistics.

Ironic.

The problem, which you're too ignorant to notice, is not that they are still the majority in those statistics it's that they are disproportionately so. So if, for example, 80% of the population is Christian yet 95% of inmates are Christian, then they represent a disproportionate amount. That's a problem.

Do tell, Rust, why an omnipotent god would be morally obligated to help out people down on their luck. Such an arguement you posted would seem to me to depend on such an obligation to exist, lest it not be immoral to worship such a figure.

Why the fuck would it depend on that god being morally obligated to do such? It's the fact that he doesn't do so that is a problem. If he doesn't have such an obligation, then that only helps to support my point: what a despicable being.

Not to mention that if we're talking about the Christian god, then he - supposedly - has the inclination to do so.

And you youself are assisting in solving the Darfur genocide?

I cant say much for any other gods, but the Christian God doesnt exactly owe the world anything. Directly aiding would obviously negate the entire religion anyway in that nothing is of faith anymore.

Ironic.

The problem, which you're too ignorant to notice, is not that they are still the majority in those statistics it's that they are disproportionately so. So if, for example, 80% of the population is Christian yet 95% of inmates are Christian, then they represent a disproportionate amount. That's a problem.

The odds of you being in jail isnt alot think of it as a wheel (like the one in "Wheel of Fortune") you spin it the odds of it landing on a person of faith is much higher then it landing on someone not of faith because the survey fails to say where the took this survey how many prisoners in that prison they surveyed and what crimes that person they surveyed did it is just stupid to assume that the percentage can be exactly right.

And you youself are assisting in solving the Darfur genocide?

What the fuck does that have to do with anything?

That being said, I do like how you are comparing my abilities to assist in solve the Darfur genocide to that of an omnipotent god. I'm flattered.


I cant say much for any other gods, but the Christian God doesnt exactly owe the world anything. Directly aiding would obviously negate the entire religion anyway in that nothing is of faith anymore.

Again, this has nothing to do with "owing" anything because the point still stands with or without any such obligation. However, (I edited my previous post to say this, maybe I didn't do so in time) since we're talking about the Christian god, then he - supposedly - has the inclination to do so. You have no point.

Why do you "assume" that such a god would have such an inclination?

I was simply comparing your efforts toward Darfur against a godhead's. Since we are assuming god is some evil bastard, and you are supposedly not doing anything for the Darfurians, you are just as bad.

The odds of you being in jail isnt alot think of it as a wheel (like the one in "Wheel of Fortune") you spin it the odds of it landing on a person of faith is much higher then it landing on someone not of faith

Hence why the proportion should still be preserved! We would expect to see the same percentage if there was no difference. We do see a difference, there are less atheists in prison in a per capita basis than Christians.

because the survey fails to say where the took this survey how many prisoners in that prison they surveyed and what crimes that person they surveyed did it is just stupid to assume that the percentage can be exactly right.

1. The only thing they do not mention is what crimes they committed, the rest is mentioned. They surveyed 74, 731 inmates from prisons across the U.S. They do not mention the crimes because that wasn't the purpose of the study.

2. This doesn't change the fact that your initial comment was stupid. The problem is not that the "same majority" is shown in the statistics, is that the proportions are wrong.

Why do you "assume" that such a god would have such an inclination?

It follows from the definition of the Christian god: an omnipotent and omnibenevolent being.

However, like I already said, this is irrelevant because my point still stands with our without obligation, and with or without an inclination.

If he has neither the obligation nor the inclination, then all the more reason to despise such a being.


I was simply comparing your efforts toward Darfur against a godhead's. Since we are assuming god is some evil bastard, and you are supposedly not doing anything for the Darfurians, you are just as bad.

1. You have no fucking clue what I do and do not do for the Darfurians.

2. Whether I'm an evil bastard or not does not change whether the Christian god is. This is just a sad attempt at a red-herring.

Hence why the proportion should still be preserved! We would expect to see the same percentage if there was no difference. We do see a difference, there are less atheists in prison in a per capita basis than Christians.



1. The only thing they do not mention is what crimes they committed, the rest is mentioned. They surveyed 74, 731 inmates from prisons across the U.S. They do not mention the crimes because that wasn't the purpose of the study.

2. This doesn't change the fact that your initial comment was stupid. The problem is not that the "same majority" is shown in the statistics, is that the proportions are wrong.

I looked back and i did not see a source.

BTW Arguing with me about statistics is a waste of time because I believe that ALL surveys are bullshit unless they are talking about a specific city or state.

You assume incorrectly. The notion that the Christian god sends people to hell excludes him from being omnibenevolent.

So, why does selective benevolence make someone an evil bastard? Surely it isnt because of your opinion on what is immoral and not.

I looked back and i did not see a source.

BTW Arguing with me about statistics is a waste of time because I believe that ALL surveys are bullshit unless they are talking about a specific city or state.

Then look back again.

As for arguing with you being a waste of time, I agree. You're a moron, hence arguing with you is a waste of time; that you believe all surveys are bullshit unless they are talking about a specific city or state just helps to confirm this.

However, this doesn't change the idiocy inherent in your initial, and ironic, comment. Your initial objection was utterly wrong.

You assume incorrectly. The notion that the Christian god sends people to hell excludes him from being omnibenevolent.

According to you, not according to a whole slew of other Christians.

I'm not going to spend any more time on this red-herring of yours. As I've already explained to you, this is irrelevant. Whether he has the obligation or not does not change anything.


So, why does selective benevolence make someone an evil bastard? Surely it isnt because of your opinion on what is immoral and not.

Are you suggesting that deliberately allowing billions of people to suffer is moral?

Just because i dont like something dosnt prove im a moron.

It isnt moral, but that doesnt necessarilly mean it is wrong, especially since you fail to realize what resources he supposedly gives to Christian nations.

No, he is not immoral for this. The sheer fact that nations arent doing more that he supposedly enabled is immoral.

I dont want to lump you in with Sammy at being oblivious to reasoning, so dont make me. You see incapable of seeing exactly why I posted this at all. Your arguements assumed that the Christian god is omnibenevolent. Because he is not (anyone who denies this knows next to nothing about the Christian faith. Its not something about my word vs theirs, its God Himself's word) omnibenevolent, your arguement against him labelling him as immoral is invalid.

Very ironic you make judgement calls on a religion of whose basic tenents you know nothing of.

It isnt moral, but that doesnt necessarilly mean it is wrong, especially since you fail to realize what resources he supposedly gives to Christian nations.

If it isn't moral then what is it? That you even dare to say that deliberatly allowing suffering to occur is "not wrong" is pretty fucking disgusting, and shows just how low you're willing to go.

Hell, that you even admit that it isn't moral helps my point... I'm attacking the notion that the foundation of Christianity is wholly moral! Thank you.

As for the "resources he supposedly gives to Christians nations", how the hell do you know I "fail to realize that", and more importantly, what the fuck does that have to do with anything? That you think he does other things that might be considered moral doesn't refute anything.


I dont want to lump you in with Sammy at being oblivious to reasoning, so dont make me.Like you have any say on what "reasoning" is :rolleyes:


You see incapable of seeing exactly why I posted this at all. Your arguements assumed that the Christian god is omnibenevolent. Because he is not (anyone who denies this knows next to nothing about the Christian faith. Its not something about my word vs theirs, its God Himself's word) omnibenevolent, your arguement against him labelling him as immoral is invalid.How many times must I explain to you that his omnibenevolence is irrelevant! His omnibenevolence would only serve to show that he has an obligation to stop suffering- something that I've already told you is not necessary for my argument. Whether he is obligated to stop suffering is not important, it's the fact that he doesn't do so that is a problem.

If he's not obligated to do so and does not have even an inclination to do so, then all the more reason to despise such a being.

So no, my argument doesn't assume that he is omnibenevolent. You want it to because you're grasping at straws. I only assume that he is omnipotent and has the power to stop some, if not all, the suffering that is occurring (or has occured). If he does, and deliberately decides not to, then that is nothing close to moral; it's immoral.



Very ironic you make judgement calls on a religion of whose basic tenents you know nothing of.I know nothing of its tenets because you believe that the Christian god isn't omnibenevolent? What an incredibly stupid thing to say.

A quick search on google netted me quite a few people who "know nothing of Christianity"... Like the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry and Fr. Hauser. A professor theology, director of the master's program in Christian Spirituality and rector of the Jesuit Community at Creighton. (https://people.creighton.edu/%7Erjh98250/LovingGod.html)

Hell, the whole 'argument from evil' rests on the idea that the classical definition of god, in specific the Judeo-Christian ones, is one that is inclined to do good; hence why there is a need for apologetics in the first place!

Just because i dont like something dosnt prove im a moron.

No, believing ' that ALL surveys are bullshit unless they are talking about a specific city or state' does.

Why should I have to live my life according to some retarded book or so called God that isn't even real. You know the way I see it is a minority of persuasive people created the bible to control the majority of gullible people, and also to enforce their morals onto other people.

I think that religion is sort of a way for people to put God over morals and logic, like for instance christians say that if you lie or steal, you will go to hell. That is basically another way of controlling the masses. In medieval times christians would hang people for things like witchcraft, and we all know that witchcraft isn't real.

My point is that christians go to such extremes to prove that someones idea is the correct course of action over common sense and logic, therfore it is actually... *big surprise*... fanactic christians in the wrong. Arguing with them is pointless because the person the created God and the religion made sure to provide reasons why God is real and all that, even if it is wrong (such as God created the universe because he wanted to, or something similar to that). The person or people that created God also made sure to see through every loophole there is to erase the doubt in peoples minds that God isn't real.

Of course, this dosen't mean religion is completly wrong or false. People use religion to strengthen their lives for the better, and there are people similar to the said people that help those people to overcome obstacles in their lives, making religion a way of again bettering peoples lives.

So basically if you are hating christians, you should probably hate the fanatical christians (the ones that murder children for God, and sadistically enforce their beliefs onto other people, etc.), not the ones that use it a way to make their lives a little better, and less complicated.

This was by no means meant to offend anybody, I just wanted to tell people what I think about God.:)

I'm tired and I am going to go to bed. Night ya'll.

I looked back and i did not see a source.

BTW Arguing with me about statistics is a waste of time because I believe that ALL surveys are bullshit unless they are talking about a specific city or state.

Actually the source was 3rd link when you Google "atheist statistics"

The only reason I couldn't post an actual site is because the site had backslashes in it, which would fuck up the {QUOTE} tag. But since you are too lazy to actually google the fucking thing, I'll provide you with a link:

http://www.atheistempire.com/reference/stats/

Oh, and btw the prison statistics showed countries and even specific prisons as statistics; these were the loactions:

Canadian Prisons [16.2% of canadians were atheists/agnostics in 2001, so there IS a huge disproportion in these statistics, but this only proves that atheists tend to stay out of prisons, who knows, it could be the OMFGATHEISTCONSPIRAZEEEEEE]
Prison Population executed for murder at Sing-sing [prison in NYC]
Prison Population [the only one you could argue against from your "stats are bullshit" perspective]

If it isn't moral then what is it? That you even dare to say that deliberatly allowing suffering to occur is "not wrong" is pretty fucking disgusting, and shows just how low you're willing to go.

Hell, that you even admit that it isn't moral helps my point... I'm attacking the notion that the foundation of Christianity is wholly moral! Thank you.

As for the "resources he supposedly gives to Christians nations", how the hell do you know I "fail to realize that", and more importantly, what the fuck does that have to do with anything? That you think he does other things that might be considered moral doesn't refute anything.

Like you have any say on what "reasoning" is :rolleyes:


How many times must I explain to you that his omnibenevolence is irrelevant! His omnibenevolence would only serve to show that he has an obligation to stop suffering- something that I've already told you is not necessary for my argument. Whether he is obligated to stop suffering is not important, it's the fact that he doesn't do so that is a problem.

According to whom? You? Why are you now above a supposed god? Why are you the divine measure of good and evil?


If he's not obligated to do so and does not have even an inclination to do so, then all the more reason to despise such a being.

So no, my argument doesn't assume that he is omnibenevolent. You want it to because you're grasping at straws. I only assume that he is omnipotent and has the power to stop some, if not all, the suffering that is occurring (or has occured). If he does, and deliberately decides not to, then that is nothing close to moral; it's immoral.


This goes directly back to the tenents. One of the very first things you would learn by reading the Bible is that sin has cnsequences and will be judged here on earth and in the afterlife. Who are you to say that tragedies around the world are not divine judgement at all?

But thanks to the likes of Pat Robertson, you will no doubt lump me in with his ilk and merrilly disregard anything else I may say.

I know nothing of its tenets because you believe that the Christian god isn't omnibenevolent? What an incredibly stupid thing to say.

A quick search on google netted me quite a few people who "know nothing of Christianity"... Like the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry and Fr. Hauser. A professor theology, director of the master's program in Christian Spirituality and rector of the Jesuit Community at Creighton. (https://people.creighton.edu/%7Erjh98250/LovingGod.html)

Hell, the whole 'argument from evil' rests on the idea that the classical definition of god, in specific the Judeo-Christian ones, is one that is inclined to do good; hence why there is a need for apologetics in the first place!

Its too bad that no one speaks out about how moronic all this you are saying sounds. I have already said this isnt my word against someone else's. The sheer fact that the Christian God sends people to hell completely excludes him from being omnibenevolent under your own definition.

You cant have it both ways. You cant say God isnt omnibenevolent and then use a source that supposedly says he is (if you cared to read the source, omnibenevolent doesnt appear anywhere in the article.

Nevertheless, Christian apologetics exist because of morons like yourself that go about preaching what they do not understand and bring others down with them that can make an intelligent choice between their beliefs and preconceived notions as you do not. It makes no difference to me what you say as long as it isnt ass-backwards WRONG. You hold me to that same standard, do you not? This isnt the first time we have had a discussion. I know what you like to call me out on.

You are so far removed from reason that you dont care what someone who knows more about Christianity than you has to say. But I dont care. The only reason I post in this hellhole is when you or some other mindless zombie posts ignorant things about my faith that are false and slanderous. Thankfully there are people out there that listen to reasoning and dont fall back every time on their preconceived notions.

I find it funny, to be honest, that you dont like hearing things about yourself. It tickles me to no end that you completely lose your mind when I enter it and deduce your thinking.

For your own reference, this is the post I have been refering to all along:
An "attack" on the "moral" base of Christianity? Don't mind if I do:

Christians who believe in an omnipotent god worship a god who needlessly allows horrific atrocities to happen. Worshiping such a despicable being is the height if immorality.

Nobody is saying that all of Christianity is immoral or bad; we're saying a substantial part of it is. When their whole existence - above all those nice things you mention like turning the other cheek and respecting their neighbors - is based around the worship of a supernatural being that has all the time, energy, resources and skill to end all suffering in the world in a heartbeat, yet deliberately doesn't, then they aren't even close to reaching the moral high ground; they are setting a new low.

Isnt it funny how your morals are subjective to only yourself and are stacked against any godhead? Who really has the the preconceived notions?

According to whom? You? Why are you now above a supposed god? Why are you the divine measure of good and evil?

Huh? If you're going to quote a whole bunch of my points, completely ignore them, and then ask me such a meaningless and vague question, you could at least be specific to what the hell you're referring to.


This goes directly back to the tenents. One of the very first things you would learn by reading the Bible is that sin has cnsequences and will be judged here on earth and in the afterlife. Who are you to say that tragedies around the world are not divine judgement at all?Where the hell have I said it wasn't divine judgment? Are you going to keep making an utter fool out of yourself by continuously putting words in my mouth?

Whether this suffering is divine judgment or not, doesn't change a single thing. He has the power to carry out divine judgment without resulting to such measures. The point still stands.


But thanks to the likes of Pat Robertson, you will no doubt lump me in with his ilk and merrilly disregard anything else I may say.I don't need Pat Robertson to lump you into anything, you're doing a mighty fine job of it yourself by continuously bringing up irrelevant bullshit, putting words in my mouth, and simply evading everything I've said.


Its too bad that no one speaks out about how moronic all this you are saying sounds. I have already said this isnt my word against someone else's. The sheer fact that the Christian God sends people to hell completely excludes him from being omnibenevolent under your own definition.1. It is your word against someone else's because you've proved absolutely nothing else!

2. I distinctly said that the Christian god is supposedly - as in, I don't necessarily agree - omnibenevolent. Whether he is or he isn't doesn't change my argument as I've repeatedly explained to you. If he isn't and doesn't have an inclination to stop this suffering, then all the more reason why he is despicable, if he is, then there is an obvious contradiction. Either way, this helps my argument.

You're fixating on the issue of omnibenevolent because you're desperate. You think that by attacking me there and proving me "wrong" there, you've dismantled what I've said, but the reality is you wouldn't be close. He not being omnibenevolent only helps my case!


You cant have it both ways. You cant say God isnt omnibenevolent and then use a source that supposedly says he is (if you cared to read the source, omnibenevolent doesnt appear anywhere in the article.I said that he is supposedly omnibenevolent, and I provided sources that argue just that. If you cared to read the source, you'll see he uses the term "all-loving" instead of omnibenevolent. The same applies.



Isnt it funny how your morals are subjective to only yourself and are stacked against any godhead? Who really has the the preconceived notions?Isn't it funny how you've evaded every single point I've made? How you result to saying "it's not moral... but it's not wrong" ( :rolleyes: ) because you just can't admit how disgusting it is for an omnipotent being to deliberately allow rape, murder, famine and disease to exist on a daily basis? It is not funny actually, it's sad.

(Rust's entire post)

Don't forget the extravagant love and care he shows to the millions of innocent African children by letting them starve and die every second. Not to mention sicker things being done to them such as being burned alive and randomly killed, tortured, eaten by cannibals etc.

But I'm a christian, I believe in him, that he's a righteous God, know why? Cuz I hate niggers! :rolleyes:

Whether this suffering is divine judgment or not, doesn't change a single thing. He has the power to carry out divine judgment without resulting to such measures. The point still stands.

And yet he supposedly does anyway. He could send divine judgement by turning you inside out and parading you arund on camera for the world to see what he can do, but he doesnt.

Whats your point?

You're fixating on the issue of omnibenevolent because you're desperate. You think that by attacking me there and proving me "wrong" there, you've dismantled what I've said, but the reality is you wouldn't be close. He not being omnibenevolent only helps my case!

I'm the one putting words in people's mouths?

I said that he is supposedly omnibenevolent, and I provided sources that argue just that. If you cared to read the source, you'll see he uses the term "all-loving" instead of omnibenevolent. The same applies.

If your source had any implication whatsoever on reality, you are still wrong. "All-loving" and "omnibenevolent" dont have the same meaning. In cntext of your source, "all-loving" is used as nothing mre than meaningless rhetoric.

If you were to read between the lines and figure out WHY he uses the term, it stems from loving all people.

However omnibenevolence implies that God loves everyone limitlessly. However I have already gone over why this is false. Thus "all-loving" is "omnibenevolent" without some attributes; they are not the same thing.

Isn't it funny how you've evaded every single point I've made? How you result to saying "it's not moral... but it's not wrong" ( ) because you just can't admit how disgusting it is for an omnipotent being to deliberately allow rape, murder, famine and disease to exist on a daily basis? It is not funny actually, it's sad.

So if I rape, murder, steal, etc and the exact same thing happens to me, God should bail me out? I mean, its the moral thing to do, right? RIGHT?

I was unaware, Father, that your morals were not in grayscale.

So tell me, is going to the bathroom or walking to the store moral or immoral? Can somthing be not moral but not immoral?

So, let me attempt to satisfy you (if you dont ignore this too)

Why the fuck would it depend on that god being morally obligated to do such? It's the fact that he doesn't do so that is a problem. If he doesn't have such an obligation, then that only helps to support my point: what a despicable being.

Not to mention that if we're talking about the Christian god, then he - supposedly - has the inclination to do so.

So if he does do something himself, the entire religion he has set up crumbles, because there is no more hands of God coming out of the sky to wipe out his foes. He does not reveal himself, lest his precence not be experienced through faith, which is the whole point of Christianity.

So, I submited he does something by proxy through supposedly "Christian nations"... which sit idly on their hands...

Or he could do nothing, like you belive he has done. So tell me again, exactly WHY this is despicable for him to do so? I would be quite interested in hearing where this inclination to help people may be found in the Bible.

It seems that your whole speil on hating god stems from your notion that God has some mystery inclination and that it is despicable for him to help people whom he has already supposedly sacrificed his own son to save.

Satisfied that I answered?

And yet he supposedly does anyway. He could send divine judgement by turning you inside out and parading you arund on camera for the world to see what he can do, but he doesnt.

Whats your point?

You're asking my point after all this time? If you don't know my point, even after I've maid it painfully clear all this time, then why don't you do everyone a favor and stop wasting our time.

My point? That he deliberately chooses to allow suffering, and that this is despicable. That this suffering is the result of "divine judgment" is irrelevant because he could have chosen to carry out "divine judgment" without any suffering. Hence, my point still stands whether the suffering be "divine judgment" or not.



I'm the one putting words in people's mouths?Yes. I wasn't putting words in your mouth, I was explaining your motive; the only motive I can see since you're fixating on "omnibenevolence" when that does not refute my point in the least.


If your source had any implication whatsoever on reality, you are still wrong. "All-loving" and "omnibenevolent" dont have the same meaning. In cntext of your source, "all-loving" is used as nothing mre than meaningless rhetoric.

If you were to read between the lines and figure out WHY he uses the term, it stems from loving all people.

However omnibenevolence implies that God loves everyone limitlessly. However I have already gone over why this is false. Thus "all-loving" is "omnibenevolent" without some attributes; they are not the same thing.Now you're putting words in the mouth of the author. He never once says that he believes him to be "all-loving" because he loves all people.

But even then, as I've already explained to you numerous times, this is irrelevant:

Let's assume that my understanding of god's omnibenevolence was wrong for the sake of argument. Great! Now god has neither the obligation nor the inclination to stop suffering, even more reasons why he is the epitome of immorality.


So if I rape, murder, steal, etc and the exact same thing happens to me, God should bail me out? I mean, its the moral thing to do, right? RIGHT?God could have stopped you from raping, killing and stealing, as well as any case of that happening to you. Yes, stopping you from murdering, raping and stealing, and anyone raping, stealing or killing you would be the moral thing to do.


So tell me, is going to the bathroom or walking to the store moral or immoral? Can somthing be not moral but not immoral?Amoral: Having nothing to do with morality.

Are you suggesting that deliberately allowing people to suffer... deliberately allowing rape, murder, and famine is amoral? That Hitler and his Holocaust (which serves as a very good analogy, regardless of how cliche it might be) was an amoral act? :rolleyes:



So if he does do something himself, the entire religion he has set up crumbles, because there is no more hands of God coming out of the sky to wipe out his foes. He does not reveal himself, lest his precence not be experienced through faith, which is the whole point of Christianity.1. He has the power to reveal himself without it hampering belief through faith.

2. There are numerous cases of the Christian god making miracles, or wiping off whole cities through 'fire and brimstone' - apparently not giving a fuck about the observer's belief in him through faith.

3. That is not an absolute requirement. Christians are called to believe in Jesus as their Lord and Savior. Whether they believe it through faith, or because they were visited by Jesus in a miracle, does not change this. It might be more pious of the person, and seen as more favorable by the Christian community, if the individual believes through sheer faith alone, but that's not a requirement.

4. Your objection also erroneously assumes that the only way to stop suffering is through ways that us humans beings would know about. That's not the case. He could have easily made it so that hurricane Katrina, for example, didn't form in the first place.


So, I submited he does something by proxy through supposedly "Christian nations"... which sit idly on their hands...So? Let's assume that is true, even though you have no evidence to substantiate that.

What does that change? Nothing. He could do more, infinitely more. That he chose Christian nations which he knew would 'sit idly on their hands' helps my case! He would, by proxy, be sitting idly on his hands himself!


So tell me again, exactly WHY this is despicable for him to do so? I would be quite interested in hearing where this inclination to help people may be found in the Bible.

It seems that your whole speil on hating god stems from your notion that God has some mystery inclination and that it is despicable for him to help people whom he has already supposedly sacrificed his own son to save.

I already told you, whether there is an inclination or not, does not refute my point. If you want, let's assume there is no inclination: Great, then that's yet another reason why he is a despicable being.

We would be left with a god that deliberately has no inclination to do good, and sits idly on his hand while rape, murder, famine, as well as a long list of other atrocities, continue.

First, I'll take on omni-benevolence:

Does it make a government evil to not brainwash its populace into mechanized reactions so that there is absolutely no murder, rape, theft, vandalism, etc...even knowing that if they don't, murders, rapes, thefts, and all other crimes will be committed, even if 'outlawed'?

What is more moral? Giving complete choice, knowing that suffering will exist along with pleasure - or giving complacency, knowing that neither pleasure nor suffering will exist.

And also, is it a spouse's fault for their partner choosing to kill a person with a gun gifted on an anniversary? Would it be the spouse's fault if they had the option of buying a gun that couldn't fire, but rather chose one with the capability of being used constructively AND destructively?

Of course, there is the argument of omniscience - Is a parent doing wrong to let their child hang out with friends, knowing their child is going to make bad decisions?

Then, of course, the argument of omnipotence: Is it wrong for a government to create laws, knowing that people will break them? Is it wrong for a government to enforce laws, having created them with the knowledge they would be broken?

I hope whoever reads this puts enough thought into it to see what I'm really saying.

I doubt it though, so I'll say this before I leave, hoping it will crack an eye or two, helping them fully open:
Some choose to suffer in peace, some choose to suffer in chaos.

Does it make a government evil to not brainwash its populace into mechanized reactions so that there is absolutely no murder, rape, theft, vandalism, etc...even knowing that if they don't, murders, rapes, thefts, and all other crimes will be committed, even if 'outlawed'?

That comparison doesn't work.

The choice, when speaking of an omnipotent god, isn't between "mechanized reactions and no suffering", or "free reactions and suffering". An omnipotent god must be able to guarantee, by virtue of its omnipotence, both freedom to act and a lack of suffering, no matter how impossible you may think that is.

Not to mention that the analogy also fails to consider suffering that is the result of things that have little to do with human action; like natural disasters.


What is more moral? Giving complete choice, knowing that suffering will exist along with pleasure - or giving complacency, knowing that neither pleasure nor suffering will exist.Again, just as above, this is a false dichotomy. An omnipotent god, by virtue of his omnipotence, must be able to guarantee both pleasure and a lack of suffering, no matter how impossible you may think that is.

So no, those are not the only two choices; you left out that god can make it so that there is no suffering while preserving pleasure.

Some choose to suffer in peace, some choose to suffer in chaos.

Yes, but only god decides whether all will suffer.

Yes, but only god decides whether all will suffer.

Suffering is a choice available to us. No amount of pain, loss, delusion, or chaos guarantees that one will suffer, and no amount of pleasure, gain, realization or peace guarantees that one will not suffer. It is clear that in the case of a God existing, you put blame for this onto that God...well that's just simply not right. The God may have the power to end it, the knowledge of what choices you will make, and the want to end it, but that is put behind (at least in the Abrahmaic faiths) the volition of mankind. God could theoretically do whatever He wants to us. Rather he leaves our state of being, including whether we derive satisfaction or contempt from our decisions and environment, entirely up to us. The decision of a person to blind themselves to how truly free they are is no fault of any but their own.

Suffering is an available choice; it is not an inevitability.

It is clear that in the case of a God existing, you put blame for this onto that God...well that's just simply not right. The God may have the power to end it, the knowledge of what choices you will make, and the want to end it, but that is put behind (at least in the Abrahmaic faiths) the volition of mankind.

Except that the god could end suffering while still putting the "volition of mankind" in front, no matter how impossible you may think that is.

These "objections" of yours - we can hardly call them that - have already been dealt with in this very thread. Again, free will (or 'the volition of mankind' as you call it), does not refute anything; an omnipotent god must be able to preserve free will while ending suffering, even if that may seem impossible to you.

Moreover, like I already said, there is suffering that has little to do with the 'volition of mankind', like natural disasters.

You missed it again.

No matter what your objetion is, the fact would still be that there is no need for suffering to exist. That it is a choice for us humans to make? God can make it so that it isn't. That that would then mess with the 'volition of mankind'? God can make it so that it doesn't.

So if I "missed it again" perhaps it is because it shouldn't be there in the first place...

Yes, but only god decides whether all will suffer.

Suffering is a choice available to us. No amount of pain, loss, delusion, or chaos guarantees that one will suffer, and no amount of pleasure, gain, realization or peace guarantees that one will not suffer. It is clear that in the case of a God existing, you put blame for this onto that God...well that's just simply not right. The God may have the power to end it, the knowledge of what choices you will make, and the want to end it, but that is put behind (at least in the Abrahmaic faiths) the volition of mankind. God could theoretically do whatever He wants to us. Rather he leaves our state of being, including whether we derive satisfaction or contempt from our decisions and environment, entirely up to us. The decision of a person to blind themselves to how truly free they are is no fault of any but their own.

Suffering is an available choice; it is not an inevitability.

Wow I cant believe it was Hexadecimal who completely owned Rust in a short (but to the point) post.

I guess you missed the part where none of what he says refutes a single word of my argument since 'the volition of mankind' is irrelevant; god could preserve free will while removing suffering, no matter how impossible that may sound to you.

Actually, I'm betting you didn't really miss it, you're just ignoring it because you're desperate. Pathetic.

People place different levels of importance on different concepts. Some people put religion above logic. Some people put logic above religion. It's all pleasantly arbitrary.

Say that to the face of every single victim who was killed because of religion.

From the crusades to the inquisition to the witch hunts to the holocause to the suicide bombings to the people dying of aids in Africa because of the genocidal stupidity of the church, if you took 5 minutes to explain that to every one of the victims you would die yourself before you finished.

Say that to the face of every single victim who was killed because of religion.

From the crusades to the inquisition to the witch hunts to the holocause to the suicide bombings to the people dying of aids in Africa because of the genocidal stupidity of the church, if you took 5 minutes to explain that to every one of the victims you would die yourself before you finished.

Holocaust? The holocaust was not don for religious purposes you dumbfuck i dont know how many times we have to bring that up.

Holocaust? The holocaust was not don for religious purposes you dumbfuck i dont know how many times we have to bring that up.

What about the Jehova's Witnesses that Hitler exterminated? But I must admit that other than that, there is no other religious motivation.

you dumbfuck

How very Christian of you.

what would happen to the universe if all of the sudden, there was only one electrical charge?

What would the universe be like if it was like that from the beginning? Would it be able to exist?

Or what if everything was neutral?

...

Just because i dont like something dosnt prove im a moron.

Unless we're talking about logic

what would happen to the universe if all of the sudden, there was only one electrical charge?

What would the universe be like if it was like that from the beginning? Would it be able to exist?

Or what if everything was neutral?

...

The universe would oppose itslef, and we'd all explode (the fuck would I know?).

Not as we know it, but eventually there would be a neutral or a positive particle that would grow out of the chaos.

The universe would fall apart due to lack of attraction.

Take your shit to PD or MS.

Take your shit to PD or MS.

If it could exist, it would be completely different, given that things like atoms couldn't exist.

But everything...and I mean everything, in total, is balanced. The universe is neutral.

What are emotions? How do you describe a feeling?

They're vibrations and energy. And they have opposites...every emotion seems to be a sub-emotion of either love/joy(+) or fear/sorrow(-). Perhaps one could not exist without the other. Maybe one existing on its own is impossible? Perhaps suffering is needed for joy?

But thats all a terrible lie.

an omnipotent god must be able to preserve free will while ending suffering, even if that may seem impossible to you.

Could one use this style of reasoning to argue that an omnipotent god must be able to exist simultaneously with evil, even if that may seem impossible?

Say that to the face of every single victim who was killed because of religion.

From the crusades to the inquisition to the witch hunts to the holocause to the suicide bombings to the people dying of aids in Africa because of the genocidal stupidity of the church, if you took 5 minutes to explain that to every one of the victims you would die yourself before you finished.

I was making a descriptive statement, not a normative one.

No matter what your objetion is, the fact would still be that there is no need for suffering to exist. That it is a choice for us humans to make? God can make it so that it isn't. That that would then mess with the 'volition of mankind'? God can make it so that it doesn't.

So if I "missed it again" perhaps it is because it shouldn't be there in the first place...

I'm not saying that the end of suffering would violate volition. You're missing what I'm saying so I'll try to put it into words (as abstract a notion as it is). You're resting the issue solely on the qualities of the deity, failing to see that the qualities already violate the notion of free will yet preserve it at the same time (omniscience restricts our ability to make random choices, yet omnipotence allows our choices to remain independent of omniscience): suffering does not exist thanks to the omni-benevolence, but it can still be chosen for creation on individual bases thanks to omnipotence's ability to contradict benevolence and knowledge while still maintaining congruency.

What you are arguing 'can be done no matter how impossible it may seem' already has been done (at least according to the very faiths you're arguing against).

If you're wondering, 'what the fuck?' take into account the existence of the supernatural being an absolute necessity whether you're theist or atheist. If you wish for me to explain, I will.

Damn, this was a long thread. I didn't read all of it, but my contribution:

Christians and preps are the same deal. If you refute them, to save face in front of their friends/gods, they'll just start babbling and wait for you to go away. If you press them hard enough, they'll either break down or threaten violence. The trick is to keep going until then, hammering your points home long after they've started just being like "hahah u r t3h gay!" or "jesus loves you!" and wait for the breakdown/violence. If they break, then sneer at them and leave. If they go violent, carry a jesus-stick.

Jesus-stick:
http://www.lostpedia.com/images/thumb/4/42/Jesus_Stick_Full.jpg/180px-Jesus_Stick_Full.jpg


And here's my contribution to the argument that's spawned:
Christianity is the same thing as the matrix. Its a blindfold that people can enjoy, but ultimately its not the truth and those who are taken in by it are wasting their lives. Any good that it causes also comes with this blindfold attached; as has been mentioned, typically this is used to assimilate to the christian society those who live outside the society, like prisoners or drug users. Once these people have their individuality burned out of them, that "good" thing might as well be another body count from the Crusades.

ANd I'd like to add, no religion is not subject to this. Islam, Judaism, and anythign else that A.) Mentions a deity or B.) Mentions an afterlife is wrong. As for near-death expiriences and the like (being "saved"), lets examine what happens. In a near-death expirience, YOUR BRAIN LOOSES OXYGEN. That might be a trigger to a hallucination, possibly? And while being "saved", typically, not only does the person want to be saved, but they'll do anythign to believe that they are saved. Like release endorphins and make themselves feel blissful.

To the christians: The next time you get owned and want to punch someone/kill yourself, remember: you're just wrong. You're not a bad person, you aren't going to hell, you're just wrong. You can be right. Its easy to be right.

It may be easy to be right, but it's far easier to be wrong.

Faith and doubt both present the mind with a beautiful veil that shuts off the ability to recognize what sits right in front of it. One is preoccupied with preserving their faith or their skepticism, and will never know when enough is enough.

suffering does not exist thanks to the omni-benevolence, but it can still be chosen for creation on individual bases thanks to omnipotence's ability to contradict benevolence and knowledge while still maintaining congruency.



So what you're saying is that suffering does exist (or could exist)? Great. Whether the individuals choose it themselves or not (I have already mentioned examples where they don't, like natural disasters) is not important. It would change absolutely nothing. Does suffering exist (or could it exist)? Yes. Could the omnipotent god make it so that it does not (or could not)? Yes. Then my point is made. Any comment, objection or "point" of yours that does not refute both of these facts, would change absolutely nothing of what I'm arguing.

Could one use this style of reasoning to argue that an omnipotent god must be able to exist simultaneously with evil, even if that may seem impossible?

Sure, who has said he cannot exist simultaneously with evil?

Sure, who has said he cannot exist simultaneously with evil?

Could one use this style of reasoning to argue that an omnipotent god must have a reason for not ending suffering, even if that may seem impossible?

So what you're saying is that suffering does exist (or could exist)? Great. Whether the individuals choose it themselves or not (I have already mentioned examples where they don't, like natural disasters) is not important. It would change absolutely nothing. Does suffering exist (or could it exist)? Yes. Could the omnipotent god make it so that it does not (or could not)? Yes. Then my point is made. Any comment, objection or "point" of yours that does not refute both of these facts, would change absolutely nothing of what I'm arguing.

I'm saying that suffering does not exist. Just as fear and love do not exist. Just as good and evil do not exist. Just as right and wrong do not exist. They are attributes entirely contingent on them being 'chosen'-without the choice of experiencing them, they will never be a polarized facet of the gray scale. Until you can grasp the nature of volition as put forth by the Abrahmaic religions, you'll never be able to grasp the natures of suffering and redemption as put forth by them.

Please note, I'm not arguing for the factuality of Abrahmaic concepts.

I'm saying that suffering does not exist

No, you're just saying that suffering can be "chosen" ... :rolleyes: The point still stands. No amount of sophist bullshit on your part is going to change this.

Like I said, irrelevant of where "suffering" comes from, if it exists, can be "chosen", done, "experienced", my point still stands. Hell, if sin exists, as it is defined in the Christian faith, which it undoubtedly does according to that very faith, my point still stands.


Please note, I'm not arguing for the factuality of Abrahmaic concepts.

Great, even more reason why your points have absolutely nothing to do with what I'm saying.

Could one use this style of reasoning to argue that an omnipotent god must have a reason for not ending suffering, even if that may seem impossible?

Most definitely. We could then argue that he must have an even better reason to end it, even if that may seem impossible. We can go around in circles like this ad nauseam; the end result still isn't flattering for the Christian faith.

When you think about it, what is the difference between the Christian god having a good reason or none at all? A trivial difference; in the end we still suffer, needlessly so.

Most definitely. We could then argue that he must have an even better reason to end it, even if that may seem impossible. We can go around in circles like this ad nauseam; the end result still isn't flattering for the Christian faith.

When you think about it, what is the difference between the Christian god having a good reason or none at all? A trivial difference; in the end we still suffer, needlessly so.

So what? Does it make any difference, whatsoever, if something is needed or not? Is existence needed? Love? Happiness? You? Anything? IS ANYTHING AT ALL DONE NEEDFULLY? NO! Your argument is entirely fucking nonsensical. Nothing is by necessity; it all is needlessly so. Does that fucking matter? Does it make any impact? What the fuck are you even trying to argue? What point can be made by pointing out the lack of necessity held within ANY fucking idea in all of history?

None of it fucking needs to be, but it just fucking is. Arguing about how it's not necessary doesn't do shit to change things. Can you fucking grasp that, Rust? That it's ALL fucking pointless and unneeded? That an omnipotent being could have made life all sorts of fucking different, without a damned shred of relation to this life, but didn't? What the fuck is so god damned hard to grasp about something not existing, but being imagined and experienced as a thought? I'm not even talking about a deity, we're talking about within the human mind right here. SUFFERING DOES NOT EXIST. IT CAN'T EXIST. IT IS A FUCKING IDEA. IT IS TOTALLY FUCKING IMAGINARY IN THE MINDS OF THE PROUD AND PITIFUL. Can you fucking grasp that? It's a needless fucking mental construct that doesn't fucking exist.

I'm going to have a cigarette. I can only handle so much stupid before I fucking explode, and I'm several months past due.

"SUFFERING DOES NOT EXIST. IT CAN'T EXIST. IT IS A FUCKING IDEA. IT IS TOTALLY FUCKING IMAGINARY IN THE MINDS OF THE PROUD AND PITIFUL."

You're incredibly stupid. Please kill yourself.

When you think about it, what is the difference between the Christian god having a good reason or none at all? A trivial difference; in the end we still suffer, needlessly so.

I don't see what you mean. How can suffering be needless if there is a good reason for it?

I can only handle so much stupid before I fucking explode, and I'm several months past due.

Woah, man, calm down. Remember: anger doesn't exist.

So what? Does it make any difference, whatsoever, if something is needed or not? Is existence needed? Love? Happiness? You? Anything? IS ANYTHING AT ALL DONE NEEDFULLY? NO! Your argument is entirely fucking nonsensical. Nothing is by necessity; it all is needlessly so. Does that fucking matter? Does it make any impact? What the fuck are you even trying to argue? What point can be made by pointing out the lack of necessity held within ANY fucking idea in all of history?

None of it fucking needs to be, but it just fucking is. Arguing about how it's not necessary doesn't do shit to change things. Can you fucking grasp that, Rust? That it's ALL fucking pointless and unneeded? That an omnipotent being could have made life all sorts of fucking different, without a damned shred of relation to this life, but didn't? What the fuck is so god damned hard to grasp about something not existing, but being imagined and experienced as a thought? I'm not even talking about a deity, we're talking about within the human mind right here. SUFFERING DOES NOT EXIST. IT CAN'T EXIST. IT IS A FUCKING IDEA. IT IS TOTALLY FUCKING IMAGINARY IN THE MINDS OF THE PROUD AND PITIFUL. Can you fucking grasp that? It's a needless fucking mental construct that doesn't fucking exist.

I'm going to have a cigarette. I can only handle so much stupid before I fucking explode, and I'm several months past due.

I'm quoting this to save it for posterity. I want your utter inanity to be as evident as possible, and you've just granted me exactly that. Thank you.

I don't see what you mean. How can suffering be needless if there is a good reason for it?

There's a good reason for me to eat a whole chocolate cake -- it tastes really good -- but do I need to eat it? No. I can choose not to eat it or to eat just a small piece of it, despite that very good reason for eating it completely.

There's a difference between having a good reason for doing something and actually needing to do that something. But even then, my own analogy is doing a disservice to my point; it doesn't represent what I'm arguing entirely. I'm talking about an omnipotent being. He doesn't need to do anything! He has to have multiple choices (infinite choices if he wants) to any situation, however impossible that might sound!

I'm quoting this to save it for posterity. I want your utter inanity to be as evident as possible, and you've just granted me exactly that. Thank you.

I'm glad. I'd much rather you stay in the dark. :P

Alas, my totse reputation has taken a hit. Woe is me!

And the pride, keeps on growing
Delusions keep on showing
Motherfuckers think they're knowing
When they've just stopped wisdom's flowing
Yeah, yeah-eah-eah
Yeah, yeah-eah
Yeah, yeah, got their heads up their asses
Equipped with lead frames and bifocal glasses
Swallowing the shit that's fed to the masses
'cause in this world any second thought passes
Yeah, yeah-eah-eah
Yeah, yeah-eah
Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, Keep your eyes shut and be
glaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad...
you're in 'the know'.

Playing chess is fun. Keep moving little pawns. The white king won't be caught.

WHA?!? Hex done flipped his fuckin' lid!
Hahahahah. I'll seriously go into 12 months of indentured servitude for anyone who successfully decodes this post.

That goes both ways.

Many atheists were raised as Christians, at least I was. That proves that at some point we recognized our beliefs and decided against them.

Find me one Christian that was raised as an atheist.

Many atheists were raised as Christians, at least I was. That proves that at some point we recognized our beliefs and decided against them.

Find me one Christian that was raised as an atheist.
Time Magazine did a piece on this, where Richard Dawkins (author of "The God Delusion"debated Christian geneticist and leader of the Human Genome Project, Dr. Francis Collins, and while I was also raised Christian and later converted to atheism, I have to point out the factual inaccuracy of such a statement.
http://bayblab.blogspot.com/2006/11/richard-dawkins-vs-francis-collins.html
Personally, I think Collins won because he put up an excellent apologetic stance for Christianity. Dawkins uses the same arguments as in The God Delusion.

EDIT: Collins converted from atheism to Christianity when he was 23, after being atheist for a number of years (I do not recall what he was in his childhood, but you get the point).