Anti-Christianity Thread

[kal-el]

I'd like to see ONE instance of a moderator on this board unjustly using the 'close thread' feature as a way to get in a Last-Word in the context of a discussion.

Take a gander at this:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27972&page=3

 

[kal-el]

You're getting off topic. I'm not addressing any hypocrisy. I'm strictly talking about what would be required to prove there is a God.

Uhh, and I believe I told you.

Why do you think he would resurrect those individuals?

I don't know, maybe he could ressurect Elvis or Tupac.

You offered them as your example, after all.So what would the reason be?

Well if he is a loving god, he would only ressurect peace-makers and people who brought wisdom, right?

Why would he do it? You claim this would suffice as proof for you, but have no thoughts as to why it would be proof to you?

It would be proof, because no one yet can ressurect the dead.

Is it just because it'd be a neat trick?

Yup.

Wouldn't resurrecting someone infringe on free-will as well?

How so? It is if you believe in an afterlife, maybe, but if they're nothing but corpes, road kill, dust.

Genesis 3:19
By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground since from it you were taken; for dust you are, and to dust you will return

So it's not about him bettering society through a resurrection, it's just about that it'd be neat to see him bring someone back from the dead? You just want to see a guy crawl out of his grave as proof that God exists?

Isn't it perfectly acceptable to want proof of something, or do you just believe some because of faith? Like I said, if someone calimed they were abducted by a UFO, would you believe them, or would you demand proof first?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Uhh, and I believe I told you.

So stick with the topic and explain your answer, please.

I don't know, maybe he could ressurect Elvis or Tupac.

But you're the one who picked those individuals. You're skirting the issue by trying to be cute.

Well if he is a loving god, he would only ressurect peace-makers and people who brought wisdom, right?

But why did you pick those three individuals? I don't know how many times I've asked it, but you certainly haven't answered yet. You must have had some reason for picking those three, why not share it?

It would be proof, because no one yet can ressurect the dead.

So would anything that hasn't been done yet be proof of God to you? 200 years ago, man couldn't fly. Now we can; is that proof of God? I'm guessing you'd answer no. What if resurrection is discovered through science in another 100 years? Is that proof of God, then? Do you believe God could perform his miracle through a handful of scientists?

Yup.

So you're more interested in proof as some sort of novelty?

How so? It is if you believe in an afterlife, maybe, but if they're nothing but corpes, road kill, dust.

But as soon as you brought them back to life, you would have artificially (or supernaturally, if you prefer) restarted their free will. They didn't make the choice to be resurrected. Or do you just want souless zombie versions of peopel to be resurrected as your proof?

Isn't it perfectly acceptable to want proof of something, or do you just believe some because of faith? Like I said, if someone calimed they were abducted by a UFO, would you believe them, or would you demand proof first?

Why not both? If you had a wife, would you demand proof daily, or monthly, or whatever-ly that she wasn't cheating on you?

 

[kal-el]

So stick with the topic and explain your answer, please.But you're the one who picked those individuals. You're skirting the issue by trying to be cute.But why did you pick those three individuals? I don't know how many times I've asked it, but you certainly haven't answered yet. You must have had some reason for picking those three, why not share it?

Originally posted by Me
In my eyes, if he could bring back JFK, Abe Lincoln, and George Washington, I'd be happy to call myself a theist.

For the last time, I just picked 3 guys off the top of my head, no alterior motive here, just random, sorry to rain on your little parade, since you seem so obcessed with why I picked these 3.

So would anything that hasn't been done yet be proof of God to you?

If not god, superior intelligence.

200 years ago, man couldn't fly. Now we can; is that proof of God? I'm guessing you'd answer no.

200 years ago it would be, man never thought that they would make vaults out of the sky. And I was talking about man flying without any physical apparatus's. I don't believe that was possible 200 years ago, nor is it possible now.

What if resurrection is discovered through science in another 100 years? Is that proof of God, then?

I was talking about the present, and you know this, stop being so obtuse.

Do you believe God could perform his miracle through a handful of scientists?

Why would he have to perform anything through anyone? If he is omnipotent, then he could perform a miracle by simply snapping his fingers, opposed to depending on "fallible" scientists.

So you're more interested in proof as some sort of novelty?

I'm not quite sure what you mean? Are you trying to say I depict proof as a toy or innovation? You might want to reword that.

But as soon as you brought them back to life, you would have artificially (or supernaturally, if you prefer) restarted their free will.

That's if you believe in such. How could we have "free will", when god punished Eve for exersizing her "free will". I refuse to believe that such a sadistic and unfair entity is watching over me, waiting for me to make a mistake so he could punish me.

They didn't make the choice to be resurrected.

Neither did the sick girl that Jesus supposedly ressurected.

Matthew 9:24-25
he said, " Go away, the girl is not dead, but asleep." But they laughed at him. After the crowd had been put outside, he went in and took the girl by the hand, and she got up.

She didn't ask to be ressurected?

Or do you just want souless zombie versions of peopel to be resurrected as your proof?

That would suffice. Since I believe a soul is nothing more than a genetic code. And a zombie has to have a unique genetic code, as does every living thing.

Why not both? If you had a wife, would you demand proof daily, or monthly, or whatever-ly that she wasn't cheating on you?

Nope, thats why I am opposed to marriage.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

200 years ago it would be, man never thought that they would make vaults out of the sky. And I was talking about man flying without any physical apparatus's. I don't believe that was possible 200 years ago, nor is it possible now.

Actually you weren't talking about man flying at all. What if man adapted to be able to fly? Could God be the reason for the adaptation? Does everything need to be an instant change? Can you only show that you love someone instantly?

I was talking about the present, and you know this, stop being so obtuse.

I'm not being obtuse, I'm trying to clarify your statement. You say you want a resurrection as proof, but if suddenly a scientist discovers how to resurrect someone, that does not constitute as proof. The only way it can be proof is if it's completely out of the normal. God can only prove his existence to you through the rediculously abnormal. Fair enough.

Why would he have to perform anything through anyone? If he is omnipotent, then he could perform a miracle by simply snapping his fingers, opposed to depending on "fallible" scientists.

Who knows? He could do it instantly, he could do it through people. You argue that because a person does something, that automatically removes God from the equation.

I'm not quite sure what you mean? Are you trying to say I depict proof as a toy or innovation? You might want to reword that.

You seem to only believe something as proof if it is rediculously abnormal. Subtle proof does not suffice, for you. That is what I'm saying.

That's if you believe in such. How could we have "free will", when god punished Eve for exersizing her "free will". I refuse to believe that such a sadistic and unfair entity is watching over me, waiting for me to make a mistake so he could punish me.

You can't go back and forth about whether free will exists or not. You say he wouldn't do something, because it interferes with free will, yet then dismiss my argument because you don't believe free will exists. Pick one, and we'll stay with it. This isn't a discussion on the existance of free will.

Neither did the sick girl that Jesus supposedly ressurected.

She didn't ask to be ressurected?

I don't know enough about the Bible to answer that question.

That would suffice. Since I believe a soul is nothing more than a genetic code. And a zombie has to have a unique genetic code, as does every living thing.

But if a zombie were to be resurrected, you would believe in a soul, because you'd then believe in God. Your point is moot, in this hypothetical context.

Nope, thats why I am opposed to marriage.

Because you are unable to trust anyone that much?

 

[kal-el]

Actually you weren't talking about man flying at all. What if man adapted to be able to fly? Could God be the reason for the adaptation?

Opposed to flying, everything that we have now, is because of evolving intelligence, or evolving civilization and/or science. For example, god must have known that germs cause diseases, correct? Why did it take science to bring us the germ theory of diseases? http://www.hhmi.org/cgi-bin/askascientist/highlight.pl?kw=&file=answers/immunology/ans_020.html, I might be jumping to conclusions, but god could have save numerous lives and spared mankind untold misery for centuries, but no, he chose not to. So either he is evil and sadistic, not all powerful, or else he doesn't exist.

Does everything need to be an instant change?

Of course not, when we are talking about man's technological capacity. But with god, anything is possible.

Can you only show that you love someone instantly?

Of course not, love is a feeling that develops over time. What is the relevance of this question?

I'm not being obtuse, I'm trying to clarify your statement. You say you want a resurrection as proof, but if suddenly a scientist discovers how to resurrect someone, that does not constitute as proof.

Nope. That is, unless the man in the clouds performs the ressurection personally.

The only way it can be proof is if it's completely out of the normal.

Good job, now you're getting it. Why would an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, entity want to do something a person in which he created, can do. What would that prove? If he knows everything, he already knows what we'll think if he does a certain thing, hence wouldn't he do something totally abnormal, as to put an end to all doubt?

God can only prove his existence to you through the rediculously abnormal. Fair enough.

Well duh. If I were to tell you I had Superman's power's, would you take me lifting up a 2 x 4 as proof, no that would be stupid. You'd want to see something only Superman can do, something spectacular. Maybe moving a mountain, or running faster than a speeding bullet, well I would want something spectacular from this "god" fellow.

Who knows? He could do it instantly, he could do it through people.

Yes, he could show his face instantly to us, that would stop the doubting thomas's.

You argue that because a person does something, that automatically removes God from the equation.

Well can we print books because of god? Of course not, because of Eli Whitney, it's a reality. Can we travel through space account of god? Nope, the scientists and technitians who built our spaceshuttles are responsible. Do we land a job because of god? Nope, because we submitted an application. Do we get better when we are sick because of god? Nope, anibiotics are the cause of this. I can go on all day.

You seem to only believe something as proof if it is rediculously abnormal.

That's a big negative. If I believe I have an apple in my refrigerator, I can open it up and look inside. That was easy! Would you call opening a refrigerator an abnormal form of proof?

Subtle proof does not suffice, for you. That is what I'm saying.

Dude, If someone doubts I have 5 fingers, isn't it subtle proof to just look? And if one denies the wind, I can't look, but it moves objects, and I can feel it. I can't see gravity either, but what holds things to the ground?

You can't go back and forth about whether free will exists or not. You say he wouldn't do something, because it interferes with free will, yet then dismiss my argument because you don't believe free will exists. Pick one, and we'll stay with it.

I personally don't believe in free will, but most Christians do. That was why I was arguing that.

This isn't a discussion on the existance of free will.

Nothing gets by you. (I'm trying really hard to be nice here, biting my tongue)

I don't know enough about the Bible to answer that question.

Ok, fair enough.

But if a zombie were to be resurrected, you would believe in a soul, because you'd then believe in God.

Negative. If one day, we can expand our lifelines, and bring some back to life, by doing this, we are playing "god". If we can do these things, wouldn't it be stupid to continue beleiving in god?

Your point is moot, in this hypothetical context.Because you are unable to trust anyone that much?

Maybe you're right, I duont know, I haven't really thought it through.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Opposed to flying, everything that we have now, is because of evolving intelligence, or evolving civilization and/or science. For example, god must have known that germs cause diseases, correct? Why did it take science to bring us the germ theory of diseases? http://www.hhmi.org/cgi-bin/askascientist/highlight.pl?kw=&file=answers/immunology/ans_020.html, I might be jumping to conclusions, but god could have save numerous lives and spared mankind untold misery for centuries, but no, he chose not to. So either he is evil and sadistic, not all powerful, or else he doesn't exist.

Or a 4th or 5th option. He could be removed from day-to-day life of people and instead "hands on" with our existence as a collective. Or, he could allow misery to encourage more love and compassion. To remind people of the good they have in their life. Is it possible that perhaps you simply misunderstand the reason why their is sickness on earth? Perhaps God uses sickness and despair on Earth as a test of one's character. Would you want a bunch of mindless yes-men to surround you? Sure, you could create them, but wouldn't it be more satisfying having a creation that chooses to believe in you, rather than just force the belief upon them through undeniable proof?

Of course not, when we are talking about man's technological capacity. But with god, anything is possible.

If you were a parent, your child might want candy all day long, and you'd have the ability to give it to them all the time. That doesn't mean you would, does it?

Of course not, love is a feeling that develops over time. What is the relevance of this question?

Can faith due to proof be something that develops over time? You're only 26ish years of age; perhaps you haven't had enough time to develop your belief? Do you believe that could be possible? Or are you completely convinced that there is no God, because an instant gratification form of proof hasn't materialized in front of your own eyes?

Nope. That is, unless the man in the clouds performs the ressurection personally.

But if he can do whatever he wants, then he could personally perform the resurrection through a toothpick, let alone a human being, no?

Good job, now you're getting it. Why would an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, entity want to do something a person in which he created, can do. What would that prove? If he knows everything, he already knows what we'll think if he does a certain thing, hence wouldn't he do something totally abnormal, as to put an end to all doubt?

Who knows? If a 3 year old wants candy all day, a parent can't explain why that isn't a good idea and expect the 3 year old to be able to comprehend it. The 3 year old, having been taken care of by the parent, has an innate form of trust in the parent, and while perhaps unhappy temporarily, will eventually grow to understand the logic behind not having candy all the time, even if it's not explicity spelled out to them by the parent.

Well duh. If I were to tell you I had Superman's power's, would you take me lifting up a 2 x 4 as proof, no that would be stupid. You'd want to see something only Superman can do, something spectacular. Maybe moving a mountain, or running faster than a speeding bullet, well I would want something spectacular from this "god" fellow.

I'd agree lifting a 2x4 wouldn't be sufficient proof, and I don't know what it would take to prove it to me. What I do know is, I wouldn't go around telling everyone who already believed in Superman that they believed in some gay spandex wearing ***** just because he may or may not be Superman or because I may or may not have had it proven to me.

Yes, he could show his face instantly to us, that would stop the doubting thomas's.

Maybe he does, and we just don't know what his face looks like. Although I suppose you'll just counter that with "he can make his face look like whatever he wants to get the point across." And we can just keep going in circles; this relates back to the child and candy situation.

Well can we print books because of god? Of course not, because of Eli Whitney, it's a reality. Can we travel through space account of god? Nope, the scientists and technitians who built our spaceshuttles are responsible. Do we land a job because of god? Nope, because we submitted an application. Do we get better when we are sick because of god? Nope, anibiotics are the cause of this. I can go on all day.

And I could go on all day saying God had a guiding hand in it. You think that God can only play a direct role on humans. I submit that he can just as easily have an indirect role. Do you do everything for a child it's entire life? Of course not, you let the child struggle with things, so they improve, so they learn. What would a child gain from having a parent tell them all there is about life?

That's a big negative. If I believe I have an apple in my refrigerator, I can open it up and look inside. That was easy! Would you call opening a refrigerator an abnormal form of proof?

Looking in the refrigerator isn't subtle. That's obvious. Subtle would be seeing an apple bag in the trash can, or an apple core sitting in the sink.

Dude, If someone doubts I have 5 fingers, isn't it subtle proof to just look? And if one denies the wind, I can't look, but it moves objects, and I can feel it. I can't see gravity either, but what holds things to the ground?

It's obvious to look. You seem confused as to what subtle means.

I personally don't believe in free will, but most Christians do. That was why I was arguing that.

How can you not believe in a supreme being and not believe in free will? If we don't have free will, than who's controlling us?

Nothing gets by you. (I'm trying really hard to be nice here, biting my tongue)

Why do you have to try to be nice to me? Have I been rude or insulting to you? Perhaps this is a clue as to why most don't get along with you on this board. Just because you feel you're smarter than someone doesn't mean you have to rub their face in it. That's kind of an asshole move, no?

Negative. If one day, we can expand our lifelines, and bring some back to life, by doing this, we are playing "god". If we can do these things, wouldn't it be stupid to continue beleiving in god?

Are we playing god, or is god playing through us? This relates back to your disinterest in believing that god can have an indirect role in humanity's existence.

Maybe you're right, I duont know, I haven't really thought it through.

How can you not have thought through one of the most basic forms of expression? Have you had trouble in love that makes you avoid it? (You can end this line whenever it gets to personal for you).

 

[5stringJeff]

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/incompatible.html

It would take another very long thread for me to rebut all the logical fallacies on that web page. If you want to play, let me know.

This post proves that Christians are apparently incapable of refuting perfectly logical, rational arguments without resorting to liguistics from a book of contradictions.

It's called context. In other words, the Bible, as a whole, usually answers the questions that may arise from individual verses. So for you to say that I cannot refute an argument about a Bible verse by using another part of the Bible to expound on the point is ridiculous.

Well, since your name is GOP, you are most likely for this bloodshed in Iraq, military soliders are guilty of murder by some, and seen as heroes to others. Why is it considered the right thing to kill people simply because they are wearing a different uniform? Ifant rape? Dude, that's all in one's culture. In some places, right or wrong is inapplicable. Things like sex with minors, beasteality, etc. is considered morally acceptable, via their culture. Many people think it's ok to kill animals and eat them, while others think it's despicable. Killing and flesh-eating happen in nature, so which is "right" and which is "wrong"? All you did was arrogantly state your own culturely defined beliefs.

First, please just call me Jeff, as do most people on the board.
Second, I'd rather not get derailed by rejustifying the Iraq War. But, suffice to say that all cultures recognize the distinction between killing in war and murdering innocents.
Third, I highlighted the bold part, because frankly, I don't know of any cultures that see infant rape as morally acceptable. In fact, I'm pretty sure that there are none, because it's a moral absolute that raping infants is morally wrong.

Uhh, how did they mock the prophet's authority?
Once again, did you fall of your rocker. It's rather irrelevant exactly why god killed them (or sent bears to do the dirty work), it's still remains trivial.

See here for an explanation of this incident - not that I would expect you to change your mind, but this explains it much better than I could.
http://www.tektonics.org/af/callahanproph.html#pref

Posted??? Evidence supporting the existence of a god? Ha I'm still waiting for this "god" dude to actually speak for himself here, as I'm growing fatigued of Christians acting like his secretaries.

I think Clay has already addressed this.

 

[Hobbit]

I'd rep ya, Clay, but it says I gotta spread it around first.

 

[presonorek]

Flying spaghetti monster exists, jolly green giant exist, leprechaun's exist, etc.

This is the first reference to the Flying Spaghetti Monster ever made on US Message Board. This was over 19 years ago.

 

[Zebra]

This is the first reference to the Flying Spaghetti Monster ever made on US Message Board. This was over 19 years ago.

do you also know the invisible pink unicorn ... or IPU?

 

[presonorek]

do you also know the invisible pink unicorn ... or IPU?

Yes but I don’t know much about the philosophies. It is in the same vein of Russell’s Flying Teapot, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster but I don’t know if it has mythology, rituals or a philosophy.

I heard of it several years ago. It lacked the depth to impress me. Pastafarianism has mythology, and a guiding philosophy. It doesn’t really have ritual yet.