Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Internet was the final nail in the coffin of Christianity. The net opened the truth about the shady underhanded dealings of the church and its corrupt leadership to the entire world. People now can research such topics as "Jesus never existed" and "Ten Reasons The Gospels Are Works of Fiction" and get the complete lowdown on Christianity's nefarious creation.
It would be dishonest of an atheist to claim that no god exists, as there is no way to know that...Don't forget that atheists live in the real world, where honesty counts.
Believing in no God (or no personal God) is certainly better than believing in one who lets his followers get massacred or raped in his place of worship, don’t you think? Or the mega church pastors driving Lamborghinis and the Bible trumpers shooting up abortion clinics.
When Dylan Roof killed 8 people in church and the Texas shooter killed about 30, something tells me the people with their brains blown out weren’t praying to the right God. Or maybe it was God’s will because he works in mysterious ways.
But it’s certainly not a God that warrants worship every Sunday.
Believing in no God (or no personal God) is certainly better than believing in one who lets his followers get massacred or raped in his place of worship, don’t you think? Or the mega church pastors driving Lamborghinis and the Bible trumpers shooting up abortion clinics.
When Dylan Roof killed 8 people in church and the Texas shooter killed about 30, something tells me the people with their brains blown out weren’t praying to the right God. Or maybe it was God’s will because he works in mysterious ways.
But it’s certainly not a God that warrants worship every Sunday.
yeah, thats true for us all. In fact, I don't know one believer that thinks different. I mean in my personal life. but that's not what we are talking about. we are talking about what is actually going on around us in terms of how the universe works.
"mysterious ways", yeah, I get that position. how does it prove god doesn't exist? maybe god has no more choose in that happening than you have in eating food to live.
what it does show is that they, and indeed most of us, have the traits of thing wrong.
so would you rather get it right? or just deny it all because of how you feel?
So you are insane for not believing in all the other gods?
Silly me, I forgot, they are all aspects of the same god. Which means it is the son and daughter and brother and sister and father and mother of itself. Yes, that sounds so rational.
One wonders how rib woman Eve got different DNA than dirt man Adam, doesn't one?
Oh and the kids? Perhaps there was a Lilith around?
"mysterious ways", yeah, I get that position. how does it prove god doesn't exist?
I'm going to step in here and say that the argument really gets muddled up when you are arguing about your "god" vs. say Jeff or Ozzy's "biblegod".
You are essentially making the argument of "first cause". It's when you start describing and putting parameters on "first cause" that it gets tricky. And that occurs really quickly after you establish "first cause".
For instance, this. (I'm assuming you meant "choice" where you put "choose".
Quote:
maybe god has no more choose in that happening than you have in eating food to live.
Why couldn't a god powerful enough to create all this not be powerful enough to control what happens within the creation?
And then go to he is powerful enough but he doesn't want to...…….
And on and on.
So Rocko's "mysterious ways" comment proving or not proving god doesn't exist? It proves that yeah, god may exist but god is not worth worrying about any more than a bump on a log.
I'm going to step in here and say that the argument really gets muddled up when you are arguing about your "god" vs. say Jeff or Ozzy's "biblegod".
You are essentially making the argument of "first cause". It's when you start describing and putting parameters on "first cause" that it gets tricky. And that occurs really quickly after you establish "first cause".
For instance, this. (I'm assuming you meant "choice" where you put "choose".
Why couldn't a god powerful enough to create all this not be powerful enough to control what happens within the creation?
And then go to he is powerful enough but he doesn't want to...…….
And on and on.
So Rocko's "mysterious ways" comment proving or not proving god doesn't exist? It proves that yeah, god may exist but god is not worth worrying about any more than a bump on a log.
yes, true. It gets muddled because everything religious people say isn't totally wrong. There will be some over lap in describing how the universe works and how religion works.
you went to first cause and then you began making arguments that some of us are not making. You basically made an argument based on how some people respond. I making the argument based on what we observe as compared to what the person said..
The point about "maybe he made it this way because it can." yes, that argument can be made when we don't have to look at actual observations. But when we do look at observations it more like, if he was there, it looks has to be this way.
Kinda like asking the Atheists, "I wonder why it is that you keep saying there is no God, over, and over, and over again?"
Except most of us don't just rehash the same few sentences over and over again. Notice, I haven't said anything about the Christians saying the same things, because most of them don't do it on repeat, including copy and pasting other posts.... Maybe you don't see the difference, but people reading do.
Which has noting to do with the story of Chronos, who eats his own sons until his sister tricks him into eating a stone. But all of them are just one god.
Except all your arguments are based on your inability to read words with more then 4 letters in them, which is why you do not appear to understand that not only do I not want to stop religion (only the fundamentalists), I know we will not be able to.
Ad hominem ... no substance just more diversion from the real issue. all you have is anti-religous/god. You got nothing else.
My point exactly, Petunia. I will respond to whatever I feel like responding to. If that happens to be posts by Jeff, then so be it. If he wants to hide behind the block feature, that's on him. Continuously responding to my posts after other people do, and talking about me while having me blocked seems a little.... Childish?
Ad hominem ... no substance just more diversion from the real issue. all you have is anti-religous/god. You got nothing else.
No, it was a joke based on a truth (the substance), so it was not an ad hominem. But there IS some reason you responses are not based on what people actually write. Which is the real issue with your posts.
It is not the real issue mentioned in the OP, but your posts rarely relate to the OP, they are usually just personal attacks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
"I know we won't be able to."
Thats a tell ...
why not?
I think the voices in your head are escaping.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It proves that yeah, god may exist but god is not worth worrying about any more than a bump on a log. 
