There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[outhouse]

Because without a definition the term is meaningless.

And we see many different people from many different cultures, ALL with different definitions of the same concept.

 

[Bunyip]

And we see many different people from many different cultures, ALL with different definitions of the same concept.

Indeed, and many Christian apologists define god as immaterial, timeless and external to the universe.

Under which definition god can not be distinguished from the non-existent. Things that do not exist are also immaterial, timeless and external to the universe.

 

[Magic Man]

You are just not getting this are you. Have you never seen the Saviour knocking on the door that has no handle, suggesting that it is up to us to open the door to him. The spirit of God does not influence anyone's life until he is invited in. If he did it would cartel free agency.

God gives every single person the opportunity to either accept or reject the gospel. You will either hear it here, or in the spirit world. I cannot make it any simpler. Everyone will get that opportunity.

1) Then why didn't he influence mine when I invited him in?

2) It would be better for your god to give everyone all the information to make a decision. Making them make such an important decision without all the information is pretty crappy.

 

[Magic Man]

Why does science have to define God?

A concept needs to be defined in order to have relevance. If it's not defined, it's meaningless.

 

[Serenity7855]

1) Then why didn't he influence mine when I invited him in?

Well, I am afraid that I cannot answer that, as much as I would like to. I do not know you or what steps you have taken to find out for yourself. Have you tried the following.

James 1:5-6*

5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.*

6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.*


3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.*

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.*

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the btruth of all things.

2) It would be better for your god to give everyone all the information to make a decision. Making them make such an important decision without all the information is pretty crappy.

Then what would be the point of our existence. Why would we need to be tried and tested in the flesh if we had all the answer. This mortal probation is a time where we prepare to meet God, in his own state of being,. To prove that we are worthy to dwell with him in the eternities by acting for ourselves, to exercise free agency. He has not left us alone. He has provided for us a book of Commandments that if we follow it's principles and precepts we may be judged worthy to dwell in his presence for eternity. He also gave us his only begotten son who came to earth like a lamb to the slaughter. He left us with his testimony and took upon himself the atonement of all sin that if we believe on his name and are baptised in the name of the Father, the son, and the Holy Ghost our sins will be forgiven and we may stand spotless before the judgement bar and receive our eternal reward. He has also given us the gift of the Holy Ghost that will testify to our souls that which is true. I have absolute faith that this is true, however, just say it is a load of old codswallop and there is nothing when I die. I will not care because I am dead. But if there is something then I will stand prepared before Christ. What have I lost in mortality by being a Christian. I do nothing different then you do. It is good common sense to be prepared just in case. You know what they say "fail to prepare, then prepare to fail

 

[outhouse]

Why would we need to be tried and tested in the flesh if we had all the answer.

We are not tested.

We have ONLY one life to live, live it well.

To prove that we are worthy to dwell with him in the eternities by acting for ourselves, to exercise free agency.

mythology

 

[SkepticThinker]

It is all anecdotal, and you are not a fan of that.

Oh, God has never killed anyone. He is incapable of evil. If he did that he would cease to exist. Every catastrophe in the old testament is the result of man's choices. It is beyond God to stop it because free agency has determined it. Free agency is an immovable principle like gravity.

What? According to the Bible, "he" killed almost every living thing on the planet at once!

 

[SkepticThinker]

Then what would be the point of our existence. Why would we need to be tried and tested in the flesh if we had all the answer. This mortal probation is a time where we prepare to meet God, in his own state of being,. To prove that we are worthy to dwell with him in the eternities by acting for ourselves, to exercise free agency. He has not left us alone. He has provided for us a book of Commandments that if we follow it's principles and precepts we may be judged worthy to dwell in his presence for eternity. He also gave us his only begotten son who came to earth like a lamb to the slaughter. He left us with his testimony and took upon himself the atonement of all sin that if we believe on his name and are baptised in the name of the Father, the son, and the Holy Ghost our sins will be forgiven and we may stand spotless before the judgement bar and receive our eternal reward. He has also given us the gift of the Holy Ghost that will testify to our souls that which is true. I have absolute faith that this is true, however, just say it is a load of old codswallop and there is nothing when I die. I will not care because I am dead. But if there is something then I will stand prepared before Christ. What have I lost in mortality by being a Christian. I do nothing different then you do. It is good common sense to be prepared just in case. You know what they say "fail to prepare, then prepare to fail

Are you prepared to face Allah? Zeus? Vishnu? Isis?

It's common sense, right?

 

[Magic Man]

Well, I am afraid that I cannot answer that, as much as I would like to. I do not know you or what steps you have taken to find out for yourself. Have you tried the following.

My point is I was a Christian. I truly believed. I prayed all the time. If what I was doing wasn't enough, then nothing is. The point is it's not true that all you have to do is invite him in sincerely.

Then what would be the point of our existence.

The same point there is now.

Why would we need to be tried and tested in the flesh if we had all the answer. This mortal probation is a time where we prepare to meet God, in his own state of being,. To prove that we are worthy to dwell with him in the eternities by acting for ourselves, to exercise free agency. He has not left us alone. He has provided for us a book of Commandments that if we follow it's principles and precepts we may be judged worthy to dwell in his presence for eternity. He also gave us his only begotten son who came to earth like a lamb to the slaughter. He left us with his testimony and took upon himself the atonement of all sin that if we believe on his name and are baptised in the name of the Father, the son, and the Holy Ghost our sins will be forgiven and we may stand spotless before the judgement bar and receive our eternal reward. He has also given us the gift of the Holy Ghost that will testify to our souls that which is true.

Why should we be tried and tested at all? That doesn't sound like a loving god. But the point is, if there is a loving god testing us, he should give us all the information to make a truly informed decision. It's not exactly fair to give us some possibilities and not letting us know for sure what's true and what's not, and then determine our eternal fate based on what we do with that limited info.

Let's say you are looking for a new job. You interview somewhere, and they seem to like you a lot. They tell you some info about the job, and tell you you might have it, and they want your answer. Would that be enough info for you to quit your current job? Wouldn't you think it unfair for them to ask you to commit before giving you all the info?

Remember, you can make a decision through free will if you have all the info. Being fully informed doesn't negate free will.

I have absolute faith that this is true, however, just say it is a load of old codswallop and there is nothing when I die. I will not care because I am dead. But if there is something then I will stand prepared before Christ. What have I lost in mortality by being a Christian. I do nothing different then you do. It is good common sense to be prepared just in case. You know what they say "fail to prepare, then prepare to fail

Ah, yes, it always comes back to Pascal's Wager. Here's the problem:

What if a god exists, but it's not yours? What if the real god sends people to hell for believing in other gods, but not for just not believing in any gods? Then I'm better off than you are. From an objective standpoint, this possibility has the same chance of happening as your god being real.

Also, you do do things differently from me. You spend time worrying about your god and beliefs. I am free from all that. After being on both sides, I'm much happier being on this side. You're really missing out.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I do not think it matters really. You believe that God cannot be used in the scientific method and so do I, therefore, what is the argument?

Yet you stated that physics would one day open the door to "God Science?" Then you say that God cannot be used in the scientific method?

Do you even realize how you contradict yourself at every turn?

No, I don't suppose that you do.

 

[Serenity7855]

I actually already know what they are, having studied this stuff for a great deal of my life. Personally, I would refer to the DSM.

I’m asking what you think they are

But in order to give you a legible answer I would have used an online Thesaurus. I haven't studied it for years.

So the diabolical beliefs you think militant atheists or antitheists or whatever, are trying to force on you are their beliefs that what you believe is delusional? Is that all?

Yes, but it is much more then that. Because of their disbelief they assume that they hold within their position the fountain of all truth, so they really think that their non belief should be the norm for the population of the world. Because of that they will use lies and deceit to coerce and manipulated.

What underhanded methods do they use to “stupify” Christians? What are they doing to bully and coerce you? That’s what I’m trying to get to the bottom of here. So far, you’ve been somewhat vague on that. Are you talking about brainwashing? Indoctrination? How are they doing these things? Are there atheist missionaries somewhere that I don’t know about? Because looking around at who the missionaries of the world actually are, a person might deduce that it’s Christians who are looking to force their beliefs on the world and not vice versa. How about the people who go knocking at people’s doors selling religion, are they atheists?

The key is in the comments. Look at how most forum members reply to comments. Most are polite. They may disagree but they do so with a level of respect for the opinions of others, unless those opinions are genuinely ludicrous. The antitheist does not respect anyone but herself. She is hostile an rude giving an air of superiority of the deluded Christian. She respects the power of others in the group of antitheists, but nothing else. Everyone is beneath her. Her comments are made without regard to the feelings of anyone but herself. And if she is wrong, she cannot admit it. To do so would undermine her power. While others in the group will add prefaces to their comments or phrase their comments in the form of suggestions, the antitheist will tell others what to do, like a master issuing orders to slaves. When called on this approach, the antitheist's followers will claim the person is just being blunt. After all the antitheist is the source of all truth, and their own sense of power.

They are in fact Cyber Bullies.

They use bullying techniques as well. A forum bully is school ground throwback. Remember that middle school bully with his pathetic little band of sycophantic followers? That's a forum bully. In ways the forum bully is just a pseudonym for a troll, but with a major difference. While the troll's behavior is condemned by the group, the forum bully's actions are condoned by the group. Established members of the group, who don't agree with the forum bully, usually remain quiet while the bully tears apart people just for sport and as a demonstration of power within the forum.

Basically a forum bully is the equivalent of a popular troll -- a troll with power within the group. And therein lies the danger. Picture that popular girl in high school who takes pride in belittling others less popular. Then toss in a few of her friends, along for the ride, who derive their own sense of power by picking up her table scraps, and you have an accurate picture of a forum bully

I’m asking you why you brought it up and how it pertains to the discussion.

Metaphysics is a traditional branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world that encompasses it. It is therefore appropriate to mention it here in regard to a possible Gods existence.

Do we not need to also fear the majority then? They’re already a large group.

The majority are sufficiently monitored. Most got to be big ethically.

And in regards to Hitler specifically, there was already for many years a great deal of anti-Jewish sentiment in Europe, probably making it much easier than it would have otherwise been for him to gain the support of the masses. Also, I wouldn’t peg him for an atheist. But that’s neither here nor there, really.

You are being far to pernickety. The point of the analogy was to show that minority groups can turn into genocidal maniacs. To then go on to give a history lesson is not only unnecessary but it is a condescension.

There are many Christians on this board who do continue to post for long periods of time. So it looks like there are, in fact, at least some Christians who do like what you consider to be confrontational situations. You yourself must get something out of confrontational situations given that you are here, and knowing what you do.

No, not really. I would prefer amicable and constructive criticism of my believe as apposed to someone who feels it necessary to belittle and use offensive behaviour to win a point. They believe that there is a winner and a loser in debating so they use any method available to them to "win" the debate.

Furthermore, if as you say, Christians don’t like confrontational situations, how come both times I visited Las Vegas, there was a group of them roaming the streets with pamphlets and a giant loudspeaker yelling Bible verses into people’s faces, calling them sinners and telling them they need to repent? Seems kinda confrontational to me.

That is a bit of a vacuous a question to ask. You are talking about extremist religions. They are the exception to the rule. But, it is there right to preach, you have the free agency not to listen.

Christians do not attract atheists by doing nothing. If they were actually “doing nothing” atheists wouldn’t have anything to have a problem with. What a lot of atheists take issue with is when Christians try to insert their religious beliefs into the public square, or to condemn or marginalize people (gay people, for example) based on said religious beliefs.

The public square is to be had by theists and atheists alike. To stifle it would be to take away freedom of speech to all.

Christians are not as vocal with preaching their belief as the antitheist is. Just watch the television when Professor Brian Cox is on. He is always making antitheist remarks that gradually brainwash the viewer into avoiding religion. Very subtle but a very powerful tool of the antitheist

Christopher Hitchens summed it up pretty well, when asked, “How do you justify wanting to take something away from people, that gives meaning to 95% of the American people, and replace it with something that gives meaning to just 5% of the American people?”

I have a great deal of respect for Christopher Hitchens. I have watched him in debate many times with WLC. He is an atheist who is very much to the point in expressing his opinion but he is not aggressive or hostile. He just says it how he believes it to be. There is nothing wrong with that and I very much respect him for his candour.

He said:

“First, I’ve said repeatedly that this stuff cannot be taken away from people, it is their favorite toy, and will remain so, as Freud said in the Future of an Illusion, it will remain that way, as long as we’re afraid of death. Which I think is quite likely to be a long time.

Second, I hope I’ve made it clear, that I’m perfectly happy for people to have these toys, and to play with them at home, and hug them to themselves and so on, and share them with other people who come round and play with the toys. That’s absolutely fine. They are not to make me play with these toys. I will not play with the toys. Don’t bring the toys to my house. Don’t say my children must play with these toys. Don’t say my toys are not allowed by their toys. I’m not gonna have any of that. Enough with clerical and religious bullying and intimidation. Is that finally clear?”

[youtube]Ogak5ZVxLyM[/youtube]
Christopher Hitchens On Religious Toys - YouTube

Well, I agree with what he has said. To me pestered by people trying to make you play ball is not nice.

 

[SkepticThinker]

But in order to give you a legible answer I would have used an online Thesaurus. I haven't studied it for years.

Okay, whatever. Can you please just finally answer the question?

 

[Serenity7855]

CONTINUED

As to your assertion that atheists love to gather in packs to taunt and ridicule Christians, see above.

I have personal experience of this where there was a self proclaimed Doctor who everyone thought was superior to them just because he called himself a Scientist. He was the alpha male of that group not because he was superior but because he was an expert in negative debating techniques that are vicious and odious. You could plainly see that the pack members would taunt and Bully the lone Christian. After the had worn him down sufficiently the alpha mail would come in for the kill. I watched that happen several times and each time the Christian never returned.

Well I don’t know, the manner in which you say things isn’t exactly nonconfrontational.

I would compare my delivery as being a similitude to Christopher Hitchens. Strait and to the point without pulling punches, however, I am a Christian. I am not Malicious.

That applies more so in real life than on a message board where people come to discuss religious matters, wouldn’t you say?

And on the other hand, what if I’m witnessing someone abusing a child, and I’m telling them that smacking a child around is harmful and wrong and they’re telling me it isn’t and I need to shut up and leave them alone. I’m certainly not going to shut up and walk away if I think the child is in harm’s way.

Yes, it does apply more in the real world. The second paragraph is yet another exception to the rule. It is not a common occurrence.

You can cease any discussion you like on this forum at any time you like. That has nothing to do with other people, and everything to do with you.

You asked the question, I answered it honestly and now you are saying that my answer is irrelevant. Hmmm

Great, then you understand the shortcomings of anecdotal stories.

No, not really. Who am I to judge?

I am telling you that an entire branch of Christianity practiced human torture and murder for centuries on end, in the name of their religion. So why should we not conclude, in the same way you have, that Catholics are narcissistic psychopaths?

Who are these entire branch of Christianity?

I do not think that Catholics are narcissistic psychopaths. Where have I said that. I have opinions about the Catholic religion, it is true, but I rarely express them on the ground that they can worship the god of their choice, as I do.

No you don’t. If someone tells me they have an invisible purple unicorn in their garage, I don’t have to just trust what they say until they let me down. Why would anyone do that? I’d say, the amount of skepticism I’m going to apply to a claim depends on the claim.

If someone told me they had a purple unicorn in their garage I would humor them just in case they are unstable because my knowledge would tell me that purple unicorns do not exist. From there on in I would treat what he says with scepticism. But you are using the rare extremes again. 2.2 billion people claim there is a God, how many people believe there is a purple unicorn and have they all been sectioned?

Are you referring to this:
“The interviewer concluded by asking the pair, “Is it your hope or expectation that you can, in your words, rid this world of religion?”

“I’m not sure how soon,” Dawkins answered. “I think that religion is declining, that Christianity is declining throughout Christendom.”21 Looking to the future, he adds, “And I think that that’s going to continue. If we look at the broad sweep of history, it’s clear that the trend is going in the right direction. I’m not so optimistic that it will be in my lifetime, but it will happen.”

Doesn’t sound so nefarious to me.

Well, yes it does actually.

It is awesome. And I appreciate it without any belief in god(s).

I am sure you do.

No, you would be answering a question about an assertion you are making.

That is true but the answer would derail an already disjointed thread.

 

[Serenity7855]

What? According to the Bible, "he" killed almost every living thing on the planet at once!

No, God didn't do that, mankind did it. They had been warned many times aver a long period of time to get their act together. The ignored the warning until they tipped the balance and the flood happened. The contravened a universal law of cause and effect. When society becomes that wicked then nature resolves it.

 

[outhouse]

No, God didn't do that, mankind did it. They had been warned many times aver a long period of time to get their act together. The ignored the warning until they tipped the balance and the flood happened. The contravened a universal law of cause and effect. When society becomes that wicked then nature resolves it.

You believe in a global flood?

 

[Serenity7855]

Yet you stated that physics would one day open the door to "God Science?" Then you say that God cannot be used in the scientific method?

Do you even realize how you contradict yourself at every turn?

No, I don't suppose that you do.

Do you even know that it is not a contradiction. Lord knows I have spent to much time explaining it to you. God cannot be defined. Therefore, he cannot be used in the scientific method. The big bang is a scientific discovery. The cause is a scientific cause. Could a God be responsible for the scientific cause. That does not bring God into the scientific method any more then Einstein was a part of the scientific method.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, but it is much more then that. Because of their disbelief they assume that they hold within their position the fountain of all truth, so they really think that their non belief should be the norm for the population of the world. Because of that they will use lies and deceit to coerce and manipulated.

Um, do you not hold the position that you have the truth? I’ve seen you basically state as much. Are you sure you just aren’t projecting?

This atheist wants to believe as many true things as possible. I want us to examine the observable reality we live in, come together and decide how we wish to treat each other, and decide what we collectively consider to be moral and immoral actions based on observable and practical results. Religious and nonreligious people alike can easily do this. For instance, if we want to ban gay marriage, the reason should be a practical one based on possible harmful effects in observable reality, not one based on the dictates of ancient texts far removed from the world we currently live in.

And yeah, I do sometimes wonder how people can believe some of the things religion preaches.

What lies and deceit are antitheists using? You keep making vague statements like this without filling in the details.

The key is in the comments. Look at how most forum members reply to comments. Most are polite. They may disagree but they do so with a level of respect for the opinions of others, unless those opinions are genuinely ludicrous. The antitheist does not respect anyone but herself. She is hostile an rude giving an air of superiority of the deluded Christian. She respects the power of others in the group of antitheists, but nothing else. Everyone is beneath her. Her comments are made without regard to the feelings of anyone but herself. And if she is wrong, she cannot admit it. To do so would undermine her power. While others in the group will add prefaces to their comments or phrase their comments in the form of suggestions, the antitheist will tell others what to do, like a master issuing orders to slaves. When called on this approach, the antitheist's followers will claim the person is just being blunt. After all the antitheist is the source of all truth, and their own sense of power.
They use bullying techniques as well. A forum bully is school ground throwback. Remember that middle school bully with his pathetic little band of sycophantic followers? That's a forum bully. In ways the forum bully is just a pseudonym for a troll, but with a major difference. While the troll's behavior is condemned by the group, the forum bully's actions are condoned by the group. Established members of the group, who don't agree with the forum bully, usually remain quiet while the bully tears apart people just for sport and as a demonstration of power within the forum. They are in fact Cyber Bullies.
Basically a forum bully is the equivalent of a popular troll -- a troll with power within the group. And therein lies the danger. Picture that popular girl in high school who takes pride in belittling others less popular. Then toss in a few of her friends, along for the ride, who derive their own sense of power by picking up her table scraps, and you have an accurate picture of a forum bully

Okay, so antitheists don’t actually indoctrinate or brainwash anyone. They just cyberbully people? Is there some reason you can’t simply ignore them? I mean, they’re not knocking on your door like some Christians do. They’re not setting up camps outside your house trying to convert you like Christian missionaries tend to do. They’re not chasing down crowds, yelling for them to repent for their wickedness with bullhorns in hand, like the group of Christians I’ve seen several times in Vegas. Which sounds more intrusive and forceful to you?

Metaphysics is a traditional branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world that encompasses it. It is therefore appropriate to mention it here in regard to a possible Gods existence.

Again though, I didn’t ask for a definition. I asked you how it pertains to the part of the discussion about personal accountability that we are having.

The majority are sufficiently monitored. Most got to be big ethically.

I hope you’re joking.

You are being far to pernickety. The point of the analogy was to show that minority groups can turn into genocidal maniacs. To then go on to give a history lesson is not only unnecessary but it is a condescension.

I’d say you’re being far too pernickety and overly sensitive. I was actually making another point in regards to religion.

No, not really. I would prefer amicable and constructive criticism of my believe as apposed to someone who feels it necessary to belittle and use offensive behaviour to win a point. They believe that there is a winner and a loser in debating so they use any method available to them to "win" the debate.

Then why do you remain here, given the number of complaints you seem to have? You must get some enjoyment out of it.

That is a bit of a vacuous a question to ask.

Do you consider their actions confrontational or not? Is that a difficult question to answer?
You’re the one complaining about the confrontational behavior of the people you don’t like and basically state outright that only militant atheists are capable of such things while meek and mild little Christians are just trying to go about their lives. This example flies in the face of that assertion, don’tcha think?

You are talking about extremist religions.

And you’re talking about extremist anti-religionists. Get it?

The same thing has happened to me in various other parts of the country and the world as well. I took some pictures and had some fun with it.

They are the exception to the rule. But, it is there right to preach, you have the free agency not to listen.

Perhaps you should listen to your own advice then.

And atheists have the same right to free speech you think Christians are so deserving of, even the militant ones.

The public square is to be had by theists and atheists alike. To stifle it would be to take away freedom of speech to all.

People who don’t follow your religion don’t want to follow the dictates found in your old books just because the books declare themselves to be divinely inspired by some god you guys can’t demonstrate exists at all.

Christians are not as vocal with preaching their belief as the antitheist is. Just watch the television when Professor Brian Cox is on. He is always making antitheist remarks that gradually brainwash the viewer into avoiding religion. Very subtle but a very powerful tool of the antitheist

This is just nonsense. How many Christian television stations and shows are there? How many preachers can you see all over the TV on any given Sunday? How many Christian missionaries are there in the world? How many groups of Christians knocking door to door at peoples’ private homes? How many Christian churches are there in the western world?

Now compare that to how many atheist television stations are in existence. How many atheist TV shows. How many atheist missionaries traveling the world. How many atheist churches there are in existence. How many bands of atheists equipped with bullhorns are roaming the streets yelling at people to repent for their sins. When was the last time an atheist knocked on your door while you were at home minding your own business?

For pete’s sake, there are dictates in the Bible commanding Christians to spread the word.

Guess who wins in the preaching contest?

I have a great deal of respect for Christopher Hitchens. I have watched him in debate many times with WLC. He is an atheist who is very much to the point in expressing his opinion but he is not aggressive or hostile. He just says it how he believes it to be. There is nothing wrong with that and I very much respect him for his candour.

I’m pleasantly surprised to read this. There are people who think Hitchens is quite hostile.

Well, I agree with what he has said. To me pestered by people trying to make you play ball is not nice.

Indeed.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, God didn't do that, mankind did it. They had been warned many times aver a long period of time to get their act together. The ignored the warning until they tipped the balance and the flood happened. The contravened a universal law of cause and effect. When society becomes that wicked then nature resolves it.

I don't care how you wish to try to justify such a terrible action.

The point is that your god is supposed to have actually destroyed the entire world and just about everything on it.

Never mind what the animals could have possibly done to deserve such a thing.

 

[SkepticThinker]

CONTINUED
I have personal experience of this where there was a self proclaimed Doctor who everyone thought was superior to them just because he called himself a Scientist. He was the alpha male of that group not because he was superior but because he was an expert in negative debating techniques that are vicious and odious. You could plainly see that the pack members would taunt and Bully the lone Christian. After the had worn him down sufficiently the alpha mail would come in for the kill. I watched that happen several times and each time the Christian never returned.

I’m sorry but that sounds made up to me. Are you talking about wild animals? What’s with the alpha male stuff? And to be honest, I’m not even sure what happened in this story you just told me.

So let’s assume whatever happened in your story happened. I told you a story where a band of Christians were roaming the streets with bullhorns and mini Bibles, yelling at everyone else to repent for their sins. They got into a verbal altercation with a woman that was standing beside me that had responded to them.

Where does this leave us? Should we assume that all atheists are forceful, intrusive and rude people. Should we assume Christians are all forceful, intrusive and rude people? Or should we understand that some people are forceful, intrusive and rude, regardless of religious affiliation, and some aren’t?

I would compare my delivery as being a similitude to Christopher Hitchens. Strait and to the point without pulling punches, however, I am a Christian. I am not Malicious.

Continuing the sentiment above, I am sure Christians can be malicious, just like anyone else. That’s not to assume you are, of course. Just making a point.

Yes, it does apply more in the real world. The second paragraph is yet another exception to the rule. It is not a common occurrence.

Exceptions do exist, yes.

You asked the question, I answered it honestly and now you are saying that my answer is irrelevant. Hmmm

What? Where did I say that?

I said you can cease any discussion you like, at any time. That is YOUR decision.

No, not really. Who am I to judge?

You’re a human being with a functioning brain, yes? You are capable of judging whatever you like.
How can you say you see what I am saying and then turn around and say you don’t? That doesn’t even make sense.

Who are these entire branch of Christianity?

The Catholic Church. You are aware of history, yes?

I do not think that Catholics are narcissistic psychopaths. Where have I said that. I have opinions about the Catholic religion, it is true, but I rarely express them on the ground that they can worship the god of their choice, as I do.

You probably should, given that your line of reasoning should lead you down that path. Hence why I brought it up.

You’ve apparently lost track of the discussion. I was asking you why you wouldn’t consider them narcissistic psychopaths in light of the terrible actions it’s leaders have taken in the past (and present) given that you have concluded that all antitheists or militant atheists are narcissistic psychopaths based on anecdotal stories rather than actual studies.

If someone told me they had a purple unicorn in their garage I would humor them just in case they are unstable because my knowledge would tell me that purple unicorns do not exist. From there on in I would treat what he says with scepticism. But you are using the rare extremes again. 2.2 billion people claim there is a God, how many people believe there is a purple unicorn and have they all been sectioned?

I would ask to see the unicorn.

The point is that 2.2. billion people claim there is a god with basically the same amount of evidence that my friend has for his purple unicorn. I’m also trying to point out that if we had to accept all claims made by anyone without first applying skepticism, we’d have to believe all kinds of things that weren’t true. Not to mention that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, wouldn’t you say? You said we have to trust everyone’s word until they give us reason to think we shouldn’t. I’m saying that an extraordinary claim such as “I have a purple unicorn in my garage” or “I have a personal relationship with an all-knowing invisible deity” should be met with skepticism until some kind of evidence is provided to demonstrate the truth of the claim.

Well, yes it does actually.

Can you explain why?

That is true but the answer would derail an already disjointed thread.

Why is it so hard for you to answer questions?

It actually pertains to the topic and theme of your thread. You identify Richard Dawkins as an antitheist intent on ridding people of religious beliefs and forcing their wicked morality on the world. So I’m asking you what kinds of terrible things he is doing to make you think such a thing.

 

[Serenity7855]

You believe in a global flood?

Oh, that is a different story. What do you mean by a global flood? Was it a metaphysical event or a naturalist event. I think the former.