There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[Serenity7855]

You reap what you sow.

You go to great lengths to avoid answering direct questions without a safety net.

One wonders if you are trying to convince yourself of your faith...

You do not have to concern yourself with me and my faith. I am not the topic of the debate. Why not try and give some constructive comments instead of being so destructively negative about my person.

 

[Serenity7855]

Buddy, find where you left your wits and your manners and address the person you are responding to instead of making asinine statememts about atheists in general or some other unnamed atheists you pretend to have conflicted with in the past.

You accuse me of making asinine statements when your posts are personal attacks against me. I do not mind but please, stop the hypocrisy.

Note how the others here address YOU, and never theists in general, other unnamed theists online, 'militant theists' and so on.

I mean, what does this even mean?

No mate, I can not imagine a scenario where all of the children in two cities are like the character Reagan in the Exorcist - that is because I am sane.

That is your opinion, right?

Awwwwww......yes yes you poor dear, the nasty militant atheists are all out to get you.

Look out! Behind you! It's a militant atheist - you know, one of those evil monsters who run about the place militantly not believing in things at random!

That is so incredibly puerile.

 

[Bunyip]

You do not have to concern yourself with me and my faith. I am not the topic of the debate. Why not try and give some constructive comments instead of being so destructively negative about my person.

Why not actually debate instead of just attacking 'militant atheists'?

In terms of attacking the person (ad hominem), and attacking generalised groups instead of the point in hand you are by far the worst offender here.

And believe me - THAT is the most constructive and useful comment you could possibly ask for.

 

[Serenity7855]

Why not actually debate instead of just attacking 'militant atheists'?

In terms of attacking the person (ad hominem), and attacking generalised groups instead of the point in hand you are by far the worst offender here.

And believe me - THAT is the most constructive and useful comment you could possibly ask for.

You are still attacking me. Why?

 

[McBell]

May I suggest that you get over your obsession with my style of debate and start debating the point and not me. I am not the subject of debate. Atheists were mentioned in the OP, so they can be considered fodder for debate, but my person is NOT the subject of debate.

Except that by the very definition YOU provided for "militant atheist" you are a militant atheist...

 

[McBell]

You do not have to concern yourself with me and my faith. I am not the topic of the debate. Why not try and give some constructive comments instead of being so destructively negative about my person.

You reap what you sow.

If you dislike that which you are reaping, try sowing something different.

 

[McBell]

You are still attacking me. Why?

Wow.
For someone who does as much attacking of others as you, you sure do an awful lot of whining about being attacked.

And you have the gall to talk about the hypocrisy of others?

Seems to me there is something about a plank and eyes....

 

[Magic Man]

No, it was the result of their action that the flood engulfed them. they had a choice. they choose not to heed the warnings. The law says that if you steel a car then you will go to prison. Is it, therefore, the prisons governor that is held accountable for your punishment or you for steeling the car. the comparison is the same. God is bound by universal law to cleanse the earth whenever it reaches a state like Sodom and Gomorrah.

Again, God is the one who sent the flood. That action killed the humans. God killed the humans. Whether you think they deserved it is a different argument.

If you want to compare it to our legal system, when the state executes someone, it is the state and the employee who are killing that person. If you think the person deserves it, fine, but the person isn't killing him/herself.

 

[Serenity7855]

Again, God is the one who sent the flood. That action killed the humans. God killed the humans. Whether you think they deserved it is a different argument.

If you want to compare it to our legal system, when the state executes someone, it is the state and the employee who are killing that person. If you think the person deserves it, fine, but the person isn't killing him/herself.

That is just not my belief. I do not believe in a God that intervenes. I cannot believe in a God that intervenes because to do so makes the entire plan of salvation a fairy tale as intervention means free agency is being tampered with. The people who lost there lives in the flood had the option of mending their ways and then reaping the rewards, or, Continuing in their inequities and loosing their lives. They chose the latter.

I know what you are saying. That God was the one who pushed the button that gave the injection, but does that make the executioner a murderer or a facilitator of the law. I don't know if God pushed the button or turned the tap on. If he did then he did so without an alternative as those people had been warned over a long period of time, what the consequences of continuation would be. I believe that a laws was crossed and the consequences set. To say that God is a murderer is confrontational and it is done specifically to wind up Christians. He acted in the same way as your executioners do when administering the lethal injection.

 

[viole]

It is not OK to kill older children. It is wrong to kill anybody. Those who brought about the death of innocent children will be held accountable. I mention children because they will be saved from judgement and be aires to celestial glory.

How is that different from a guy who exterminates a family of criminals with small children and shifts the responsibility of the children death to their parents? He might try to excuse himself by saying "I told them that they all would die if they don't behave. It is therefore their fault if their kids died, not mine. After all they would have become like their parents and now they are in Heaven, anyway. A win-win situation.".

No sane jury would accept that.

And if God gets away with that (and we don't) how could He serve as a role model and giver of morality?

It is not OK to kill babies. But you are mistaking who the Killers are. In this case it was the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah. They had been warned over and over again but they continued in their evil doings. Eventually, there was no other alternative, just like it will be in Armagheddon. They are responsible for their own destruction and the deaths of their children.

Same thing.

"Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey. (1 Samuel 15:3)"

Do the donkeys go to Heaven as well? I wonder what the PETA Christians think about that.

But of course God has nothing to do with that since He is obviously the product of an ancient tribe's imagination. If He did indeed order such atrocities , then showing the picture of His second in command would be morally equivalent to showing the picture of H. Himmler.

What is more likely: that the creator of the universe chooses a tribe on earth as His own and supports their genocides, or that a tribe in the middle east made up a God that chose them and supports their quest for additional Lebensraum?

Any book about the history of mankind should provide the answer to this question.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Serenity7855]

How is that different from a guy who exterminates a family of criminals with small children and shifts the responsibility of the children death to their parents? He might try to excuse himself by saying "I told them that they all would die if they don't behave. It is therefore their fault if their kids died, not mine. After all they would have become like their parents and now they are in Heaven, anyway. A win-win situation.".

No sane jury would accept that.

And if God gets away with that (and we don't) how could He serve as a role model and giver of morality?



Same thing.

"Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey. (1 Samuel 15:3)"

Do the donkeys go to Heaven as well?

But of course God has nothing to do with that since He is obviously the product of an ancient tribe's imagination. If He did indeed order such atrocities , then showing the picture of His second in command would be morally equivalent to showing the picture of H. Himmler.

What is more likely: that the creator of the universe chooses a tribe on earth as His own and supports their genocides, or that a tribe in the middle east made up a God that chose them and supports their quest for additional Lebensraum?

Any book about the history of mankind should provide the answer to this question.

Ciao

- viole

You are comparing a fallible, imperfect human being to a supernatural God who is omniscient, being Alpha and Omega, knowing the beginning from the end. A God that is perfect in nature, being incapable of any evil or wrong doing, everything he does is in righteousness. If you want to accuse a God, that you do not believe in, a murderer, then you have to except his other attributes as well, that he is a perfect being and does nothing that is not righteous. If you are trying to convince Christians that their beliefs are wrong then you are guilty of interference into areas where you are unwelcome. Either way, you are not playing by the rules.

If you believe that God has been created by man, then why are you here toying and taunting Christians who believe differently. I see no one here trying to convert you to Christianity. They have the same right as you as to what they believe in and they are happy with that belief, so why are you trying to prove them wrong about a belief that is harmless and brings a great deal of happiness. Who gave you that right? Or are you a bitter ex-christian who could not live the life of a Christian so you blame the faith you failed at living and try to justify your own inabilities by taking other away from the faith.

 

[outhouse]

The people who lost there lives in the flood had the option of mending their ways and then reaping the rewards, or, Continuing in their inequities and loosing their lives.
.

So you believe a literal flood murdered people.

 

[Serenity7855]

So you believe a literal flood murdered people.

I did not say that, but don't mind me when putting words in my mouth.

 

[viole]

You are comparing a fallible, imperfect human being to a supernatural God who is omniscient, being Alpha and Omega, knowing the beginning from the end. A God that is perfect in nature, being incapable of any evil or wrong doing, everything he does is in righteousness. If you want to accuse a God, that you do not believe in, a murderer, then you have to except his other attributes as well, that he is a perfect being and does nothing that is not righteous. If you are trying to convince Christians that their beliefs are wrong then you are guilty of interference into areas where you are unwelcome. Either way, you are not playing by the rules.

I am not accusing God, obviously. I am accusing the people that manage to find a justification, any justification, for the indiscriminate killing of men, women, pregnant women. kids and animals, so that that they can keep their ridiculous belief of going to Heaven and share eternity with such a character.

Let me put this way. if I read the following:

"They will be killed by an invading army, their little ones dashed to death against the ground, their pregnant women ripped open by swords."

in the Mein Kampf, I would not sense it as a discontinuity from the rest of the narrative; would you?

Ciao

- viole

 

[outhouse]

I did not say that, but don't mind me when putting words in my mouth.

YOU stated this

The people who lost there lives in the flood

Looks like we don't need to know where the words came from, it was you.

Why is the question.


So you literally believe people lost their lives in a flood.

 

[Serenity7855]

I am not accusing God, obviously. I am accusing the people that manage to find a justification, any justification, for the indiscriminate killing of men, women, pregnant women. kids and animals, so that that they can keep their ridiculous belief of going to Heaven and share eternity with such a character.

Let me put this way. if I read the following:

"They will be killed by an invading army, their little ones dashed to death against the ground, their pregnant women ripped open by swords."

in the Mein Kampf, I would not sense it as a discontinuity from the rest of the narrative; would you?

Ciao

- viole

But nobody really knows what happened during the flood so to protect the belief they are bound to come up with all sorts of reasoning. I do not know for certain, and I do not care either. I merely repeat whatever the experts say. I have not made any archaeological investigations. I mimic the most likely reasoning. Maybe God removed everyone's spirits before flooding the earth or maybe the flood was entirely allergenic. To try and trip people up on things that they could not possibly know for any kind of certainty says more about you then it does about them. It makes you confrontational and contentious. You are looking to discredit Christians who have not done anything to you. Why do you find it necessary to take someone's religion away from them. Why would you want to do that. What is your motivation.

in the Mein Kampf, I would not sense it as a discontinuity from the rest of the narrative; would you?

No. I know that the Old Testament is a record of a people under the Mosaic Law and that the New Testament is a record of a people under the Abrahamic Covenant. Because of that their cultures were totally different so I would expect the bible to reflect that, it does. That is why there is no such stories in the New Testament.

 

[Serenity7855]

YOU stated this



Looks like we don't need to know where the words came from, it was you.

Why is the question.


So you literally believe people lost their lives in a flood.

Define the flood

 

[ScuzManiac]

But nobody really knows what happened during the flood so to protect the belief they are bound to come up with all sorts of reasoning. I do not know for certain, and I do not care either. I merely repeat whatever the experts say. I have not made any archaeological investigations. I mimic the most likely reasoning. Maybe God removed everyone's spirits before flooding the earth or maybe the flood was entirely allergenic. To try and trip people up on things that they could not possibly know for any kind of certainty says more about you then it does about them. It makes you confrontational and contentious. You are looking to discredit Christians who have not done anything to you. Why do you find it necessary to take someone's religion away from them. Why would you want to do that. What is your motivation.



No. I know that the Old Testament is a record of a people under the Mosaic Law and that the New Testament is a record of a people under the Abrahamic Covenant. Because of that their cultures were totally different so I would expect the bible to reflect that, it does. That is why there is no such stories in the New Testament.

Pretty sure this is in the debate section.



If you didn't want other's opinions, you shouldn't have posted this here.

:no:

 

[viole]

But nobody really knows what happened during the flood so to protect the belief they are bound to come up with all sorts of reasoning. I do not know for certain, and I do not care either. I merely repeat whatever the experts say. I have not made any archaeological investigations. I mimic the most likely reasoning. Maybe God removed everyone's spirits before flooding the earth or maybe the flood was entirely allergenic. To try and trip people up on things that they could not possibly know for any kind of certainty says more about you then it does about them. It makes you confrontational and contentious. You are looking to discredit Christians who have not done anything to you. Why do you find it necessary to take someone's religion away from them. Why would you want to do that. What is your motivation.

I am not talking about the flood. i think you are confusing posters.

And we are on a religious debate forum. So, i am debating the plausibility of your beliefs.

You should not take it personally: we atheists love the believer; we just hate the belief

If you expect people to confirm your beliefs in Jesus, there are plenty of places who will happily amplify the confirmation you seem to seek.

Of course, I expect you challenge my beliefs, or lack thereof, as well.

No. I know that the Old Testament is a record of a people under the Mosaic Law and that the New Testament is a record of a people under the Abrahamic Covenant. Because of that their cultures were totally different so I would expect the bible to reflect that, it does. That is why there is no such stories in the New Testament.

So, the moral imperatives of the Bible adapt to the current Zeitgeist of a certain society?

Ciao

- viole

 

[SkepticThinker]

When you can phrase the question in a way that does not make me look like a jerk off in answering it, then I will answer it. When you remove the traps in your questions and can assure me that you are capable of seeing exactly what I see, then I will answer it. When I am certain that your interests in the subject are honorable and not a ploy to discredit the word of God and, in turn, his servants, then I will answer it. Until such time as that happens, I will keep my pearls in my pocket.

Oh come off it. There are no traps. It's a straight-up question that directly addresses something you said.