Who's more racist... the religious or the non-religious?

[beerisit]

...........i can't just ignore my point i suppose.

ok

 

[Desfox]

ok

Thats right, you CAN NEVER IGNORE MY POINT!!!!!

yep you got me . You have just discovered my words are an unstoppable force.

So......you CAN ignore my point, sometimes.

 

[beerisit]

Thats right, you CAN NEVER IGNORE MY POINT!!!!!

yep you got me . You have just discovered my words are an unstoppable force.

So......you CAN ignore my point, sometimes.

So you can't support your contentions, that makes it imperative that I ignore your points.

 

[beerisit]

Okey Dokey

Not this Bronze age label given to associate the bible with a primative time to make you feel better about your position again. This stuff is nuts. Being that his description is the same required to qualify as the first cause of the universe and the fact that they are superlative descriptions which eliminate any greater concept of God your attempts have failed. He has voluntarily limited his infinate choices in certain areas. For example: God said he would never again destroy the earth with water. He has limited himself to less than infinate choices voluntarily. Your FAIL status was a FAILURE.

Now I like this. A book written in the bronze age by bronze age MEN cannot be considered primitive by you or anyone else because YOU believe this attempt by primitive man to explain the world they lived in is actually a message from the god they imagined as part of that explanation?
You claim that the attributes of this mythical god are proof that he exists, because he fits perfectly the profile of a being who could create everything as the primitive man envisioned it. Of course the primitive authors were wrong about their view of the universe and the being they imagined created it was wrong as well. Rather than the attributes assigned to this god being perfectly in accord with the alleged behaviour of this god, they in fact reflect the attempts by the authors to correlate his capacities with the story they created. They failed in the first instance and needed to alter these capacities later in the narrative. Witness your attempt to claim his voluntary refutation of his omnipotence and omniscience when it doesn't suit his behaviour. Now I love the fact that religionists like to bring god's promise to not kill everything on the planet with water as proof of his voluntarily limiting his capacity allegedly after he has already done such.

How long is it necessary to contend with men before action becomes justified. 100 years is quite long enough in my opinion. You are assuming 13.5 billion years which you do not know is true, and is completely irrelevant anyway. I have no opinion on the age of the universe so don't bother. He only had to spend a suffecient amount of time that was determined as just by his standards. You have no frame of reference to insist on more time or less time. That reminds me, God also said he would not contend with man forever. So another limit surfaces. What can you appeal to to justify the suffeciency of your standards over God's.

100 yrs is quite long enough in your opinion, but of course your opinion isn't taking into account the alleged lifespan of people at that time. In terms of your lifespan it would mean that you were EIGHT years old when your god decided to destroy you. When you were 8yrs old did you even KNOW evil? I would certainly hope not. So your god is just like the Islamic god and offers humans the chance to challenge him and will destroy them if they fail. Gotta love that.

Good lord. You have no way whatsoever to decide what man can do in a certain time. I have read of many societies that plunged into rebellion and lawlessness in vastly shorter time frame. Thousands of Germans went from fairly reasonable people, to either directly murdereing millions of Jews or didn't try to stop it in just a few years. There were definately supernatural forces at work. They only provide an incentive or lure, they do not make the decision. In the biblical view people are capable and responsible to make decisions. For the love......even we humans hold people accountable.

And here it is, there are thousands of Germans who went bad (allegedly) and this supports the claim that the entire HUMAN population of this planet were totally evil, including unborn children and new born children, is this you specious claim.
At the same time you ascribe this behaviour to supernatural forces. Would you be so kind as to enunciate the supernatural forces in action on this planet? Are they both the same cause?

First the book was not written 4000yrs ago. The entire new testament is less than 2000 yrs old. You just don't get it. If he changed certain parts of the future to guarranty results it is a violation of freewill which he gives us. I am not saying he doesn't change the future just not in a way that violates this principle. Your opinion on God's character if he exists would be about the meaningless thing imagineable. Even if another God existed and was 100% evil. The argument that that God doesn't exist because you dissagree with him is futile. Your evil characterisation of God's motives besides being wrong is irrelevant even if it were true. Is a murderer's opinion valid if he considers the judge wrong.

Ahh yes the SACRED free will. Of course killing every living thing on the planet (few exceptions) had absolutely no effect on their free will. Free will is so important to your god that he killed every first born CREATURE in an entire nation to preserve it. Lets face it the first born used their free will for that, didn't they?
My opinion of god's character, if he exists, is the most meaningful thing in existence, according to your beliefs.

 

[A Troubled Man]

Are you incapable of actually makeing a comment on the issue of this thread.

I did show how your argument was flawed and contradictory, but you have chosen not to engage those points.

 

[1robin]

Now I like this. A book written in the bronze age by bronze age MEN cannot be considered primitive by you or anyone else because YOU believe this attempt by primitive man to explain the world they lived in is actually a message from the god they imagined as part of that explanation?
You claim that the attributes of this mythical god are proof that he exists, because he fits perfectly the profile of a being who could create everything as the primitive man envisioned it. Of course the primitive authors were wrong about their view of the universe and the being they imagined created it was wrong as well. Rather than the attributes assigned to this god being perfectly in accord with the alleged behaviour of this god, they in fact reflect the attempts by the authors to correlate his capacities with the story they created. They failed in the first instance and needed to alter these capacities later in the narrative. Witness your attempt to claim his voluntary refutation of his omnipotence and omniscience when it doesn't suit his behaviour. Now I love the fact that religionists like to bring god's promise to not kill everything on the planet with water as proof of his voluntarily limiting his capacity allegedly after he has already done such.

Wow, First of all this revisionist stuff is incorrect. Second the attributes given to God thousands of years ago are agree by virtually every secular and theistic philosopher I have watched debate in the last 10 years. They overwhelmingly agree that whatever this creating force was it has to have been omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, outside of (or independant from) time, matter, and space. Exactly what your bronze age baboons said of God. They were obviously incapable of haveing the foggiest idea of what modern philosophers and scientists would discover was necessary for the creationary force of the univers. These modern experts also say that Time, matter, and space began to exist at the same instant at a finite time in the past. Genesis 1:1
In the beginning (time) God (who) created the heaven (space) and the earth (representative of matter). That is too accurate to dismiss regardless of how uncomfortable it makes your position look. I never claimed that this alone was proof of anything. However add this in with the hundreds of thousands of other lines of investigation and there is an overwhelming case. His voluntary restraint has nothing to do with his omnipotence. If choose not to do something that says nothing about whether I could or not. Since a personal God would have to choose to do certain thingd and not do certain things this is obvious. The fact that you choose to incorrectly understand scripture and it's implications doesn't mean you couldn't do so. (you got to admit that was a good one)

100 yrs is quite long enough in your opinion, but of course your opinion isn't taking into account the alleged lifespan of people at that time. In terms of your lifespan it would mean that you were EIGHT years old when your god decided to destroy you. When you were 8yrs old did you even KNOW evil? I would certainly hope not. So your god is just like the Islamic god and offers humans the chance to challenge him and will destroy them if they fail. Gotta love that.

This is a rediculous transpose of relative age. Regardless it is an accepted biblical position that people under the age of accountability go to heaven without haveing to be saved. They are unaccountable as far as God is concerned. Just imagine from God's persective looking down and seeing a hundred thousand Jeffrey Domers, Hitlers, Neros, and John Wayne Gaceys. Seing every unimagineable detail of horror that is produced by man's inhumanity to man that would have been commited in the thousands of years of complete lawlessness that would have reigned before they finally destroyed themselves. If you actually let the biblical context speak it is reasonable to expect God would want to stop this madness that was chosen by these people despite his efforts.

And here it is, there are thousands of Germans who went bad (allegedly) and this supports the claim that the entire HUMAN population of this planet were totally evil, including unborn children and new born children, is this you specious claim.
At the same time you ascribe this behaviour to supernatural forces. Would you be so kind as to enunciate the supernatural forces in action on this planet? Are they both the same cause?

There is no need to appeal to examples to justify the possability of Man's complete depredation. It can be seen in countless places in our world today that has the benifit of the incorporation of many years of Christian moral tradition and sophisticated secular law enforcement that wasn't available at the time of the flood. There is no way to look at any period in human history and not see the potential of complete anarchy. being that supernatural events are not describeable or detectable by natural law, It is impossible to prove them. However many other things equally unproveable like Love, beauty, value, or transedentalism are considered by virtually everyone to exist.

Ahh yes the SACRED free will. Of course killing every living thing on the planet (few exceptions) had absolutely no effect on their free will. Free will is so important to your god that he killed every first born CREATURE in an entire nation to preserve it. Lets face it the first born used their free will for that, didn't they?
My opinion of god's character, if he exists, is the most meaningful thing in existence, according to your beliefs.

I don't think you understand the concepts and implications of biblical theology. We are given freewill but only for a given time determined by God. The time varies and can be shortened vastly by the misuse of it. As I have stated if freewill was terminated before the age of accountability they are declared un accountable and enjoy an eternity free of the misery caused by our rejection of God. Your argumentations seems to suggest God can't be real because you don't like him. This is an invalid method to determine truth. Even if (and I am definately not saying it is) God's actions were evil (how that could be determined in the absence of a justifiable standard is another issue) that says nothing about his reality. Even if he were inconsistent that would say nothing about his reality. Fortunately this is not the case anyway. A running joke among Christian apologists is the attitude of Atheists seems to be 'God does not exist and they hate him' I am not claiming that you think this way just that atheistic arguments look that way.

 

[1robin]

I did show how your argument was flawed and contradictory, but you have chosen not to engage those points.

Why don't you restate them in a clear manner and I will address them. I am unconvinced you will even make a point consistent with this thread.

 

[beerisit]

1robin just how wonderful is it that I don't understand anything at all about the stuff written in your holy book. It must be very comforting for you. I understand how you must ignore every question posed about your beliefs, it's just really sad for someone who thinks they think.
Your response was not a response at all, but I'm not surprised.

 

[A Troubled Man]

Why don't you restate them in a clear manner and I will address them. I am unconvinced you will even make a point consistent with this thread.

Why not instead just copy your points and the responses I made to them that you don't understand. Easy peasy.

 

[1robin]

Why not instead just copy your points and the responses I made to them that you don't understand. Easy peasy.

Told you. "I am unconvinced you will even make a point consistent with this thread."

 

[1robin]

1robin just how wonderful is it that I don't understand anything at all about the stuff written in your holy book. It must be very comforting for you. I understand how you must ignore every question posed about your beliefs, it's just really sad for someone who thinks they think.
Your response was not a response at all, but I'm not surprised.

And the several hundred words I posted in response to inaccurate interpretations so far is proof of your claim. IMO most of your conclusions appear to me to be driven by a desperate attempt to warp scripture into a scenario that rationalizes a dismissal. It does not appear to be the points made by someone who has sincerely taken an honest view of scripture. I don't know you and have no desire to insult you. I just had to make the point that seemed obvious to me. Several of the best biblical critics I have debated with, all had one thing in common, a view of scripture consistent with Christian theology. They were educated enough to be able to debate the issues without the warping of them that included their strawman interpretations. I get frustrated when I have to actually reply to a false version of Christianity that seems to be distorted to produce a concept that is then able to be argued against and dismissed. I am not the kind of person that starts rattleing off logical fallacies or calls out every incorrect interpretation, I find that direspectful. If I offended you I apolagize but sometimes I just get frustrated.

 

[A Troubled Man]

Told you. "I am unconvinced you will even make a point consistent with this thread."

*sigh*

 

[1robin]

*sigh*

To be honest I do not know which claims you are refering to. All of them seemed to be equally ineffective and it would be easier for you to do this.

 

[Desfox]

So you can't support your contentions, that makes it imperative that I ignore your points.

Well that would be true if I posted nothing that support my point....but, ummmm, I did. Did you look up the articles?

Perhaps you missed them because I couldn't post links yet, but now I have enough post so:

Modern man's ancestor Homo erectus became extinct '108,000 years earlier than previously thought' | Mail Online

Scientific Racism: The Eugenics of Social Darwinism | Documentary jungle - Watch Free Documentaries Online

These are just example of what I was talking about, the second one describes a recent scientific racism.

 

[beerisit]

Ahh yes the SACRED free will. Of course killing every living thing on the planet (few exceptions) had absolutely no effect on their free will. Free will is so important to your god that he killed every first born CREATURE in an entire nation to preserve it. Lets face it the first born used their free will for that, didn't they?
My opinion of god's character, if he exists, is the most meaningful thing in existence, according to your beliefs

.

I don't think you understand the concepts and implications of biblical theology. We are given freewill but only for a given time determined by God. The time varies and can be shortened vastly by the misuse of it. As I have stated if freewill was terminated before the age of accountability they are declared un accountable and enjoy an eternity free of the misery caused by our rejection of God.

What does your response have to do with what I wrote.
1: How does Killing every living thing on the planet maintain god's commitment to not violate free will? Which is the argument presented by you and others when it is pointed out that an all powerful god had an infinite number of options in the given scenario. Ooh he had to kill them rather than fix them because he gave them free will, he also made them evil apparently. What sort of brain dead being would choose such a solution given all of the alternatives. Then he declares he will never do it again, even though he knew he was going to do it and make that declaration from before he created anything at all. Hypocritical much?

 

[A Troubled Man]

To be honest I do not know which claims you are refering to. All of them seemed to be equally ineffective and it would be easier for you to do this.

No, I don't think that's honest at all.

Yes, I do understand why my points were all equally ineffective.

 

[1robin]

.
What does your response have to do with what I wrote.
1: How does Killing every living thing on the planet maintain god's commitment to not violate free will? Which is the argument presented by you and others when it is pointed out that an all powerful god had an infinite number of options in the given scenario. Ooh he had to kill them rather than fix them because he gave them free will, he also made them evil apparently.

Because that granting of freewill is conditional and limited in time. If he chose to revoke freewill he has not violated these two conditions. He most certainly did not have infinate options. God has restricted his actions to be consistent with revelation. Do you guys go to seminars to learn these inaccurate points of contention, most of you critics use the same insuffecient points. For example if God said he would not destroy the earth with water again then he has voluntarily restricting himself from doing so. He could not have violated their freewill and made them change their mind either. They chose what they wanted even after he tried to convince them otherwise. They wanted to live seperated from God, so he gave them exactly what they chose. Eternal seperation from him. Much of your point of view is derived from a interpretation of hell I believe. I do not know one way or the other but I side more with the eternal seperation from God interpretation than the fire and brimstone idea. Your point of view is identical to many critics. It kind of reminds of a child. That's not an insult. When I was a kid and my Dad would whip me for something I thought perfectly reasonable, I used to think he was the cruelest monster in the world. Now that I am grown and a little wiser I can see the wisdom in his actions. If you could know God's point of view I imagine the same thing would happen.

What sort of brain dead being would choose such a solution given all of the alternatives.Then he declares he will never do it again, even though he knew he was going to do it and make that declaration from before he created anything at all. Hypocritical much

Can you clarify this and give verses? I am unsure what exactly you are referring to.

 

[1robin]

No, I don't think that's honest at all.

Yes, I do understand why my points were all equally ineffective.

That's not bad from a humor standpoint but useless for the discussion. Are trying your best not to actually do anything that will advance the topic?

 

[A Troubled Man]

That's not bad from a humor standpoint but useless for the discussion. Are trying your best not to actually do anything that will advance the topic?

In order to actually advance the topic, one side should try to remember that their religion, their god and their beliefs are just one set amongst many others, and that to propose an "IF" statement in regards to their religion, their god and their beliefs does not take those other sets into account.

In other words, having narrow vision does not support an entire worldview or an argument.

 

[beerisit]

Because that granting of freewill is conditional and limited in time. If he chose to revoke freewill he has not violated these two conditions.

I'm sorry you claim that he in fact couldn't revoke free will for the nano nano second it would take to change people from being evil to being good, so he revoked their free will by killing them instead, What a great plan devised before anything was ever created and to then hypocritically offer to never do it again, what a loser.

He most certainly did not have infinate options. God has restricted his actions to be consistent with revelation.

According to who? You and the other godbotherers? You claim that the god of genesis exhibits all of the attributes necessary for an all powerful creator god but then spend the rest of the bible defending why he can't do certain things.

Do you guys go to seminars to learn these inaccurate points of contention, most of you critics use the same insuffecient points. For example if God said he would not destroy the earth with water again then he has voluntarily restricting himself from doing so. He could not have violated their freewill and made them change their mind either.

Yeah I addressed this point but you haven't. How do you maintain someones free will by killing them? Are you or is it your god that's mad?

They chose what they wanted even after he tried to convince them otherwise. They wanted to live seperated from God, so he gave them exactly what they chose. Eternal seperation from him. Much of your point of view is derived from a interpretation of hell I believe. I do not know one way or the other but I side more with the eternal seperation from God interpretation than the fire and brimstone idea.

I'm sorry, but it would seem that your point of view is based on the premis you accuse me of. I have no interest in your hell or separation or whatever, I merely point out that an omnipotent omniscient god could come up with abetter plan than destroying everyones free will by killing them.

Your point of view is identical to many critics. It kind of reminds of a child. That's not an insult. When I was a kid and my Dad would whip me for something I thought perfectly reasonable, I used to think he was the cruelest monster in the world. Now that I am grown and a little wiser I can see the wisdom in his actions. If you could know God's point of view I imagine the same thing would happen.

Oh please, now you claim to know god's point of view? Sorry but you can't know the mind of god you have said more often than I care to recall.

Can you clarify this and give verses? I am unsure what exactly you are referring to.

Here we go this is the time when you challenge your gods infinity, yes? Or is your god infinite?