POLL: Is there a God ??

[crashtestdummy_rivals61973]

I would ask for you to stop with the snark that embarrasses other antheists, attempt to avoid your hypocrisy, and stop with the proclamations about scripture when you don’t really know scripture. Other than that, I am not asking anything of you.

Your religion/faith is asking to forgo logic and reason. Not you!
I don't have to "know" scripture to quote scripture...
The positive reactions (thumbs up) from fellow atheist should indicate that they aren't embarrassed. Congratulations on another false claim.

 

[SDC888]

Your religion/faith is asking to forgo logic and reason. Not you!
I don't have to "know" scripture to quote scripture....

You only quote it to distort it.

The entirety of your argument against Christ is a distortion against Him.

 

[SDC888]

Wow. What a wordy strawman argument.

No one who deliberately and repeatedly makes strawman arguments has any regard for truth.

 

[Beatle Bum]

Your religion/faith is asking to forgo logic and reason. Not you!
I don't have to "know" scripture to quote scripture...
The positive reactions (thumbs up) from fellow atheist should indicate that they aren't embarrassed. Congratulations on another false claim.

No. Other embarrassing atheists “like” your foolishness. As a former atheist, I would not want anyone thinking you or Ohio or some of the others were in my camp. When you have a good position, you don’t have to be an ***. When you struggle with your position and/or need attention, you act the asshat.

You be you. I just would never want people of faith to think we were connected in belief.

Just like I would not want to be associated with a Christian being snarky about Islam or Judaism, etc.

 

[crashtestdummy_rivals61973]

No. Other embarrassing atheists “like” your foolishness. As a former atheist, I would not want anyone thinking you or Ohio or some of the others were in my camp. When you have a good position, you don’t have to be an ***. When you struggle with your position and/or need attention, you act the asshat.

You be you. I just would never want people of faith to think we were connected in belief.

Just like I would not want to be associated with a Christian being snarky about Islam or Judaism, etc.

Again, you should expect the same level of foolishness dictated by your foolish arguments. I'm not going to dance around your delicate sensitive feelings. Ya know, you could choose to move on, but you don't. You should have enough faith in your God as not to be offended, it is clear to me you don't.
If it's justification you seek/need there's always church. Your God should be able to hook you up no problem.

 

[MidseasonTweak]

You only quote it to distort it.

The entirety of your argument against Christ is a distortion against Him.

I don't know how you can see the scripture that has God send angels of death to murder the firstborn of a bunch of families as distorted.

 

[Beatle Bum]

Again, you should expect the same level of foolishness dictated by your foolish arguments. I'm not going to dance around your delicate sensitive feelings. Ya know, you could choose to move on, but you don't. You should have enough faith in your God as not to be offended, it is clear to me you don't.
If it's justification you seek/need there's always church. Your God should be able to hook you up no problem.

God does not need defending. That said, you don’t have to be an ***. You choose to be an ***. It’s not new for you. It’s your MO.

 

[crashtestdummy_rivals61973]

God does not need defending. That said, you don’t have to be an ***. You choose to be an ***. It’s not new for you. It’s your MO.

You don't have to be a cry baby. You choose to be a cry baby. It’s not new for you. It’s your MO.

 

[Beatle Bum]

You don't have to be a cry baby. You choose to be a cry baby. It’s not new for you. It’s your MO.

I wonder if it is more pathetic to cry or to claim someone is crying when they clearly are not. I think the latter, but I think you must disagree. LOL

 

[crashtestdummy_rivals61973]

I wonder if it is more pathetic to cry or to claim someone is crying when they clearly are not. I think the latter, but I think you must disagree. LOL

Move along pilgrim....you've become tiresome.

 

[Beatle Bum]

Move along pilgrim....you've become tiresome.

Don’t be such a snowflake atheist.

 

[WildcatfaninOhio]

Is jesus really god? And if he’s the same, how can he be god’s son? That would make him two different people, right? And where is the ghost in all this? Is the ghost part of jesus, or part of god? Or both? Or neither? Can one person really be three people? Can three equal one? Where does one go to learn biblical math such as this?

 

[crashtestdummy_rivals61973]

Is jesus really god? And if he’s the same, how can he be god’s son? That would make him two different people, right? And where is the ghost in all this? Is the ghost part of jesus, or part of god? Or both? Or neither? Can one person really be three people? Can three equal one? Where does one go to learn biblical math such as this?

 

[SDC888]

I don't know how you can see the scripture that has God send angels of death to murder the firstborn of a bunch of families as distorted.

It's intellectually dishonest to treat the OT the way you do, yes.

There's of course no there there.

 

[WildcatfaninOhio]

If god and jesus and the ghost are three, but also one, would his pronouns be they/them?

 

[christophero]

We seem to have arrived at the "I know you are but what am I" portion of the thread.

 

[Beatle Bum]

 

[MidseasonTweak]

It's intellectually dishonest to treat the OT the way you do, yes.



There's of course no there there.

How is it being intellectually dishonest? He did that. There's no way around it

 

[MadaboutBlue]

Wow. What a wordy strawman argument.

What part is untrue or would you consider to be a "straw man?"

Anyway, let me make this more succinct. The "ignorant" and "redundant" (your words) attitudes I see on this topic come largely from those mired in superstition and insist they are correct, based on that infallible barometer of human beliefs and behavior-their internal feelings. That would be just fine and dandy, if those of that belief system didn't show a pronounced propensity to shove their down everyone's throat in the world outside this message board.

 

[MadaboutBlue]

I don't think that's what anyone insists on, just that you don't bring politics into the thread.

I too insist you have those freedoms, but they have constitutional limits the radical left is simply not willing to accept. There's a thread for that type of discussion: this is not it.

Interesting that while you attack my post for being political you insert a demeaning political comment into your own. I'm hardly radical, unless you call wanting Americans to have a living wage, a viable pension, and access to affordable health care "radical"

Discussions, arguments, or just conversations evolve. That's how human communication works. Inherent to any discussion of supernatural events or entities, are the questions, "why or why not, do you believe or disbelieve", and what would concern you about this belief or unbelief.

But let me boil it all down for you to the most simple non and non political elements I can. I really don't know if there is a God or not, I know the Abrahamic God doesn't make much sense in light of all understood morality. It is very difficult, if not impossible for me to believe in the entity you claim based on the horrible way human beings treat each other, particularly those that claim the most ardent belief in this supernatural entity. How's that?

 

[Beatle Bum]

What part is untrue or would you consider to be a "straw man?"

No one is shoving anything down your throat. That is a fiction. You are clearly free to believe what you want in this country. The victimization of atheists in in this country is a baseless take.

Your political rant is a strawman that deals more with your disagreement with others’ political beliefs and has nothing to do with the existence of God. Hence, a strawman. Or, perhaps, simply an irrelevant political rant.

There are atheists who disagree with every political and moral position you present. Those debates are for the political thread. But, have them here and shut down this sad thread if you so desire. That would temporarily keep the ugly atheists who have posted here from continuing to look like asses.

 

[crashtestdummy_rivals61973]

Leviticus also says.....25: 44-46 44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Do you consider slavery immoral?

 

[SDC888]

Interesting that while you attack my post for being political you insert a demeaning political comment into your own. I'm hardly radical, unless you call wanting Americans to have a living wage, a viable pension, and access to affordable health care "radical"

Discussions, arguments, or just conversations evolve. That's how human communication works. Inherent to any discussion of supernatural events or entities, are the questions, "why or why not, do you believe or disbelieve", and what would concern you about this belief or unbelief.

But let me boil it all down for you to the most simple non and non political elements I can. I really don't know if there is a God or not, I know the Abrahamic God doesn't make much sense in light of all understood morality. It is very difficult, if not impossible for me to believe in the entity you claim based on the horrible way human beings treat each other, particularly those that claim the most ardent belief in this supernatural entity. How's that?

I wasn't demeaning you, or even accusing you of being a radical. I don't think there's anything derogatory with the term radical anyway: it's a descriptive political term that I would maybe even apply to myself. If you would like me though to explain why the radical left is a far greater, and more pressing threat to liberalism and foundational American values than the radical right, then I can explain that to you in the political thread, where such discourse belongs. That was the sole reason I said what I said.

I know you don't know if there is "a" god, and I know the God of the Bible doesn't make sense to you, and I understand why you mistakenly believe that morality is something that is subjective, rather than an objective truth. This is the the thread for that; if you would like to engage in honest, substantive discourse, then I am compelled by my faith to attempt to have that discussion with you. This is the place for that and only that, well, other "gods" too I guess, and their religions, atheism, agnosticism, scientism or scientific materialism etc... not politics.

We seem to have arrived at the "I know you are but what am I" portion of the thread.

No one is better than another... fundamental to Christianity, we all equally need Christ, whether we realize it or not.

 

[SDC888]

How is it being intellectually dishonest? He did that. There's no way around it

All your OT objections are as intellectually dishonest as your Deuteronomy distortions on rape were a few pages ago, which were more than sufficiently explained to you, yet not a single one of you admitted your error.

There is no objection I've read from you (pl) that isn't qualitatively identical.

 

[SDC888]

But that doesn't make him not Christian, just not Christ-like. He shouldn't do it, sure... neither should you people either, yet you feel righteous and justified in it.

When did I say I feel righteous and justified? That is your judgmental opinion.

Again, you should expect the same level of foolishness dictated by your foolish arguments. I'm not going to dance around your delicate sensitive feelings.

You, judging and claiming to know how I feel.... is that you being an ******* or just *******-like?

But it's true, and it's not a judgement. You've all admitted as much.

 

[SDC888]

There is no foolishness in Christ, and none of the arguments given to you in this thread can be justly called foolish.

 

[crashtestdummy_rivals61973]

I wasn't demeaning you, or even accusing you of being a radical. I don't think there's anything derogatory with the term radical anyway: it's a descriptive political term that I would maybe even apply to myself. If you would like me though to explain why the radical left is a far greater, and more pressing threat to liberalism and foundational American values than the radical right, then I can explain that to you in the political thread, where such discourse belongs. That was the sole reason I said what I said.

I know you don't know if there is "a" god, and I know the God of the Bible doesn't make sense to you, and I understand why you mistakenly believe that morality is something that is subjective, rather than an objective truth. This is the the thread for that; if you would like to engage in honest, substantive discourse, then I am compelled by my faith to attempt to have that discussion with you. This is the place for that and only that, well, other "gods" too I guess, and their religions, atheism, agnosticism, scientism or scientific materialism etc... not politics.



No one is better than another... fundamental to Christianity, we all equally need Christ, whether we realize it or not.

Morality can be subjective truth.
Even if Christ were real, he's not needed by all. This is demonstrably true.
Are you referring to atheism, agnosticism, scientism or scientific materialism as religions? They are not religions.
Clearly and often, your bible illustrates Jews to be better than others.

 

[crashtestdummy_rivals61973]

There is no foolishness in Christ, and none of the arguments given to you in this thread can be justly called foolish.

The bible has often been represented in many arguments by believers. Claiming truth in the following...
An invisible man living in the sky (your Christ) rising from death,, talking snakes, man living in a big fish, Noah ark etc.
You can't even demonstrate any of these to be true? So I most certainly can justly refer to these as foolish.

 

[MidseasonTweak]

All your OT objections are as intellectually dishonest as your Deuteronomy distortions on rape were a few pages ago, which were more than sufficiently explained to you, yet not a single one of you admitted your error.

There is no objection I've read from you (pl) that isn't qualitatively identical.

I'm just reading what was written. You're the one trying to rationalize it differently

 

[MidseasonTweak]

(2 Kings 2:23-25)​

23 Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!” 24 When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number. 25 And he went from there to Mount Carmel, and from there he returned to Samaria.


Jeez, calm down, God. Was murder really necessary a punishment for some simple namecalling? Surely an all-powerful being filled with infinite wisdom could come up with a more reasonable solution.

 

[MadaboutBlue]

Again, you should expect the same level of foolishness dictated by your foolish arguments. I'm not going to dance around your delicate sensitive feelings. Ya know, you could choose to move on, but you don't. You should have enough faith in your God as not to be offended, it is clear to me you don't.
If it's justification you seek/need there's always church. Your God should be able to hook you up no problem.

Or I had this thought. Those who disagree could start living their faith instead of just preaching it. I mean what an opportunity-to interact with us Godless sinners and inspire us by their love, their faith, their kindness and lifting up of others, even with those with whom they disagree, and by taking the high road in these arguments. Just like their scripture teachers!

 

[crashtestdummy_rivals61973]

Leviticus also says.....25: 44-46 44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Do you consider slavery immoral?

 

[MadaboutBlue]

No one is shoving anything down your throat. That is a fiction. You are clearly free to believe what you want in this country. The victimization of atheists in in this country is a baseless take.

No? did you miss the part where over 50 years of reproductive rights have been overturned by zealots on on the Supreme Court? Or the news that Contraception, Sodomy" and Marriage laws may be next?

Your political rant is a strawman that deals more with your disagreement with others’ political beliefs and has nothing to do with the existence of God. Hence, a strawman. Or, perhaps, simply an irrelevant political rant.

Do you know what a "strawman" is? My "political rant" is a verifiable accounting of the history of organized religion that clearly shows that it is more of an instrument designed for the control of man as opposed to some divinely inspired system of faith and love for each other. To be fair, perhaps this is not concrete evidence that there is not a God, but it sure would be justification for some robust skepticism.

There are atheists who disagree with every political and moral position you present. Those debates are for the political thread. But, have them here and shut down this sad thread if you so desire. That would temporarily keep the ugly atheists who have posted here from continuing to look like asses.

It's possible that atheists and agnostics don't agree with me. So what? Disbelief in one specific thing doesn't imply commonality with those that may also not believe in that one specific thing. I don't really know how anyone, however, can look at four thousands years of stonings, murder, kidnap, rape, genocide, burning folks alive, and say..."yep, that's my jam. We did that."

Oh, and you might look around and see who's actually acting like an ***.

 

[WildcatfaninOhio]

We all know that no xian is going to answer your question. They simply can’t answer yes, slavery is immoral, because that becomes the first crack in the foundation of lies that the buybull is filled with love and kindness, and provides them with a moral compass. Once they answer yes to this questions then they must confront the questions regarding genocide, misogyny, rape, incest and a bunch of others. Before long the whole building of lies and fiction comes crumbling down.

Of course they can’t answer no either, for obvious reasons.

Hence, the deafening sound of crickets.

 

[Beatle Bum]

No? did you miss the part where over 50 years of reproductive rights have been overturned by zealots on on the Supreme Court? Or the news that Contraception, Sodomy" and Marriage laws may be next?

I was an atheist when I decided my stance on abortion/life and know atheists that agree with me on that issue today. I don’t know what is “next,” but you sound more politically privileged than as someone articulating in a democratic republic law making that amounts to a theocracy or having religion shoved down your throat.

Do you know what a "strawman" is? My "political rant" is a verifiable accounting of the history of organized religion that clearly shows that it is more of an instrument designed for the control of man as opposed to some divinely inspired system of faith and love for each other. To be fair, perhaps this is not concrete evidence that there is not a God, but it sure would be justification for some robust skepticism.

First, I do know what a strawman argument is. And, second, you proved no such thing. Finally, I have seen here how atheists have justified their skepticism with the poor behavior of people. It’s a way to justify yourself, however, and not evince the absence of a God. The Biblical story is, in fact, people doing bad things in defiance of God, often in His name.

It's possible that atheists and agnostics don't agree with me. So what? Disbelief in one specific thing doesn't imply commonality with those that may also not believe in that one specific thing. I don't really know how anyone, however, can look at four thousands years of stonings, murder, kidnap, rape, genocide, burning folks alive, and say..."yep, that's my jam. We did that."

Oh, and you might look around and see who's actually acting like an ***.

The disagreement is evidence that religion is not being shoved down your throat when you bemoan political acts of government. Atheists agree with the very things you ascribed to religion. The fact that atheists and Christians don’t agree on those things you pretend are religion being forced on your in a democratic republic defies your claim.

I know you think people who disagree with you are asses, just like you believe government is religious.

 

[megablue]

This is a little off the direct question regarding the existence of God, but what do the believers here think about the pentecostal/charismatic types of religious expression and worship that deal with the spirit, tongues, dancing, faith healings, unspeakable joy, drunk in the spirit, etc ??

Raised Catholic, my Mother was really into the charismatic movement and took her tambourine to mass and prayer gatherings. I will still practicing at the time, but could never get into that. She totally loved her time at church and I was happy for her, but still quite skeptical. An extreme example might be Kenneth Hagin and there are numerous youtube videos of his hissing, laughing, moving the crowd (typically well-heeled) frantically, etc ... I am totally blown away by them, including the many comments by viewers. She's gone now, but I suspect my Mother would've loved the vibe of these services.
Here is just one example of the very many on youtube:

 

[mcnicKY91]

This is a little off the direct question regarding the existence of God, but what do believers think here about the pentacostal/charismatic types of religious expression and worship that deal with the spirit, tongues, dancing, faith healings, unspeakable joy, drunk in the spirit, etc ??

Raised Catholic, my Mother was really into the charismatic movement and took her tambourine to mass and prayer gatherings. I will still practicing at the time, but could never get into that. She totally loved her time at church and I was happy for her, but still quite skeptical. An extreme example might be Kenneth Hagin and there are numerous youtube videos of his hissing, laughing, moving the crowd (typically well-heeled) frantically, etc ... I am totally blown away by them, including the many comments by viewers. She's gone now, but I suspect my Mother would've loved the vibe of these services.
Here is just one example of the very many on youtube:

The gift of tongues is speaking in a language the speaker has never learned in order to minister to someone who does speak that language. The Greek word translated “tongues” literally means “languages.”

The first occurrence of speaking in tongues occurred on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2:1–4. The apostles shared the gospel with the crowds, speaking to them in their own languages. The crowds were amazed: “We hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!” (Acts 2:11).

In other words, God's spirit gave the apostles the ability to speak to the crowds in their own language.

When I see Christians talking about speaking in tongues, they think babbling incoherently (as directed by the spirit taking over their body) qualifies as speaking in tongues. Couldn't be further from the biblical truth. All that serves is to glorify yourself, not God. The point of speaking in tongues (or a language you previously couldn't speak) is to draw attention to the Lord's power, not yourself. I personally do not believe this occurs anymore.

 

[crashtestdummy_rivals61973]

I really hope heaven exist. These idiots need to be confined somewhere.....

 

[Beatle Bum]

Sorry for the language, but I think this atheist makes a solid point.

 

[megablue]

The gift of tongues is speaking in a language the speaker has never learned in order to minister to someone who does speak that language. The Greek word translated “tongues” literally means “languages.”

The first occurrence of speaking in tongues occurred on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2:1–4. The apostles shared the gospel with the crowds, speaking to them in their own languages. The crowds were amazed: “We hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!” (Acts 2:11).

In other words, God's spirit gave the apostles the ability to speak to the crowds in their own language.

When I see Christians talking about speaking in tongues, they think babbling incoherently (as directed by the spirit taking over their body) qualifies as speaking in tongues. Couldn't be further from the biblical truth. All that serves is to glorify yourself, not God. The point of speaking in tongues (or a language you previously couldn't speak) is to draw attention to the Lord's power, not yourself. I personally do not believe this occurs anymore.

Thanks for your reply. I am familiar with the biblical accounts of Pentecost and where the spirit movement comes from. My sense is similar to your sentiment, it seems, as I could never understand the point of speaking in tongues, if nobody knew what you were saying. I know there are explanations of why speaking in unintelligible tongues is still a manifestation of the presence of the spirit, but I cannot relate to or understand them.