Proof that the Christian god cannot exist

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Cris, Jun 21, 2001.

  1. thecurly1 Registered Senior Member

    Dear Cris, this is my last reply

    What I was simply trying to state, in this my last reply. Is that I don't believe that simple humans can understand something as complex as God, no matter what monotheist religion your talking about. If there is a God, which I believe there is I'm saying I don't think he would want us to figure it all out. Once again, if there is a God, which I believe there is, he would have control of what we know. Which isn't a violation of free will. Free will being control over circumstances, not information.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    Come back sometime


    Sorry curly1, it wasn’t personal. Thanks for introducing your viewpoint. I do understand what you are saying, but it is not a new perspective on the issue. I could argue with your new post of course but I don’t think you are ready to debate what you believe. I hope maybe I have given you something to think about. Come back when you are ready for a tough time.

    So here is an ending thought – if he really didn’t want us to figure things out he should have removed our ability to reason.

    Have fun whatever you do.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member


    In a teasing mood huh?

    Perhaps ‘smashing’ was a little too graphical, in Britain I’d use a different phrase but I think it has a different implication in American English, like we say rubber instead of eraser, for example. Oh well no matter.

    Glad your health sounds like it is improving. As for me, the last 3 weeks have been hellish – bad exposure to poison oak – a quarter of my body became covered in gross open oozing sores, definitely one of the worst experiences of my life. But the itching – ahhhh! So now I know that a nanogram (1 billionth of a gram) of the poison is enough to cause a rash, and a ¼ ounce is enough to affect every person on the planet. Definitely nasty stuff.

    So enjoy the rest of your Friday.

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. DEVILDOG Registered Senior Member

    evil L.A. criminal


    I'm waiting for the day when Christians decide that serial killers were put here by their god to control the Earth's population, therefore they can say that god IS a supreme being. They will probably say that those murdered will automatically enter heaven whether good or evil. There's pretty much no use in argueing with them they don't want to here it, most I've met that hear I'm an atheist are quick to say I don't have an open mind.
  8. sensei Registered Member

    Now you are beginning to see the light. I have explained it quite adequately; the paradox is quite valid – your god cannot exist.

    cris your principal goal is to proove that god does not mine is to proove the contrary ;so in order to proove that god exist (without discussing of free will,because i already gave my opinion concernig this point"god gave us free will";so by prooving that god exiz i also proove that we have free will.)i'll argue that if God exists, then the objectivity of moral values, moral duties, and moral accountability is secured, but that in the absence of God, that is, if God does not exist, then morality is just a human convention, that is to say, morality is wholly subjective and non-binding. We might act in precisely the same ways that we do in fact act, but in the absence of God, such actions would no longer count as good (or evil), since if God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. Thus, we cannot truly be good without God. On the other hand, if we do believe that moral values and duties are objective, that provides moral grounds for believing in God.
    ok now considere thehypothesis that God exists. First, if God exists, objective moral values exist. To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so. It is to say, for example, that Nazi anti-Semitism was morally wrong, even though the Nazis who carried out the Holocaust thought that it was good; and it would still be wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them. On the theistic view, objective moral values are rooted in God. God's own holy and perfectly good nature supplies the absolute standard against which all actions and decisions are measured. God's moral nature is what Plato called the "Good." He is the locus and source of moral value. He is by nature loving, generous, just, faithful, kind, and so forth. Moreover, God's moral nature is expressed in relation to us in the form of divine commands which constitute our moral duties or obligationsFinally, on the theistic hypothesis God holds all persons morally accountable for their actions. Evil and wrong will be punished; righteousness will be vindicated. Good ultimately triumphs over evil, and we shall finally see that we do live in a moral universe after all. Despite the inequities of this life, in the end the scales of God's justice will be balanced. Thus, the moral choices we make in this life are infused with an eternal significance(so the example of the criminal that you gave me is going down if i can say so).
    If God does not exist, then it is plausible to think that there are no objective moral values, that we have no moral duties, and that there is no moral accountability . Even if there were objective moral values and duties under naturalism, they are irrelevant because there is no moral accountability. If life ends at the grave, it makes no difference whether one lives as i don't know a stalin or a saint. "If there is no immortality, then all things are permitted."

    we hold, as it seems rational to do, that objective moral values and duties do exist, then we have good grounds for believing in the existence of God. We cannot, then, truly be good without God; but if we can in some measure be good, then it follows that God exists.
    there is others point that i should have submit but i don't want to go further;hey time to go to bed.


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Last edited: Jun 30, 2001
  9. frink Registered Member

    May we thank you for your very kind interest in these most pressing and salient matters.

    Oh, wait, how did that happen? Sorry.

    Anyway Cris, about the union of all free will constituting omniscience:

    All the arguments so far imply that God and man are wholly seperate entities. I am just suggesting that our souls, along with every spec in the universe is elementary to God. You and I are every bit as much a part of God as the rapist, the theif, Jesus, my dog, past present and future. Together, our collective is omniscience, our mortal bodies keeping us seperate until they expire. And yes, I have watched Star Wars too many times.

    May we thank you for all your kind actions on behalf of all the children now...dang! There is goes again.
  10. thecurly1 Registered Senior Member

    Sorry about the posion ivy Cris

    You did introduce me to a new point of view that I haven't experenced. Thanks for not ragging on my believes. Lets get along, God or no God.
  11. Chagur .Seeker. Registered Senior Member

    Hell yes!

    I'm surprised that you asked, Cris.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    All that that post was about was my feeling that in life there are a whole bunch of factors that affect whether you live or die, many of which you have not the slightest control over, and that I was fortunate enough to have an experience that allowed me to feel that for a few moments at least, I was in complete control of my life.

    It was not a segue from the 'free will' discussion, at least in my mind, any more than your relating your experience with poison oak was a segue from 'Proof that the Christian god cannot exist'. But yes, I did refer to exercising my 'free will' in terms of being in total in control of my life, and I can understand the point you wanted to make.

    Although, the expression you used 'an instinctive survival instinct' kind of threw me. Is there any other instinct than an instinctive one?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    The other thing that threw me was your equating a desire to say 'Time to leave, folks. Thanks for all the fun' to a mental ailment (e.g. a clinical depression etc). Don't you think that it could be a rational decision?
  12. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member


    So you think you are alive huh? OK I’ll give you the benefit of any doubt.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Your experience is interestingly different from other life experiences. Usually it is necessary to take some deliberate action to die, e.g. a gun to the head, jumping in front of a train, etc. But in your experience it was necessary to take a clear and deliberate action to live. I can’t think of too many scenarios where that occurs. So I think your realization that something special was happening was quite understandable, but only because it was unusual, and the contrast was so stark.

    If we look at the normal flow of life, where absence of action is perceived as being able to survive without effort, then we see that your action was quite different to normal flow. However, this is only a perception. This ‘normal flow’ of life does not end in survival, the ultimate ending so far is death, if not from an illness but from senescence (old age), and many people if not most die before they gain old age.

    Here are some decisions that can be made that enable people to take that positive control of their lives: Choosing healthy food, exercising regularly, concentration while driving, choosing an interesting job, taking steps to reduce stress levels, etc. These are real positive actions that can compare with you pulling a ripcord; the difference is that the effects take longer to materialize.

    Perhaps I am not like you in that I see very few things in my life over which I do not have positive control. I am constantly re-evaluating my actions for purpose and direction. Planning ahead and setting goals help me achieve what I want. Most of this requires positive and deliberate actions. In 1996 I watched my sister (then 55) suffer and die from cancer. That is one of those rare cases where we have little personal control, but as a species we can strive to solve these afflictions – it takes planning and positive actions.

    This leads me into one of my primary reasons for rejecting religions, and more positively working towards their ultimate downfall, especially Christianity. I have seen so many Christians fatalistically accept their misfortunes as the will of God. Or if they are healthy then they explicitly put their trust in their God that he will keep them healthy. And even when that fails, the approach is still that that must be the will of God. An acceptance that they have no control of their fate, that no effort they can make will make a difference. This I see as the greatest evil of religious acceptance and an attitude that helps to weaken the natural human instinct for survival, so in that respect religions are unnatural and morally evil in the sense that they detract from life.

    So this brings me to operating on instinct. Do you really believe that as a rational and healthy person you could decide not to pull that ripcord? The adrenalin rush, the terror you would feel that you were about to be extinguished, all would work on your hormonal and nervous systems to encourage you to pull the cord. Only someone who was deranged and unable to think rationally would choose to die. Perhaps my survival instinct is stronger than yours, but I cannot imagine a scenario where I would choose to die. This again is where I see the evil in religions – they have again fatalistically accepted death as a good thing, it is their gateway to a better life – ahhh!

    In these times of scientific breakthroughs, where anti-aging solutions are being developed daily, and where a total solution is on the near horizon, or where computing power and mind-uploading offer real potential, then I will strive with all my might to survive long enough to take all the benefits that science can offer. I do not see death as inevitable and I wish many more would adopt the same attitude and help fight harder for the science that we need. Religions seem to stand in the way of that progress, they are blocking the much needed stem-cell research, and they assume that death is a way to meet their God, and they make this assumption based on no more than ancient mythologies and with absolutely no credible evidence or proof. So not only do I disagree with religious beliefs, I also have no tolerance for those that hold such views, and I see religionists as positively obstructive to my personal survival.

    Until I see at least a scrap of evidence that a god exists then I am assuming that I have free will and I can run my life without having my fate pre-determined by some mystical supernatural being. I will continue to treat every misfortune and every windfall with equal regard – they are events to be experienced from which I can learn and grow.

    “Instinctive survival instinct” – hmm – I kinda overworked that sentence didn’t I? At age 48 I’m beginning to experience serious memory loss – can’t remember more than one thought or one word at a time. Perhaps I should read back what I write sometimes.

    Have fun. Hope I covered all your points. Ah, probably more than you expected, sorry.
  13. Chagur .Seeker. Registered Senior Member


    Although the relating of my experience was extraneous to the thread, and I wondered if I should bother, your reply, Cris, makes me glad that I did.

    I'm not near as introspective as you and the thought that a number of my activities over the years have required deliberate action to survive never occurred to me. I guess I still do what I did as a kid: take it for granted that my world is the same world that most other people experience. One of these days I accept that's not the case.

    Also, it puts an interesting twist on the position a number have taken: 'You must have a death wish!' A position that I have never been able to understand. I've always felt that, if anything, I had a greater appreciation, and enjoyment, of life knowing that death might only be a stupid mistake away.

    Again, thanks, Cris.
  14. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member


    Awright, no problem.


    Live long and prosper.
  15. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    The Terror and Tyranny of Christianity

    Hi sensei,

    Interesting post. Thank your for reducing its size, I saw your earlier version where it looked like you had included some long cut and pastes from a reference book. I was worried that I would be arguing against a professional researcher.

    I think that what you are saying is that if you can prove that your god exists then that will also prove that human free will exists. Please correct me if I have misunderstood your intention.

    You have set yourself several impossible tasks. The essential essence of every theistic religion is that there is no proof for the existence of the selected deity. This is the reason why faith is stressed. Religious faith is the belief in something where there is no proof. If there was proof then you would have no need of faith and your god could be subject to scientific study and become part of human knowledge. If there was any type of proof then be assured that the pope would be proclaiming this on every radio and TV station on the planet. Be very sure that there is nothing that can be in any way mistaken for proof for the existence of a god. Your claims of proof have failed before you begin.

    Ok, and I’ll do my best to show you where I think you are mistaken. But boy you have chosen a very contentious approach. Subjectivity versus objectivity is not a simple topic, and morality is similarly evasive to define.

    Ok let’s start with morality. This subject concerns human behavior and especially the distinction between good and bad behavior according to generally accepted standards. What you want to show is that an independent and impartial authority must define morality so that it could be deemed objective. At the same time you are implying that humans are incapable of defining their own standards for morality. Is that correct?

    That does not follow. Your logic is invalid.

    You are assuming good and evil can only be defined as objective if God exists. But you have not proved that and so cannot use it as part of your argument. You must first define morality and explain why humans cannot define it objectively. But I am further confused when you say that even if our actions are the same whether God exists or not, somehow without a God we would not be able to perceive whether these actions are good or evil. But if the actions are the same then it really doesn’t make any difference whether we know or not. In which case if God did exist then he is redundant and irrelevant.

    Here is a definition of morality that is widely accepted. “Good is anything that enhances life and evil is anything that detracts from life”. This covers almost all aspects of human life, from murder to love. Then add to this the fundamental basis of modern western law – “everyone is free to do anything they wish accept where such actions would interfere with the freedom of others”, and you have an extensive and objective set of guidelines for effective moral human behavior. Further refinements and additional details provide us everything we need and completely without the need for a god to exist.

    Your conclusion is invalid since your premises are not established facts. Further I have shown that in your example God is irrelevant for effective moral behavior and I have demonstrated one example of how humans can objectively define a workable moral code.

    Why? Again you have not shown a proof, you are simply making an assertion. Your statement has no value.

    No that is entirely false. If nobody believes or supports the moral code then it serves no one. Human morality must be a code of values required by man for his survival, well-being and happiness. A rational moral code must be based on man’s need for objective values, and his needs to determine those goals that are conducive to his well-being. A simple example: Food is of value to man, he needs it for his survival, but poison is not. If man is to survive then he must value food and disvalue poison. Man’s evaluations of a moral code must be based on, and agree with those things that are actually of value to him.

    My human defined code above “good is anything that enhances life… evil detracts…” fits this example perfectly – why would we need a god to help us on this?

    Yes and they are designed specifically for the benefit of God and not for humans. In terms of Christianity God’s commandments are what you are calling this independent and objective moral code. The essence of such a code is authoritarianism based on a set of rules designed to serve God. The requirement for man is unquestioned obedience, whether he supports the rules or not. Disobedience is met with ultimate punishment. All you are supporting here is tyranny and terrorism, and these actions are considered by most humans as morally evil.

    Well most of the bible describes mass murder, torture, terror, extreme threats, all perpetrated by the Christian god. I see no goodness or love in such a monster. And divine commands as I have already described represent the tyranny under which man would have to submit.

    Yes a code defined by God for the benefit of God, who demands unquestioning obedience (the attribute of tyrants) and if that is not forthcoming then terror of punishment and then the ultimate punishment of eternal torture – no mercy – the attributes of evil and the terrorist.

    That is a fantasy perpetrated by Hollywood movies. Believe this at your own peril. If we can rid the world of irrational religions and their dangerous fundamentalist threats then we may be able to survive. Their destruction will eliminate the spread of ignorance and the fatalistic approach to human survival.

    Without a god and religions we would be free to establish our own objective values that will enable our survival. The accountability is for us to determine and will result in our ultimate survival if we learn fast enough and rid ourselves of ignorance and religious superstitions. Rules imposed on us by an evil tyrant are wholly unacceptable.

    This is nonsense and a meaningless statement. A set of rational moral values can easily be defined by man to ensure his own survival; and he has no need to account for his actions to anyone but himself.

    That is a very sad assumption, and it shows considerable ignorance and condescension for your fellow man. Christianity rests its whole approach on the terror of hell because without the act of terrorism there would be no need to believe in its god. Man is driven by his evolutionary primeval instincts for survival. Those instincts, his intelligence, and ability to reason allow him to define a moral code that does not permit any arbitrary action. Instead if he was not burdened with the bigoted and irrational intrusions of religions especially Christianity, he would be able to create a far more pleasant world.

    Quite the reverse. You have not proven your point and I have shown you that God’s idea of morality is purely for his benefit not ours. Objective rational moral values can be determined by man for the benefit of man. There is as a result absolutely no need for the existence of any gods.

    Sensei, it would be ethical if you could provide the book from which you quoted and the name of the author. Thanks.

    Bye for now
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2001
  16. Radical Registered Senior Member

    1st of all why do u say xtianiy? and not Jewdaisem and Islam as well? they all belive in the same GOD besides the primal sin in which xtians belive.
    now lets take ants for example
    i am quite sure that ants think that they got free will to do what ever they want yet to us they seem to be rather closed.
    and we altough non GODS(altough some GODeSSes walk among us) can predict what they will do and react maybe GOD was a smart Alien?.

    infact if we managed to build a computer that will take into account every single particle in the cosmos we would have had in our bags a proof that there is no such a thing as "free will"
    since it can all be computed and renderd into position.
    (ofcourse that can not be since the computer will have to take into account its own particles taking into account its own particles that again are taking into account its own particles in a recursive manner)
    or maybe the answer to it all is just a two digit number?

    douglas adams.
  17. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    Hi Radical,

    Thanks for posting and welcome to sciforums.

    Yes I agree that all three religions have roots in the same god. However, I have not read enough about Judaism and Islam to know how those religions define their deity. I do know that Catholicism has specifically defined the Christian god with the attributes of Omniscience, Omnipotence, and have stated that humans have free will. That makes a clear target for the criticism. However, if you know that Judaism and Islam have similar definitions then yes the paradox could apply there as well.

    Ah but the difference between ants and humans is that ants are not self-aware. That is they are not able to realize that they exist and their limited intelligence does not enable them to have any ability to choose beyond pure instinct. The effect of this is that would not be able to comprehend our existence. They are trapped by the extent of their evolutionary mutations. We are fundamentally different in that we can reason and can consider concepts that allow us to consider beings and intelligences far greater than ourselves.

    As for a god being a smart alien: Well OK, but it would have to have been pretty powerful if it was the creator. But whatever, any definition of a god that did not include the attribute of omniscience would avoid the free will paradox.

    Ah but the philosophy of Determinism does maintain that every event has a cause and that we are the result of a long chain of causes and effects. Each action we take is the result of a previous cause, such that we do not have any free will. But I never liked that approach.

    I will be very disappointed if everything can be reduced to 42. That will definitely be an anti-climax.

    Stick around.
  18. sensei Registered Member

    GOD an evil tyrant!? you got it wrong!!!!!

    Quite the reverse. You have not proven your point and I have shown you that God’s idea of morality is purely for his benefit not ours. Objective rational moral values can be determined by man for the benefit of man. There is as a result absolutely no need for the existence of any gods.

    cris, in the contrary i have well proved my point ,but as a good non believer you just don't want to see the light(if i can say it like that).

    Without a god and religions we would be free to establish our own objective values that will enable our survival. The accountability is for us to determine and will result in our ultimate survival if we learn fast enough and rid ourselves of ignorance and religious superstitions. Rules imposed on us by an evil tyrant are wholly unacceptable.

    SO GOD an evil tyrant?

    you are denying the existence of God in the midst of full knowledge that God does indeed exist. you knows God exists, you are quite familiar with that fact, but you says "under no circumstance or situation will I admit to God's existence."

    you clearly perceives the fingerprints of God on all of creation, but refuses to admit He is the Creator. you perceives the divine authorship of the TEN COMMANDMENTS, but refuse to admit that God is their Author. you percieve the perfection,the decorousness of the TEN COMMANDMENTS, but refuse to admit they are superior to all other laws. let me tell you something if an atheist could see the wounds in the body of christ and actually feel them with his hands,he would deny that the wounds are there.Atheism clearly perceives the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, but refuses to admit His divinity. deliberate effort to never admit the truth about God,that's what atheism is about.

    GOD AN TYRANT EVIL ,hell no!!!,Atheism is the ultimate of satanism.if you ask satan about the existance of god he will deny it. Ask him about his own exixtance,same thing he will deny holds the Bible in one hand, but you(atheists) deny its existence by denying its truth with the other hand.

    there is 2 thing we must understand In order to understand the nature of atheism, the natures of righteousness and sin. to one another they are antithetical . Since sin is antithetical to righteousness, by its antithetical nature, it seeks to cancel out or nullify righteousness. Since it is an antithetical principle to righteousness, it remain true to its nature even in the most insane instances. this antithetical principle is called "the law of sin" which is at work in your hearts (atheist) causing you to reject God. The law of sin is the one that governs satan's kingdom.
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2001
  19. Radical Registered Senior Member

    free will of the ants

    ants are "too stupid" to be self aware as we do
    but still they are self aware.
    they will run away or attack regarding thier options.
    ok forget ants
    what about dolphins? apes? they are self-aware
    i saw once on national geographic an ape that used a keyboard with pictures&signs to comunicate andit had the capacity to know what is "good" and what is "bad " and was ablet assmilate the idea of a phone (that some1 remotly can talk with it)

    what if an ALien so powerfull landed here and looked a us as ants?

    we may not seem self-aware to him or even grasp that ALIEN a all not anymore than an ant understands humans. since we are too "stupid" but from our point of view we are self-aware.
  20. Chagur .Seeker. Registered Senior Member


    Cris, please don't be disappointed.

    I spoke to God last night and s/he assured me that everything reduces to 43 because 42 isn't a prime number.

    Rest easy.
  21. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    Look beyond your indoctrination


    I saw no proofs only numerous unsupported assertions. As an atheist I maintain a lack of belief in a god in the absence of credible evidence or proofs. The religionists have made the claims for the supernatural and must provide some credible proofs if they expect rational people to follow their ideas. My sense of personal survival is extremely strong and I would very much like to believe that there is a wonderful afterlife, but wishing and hoping that such a thing exists does not make it true. For something so fundamental and important to exist there has to be something more concrete than dubious and untestable ancient writings that are thousands of years old and that were written at times where integrity and objective reporting did not exist and political and religious manipulation was rife.

    Do you realize that that is an insult? You are effectively calling me a liar and a hypocrite, that I believe one thing and am saying another. I suspect that you have always been part of a religious faith and have never had the benefit of experiencing an alternate view. Your indoctrination appears so complete that you cannot even conceive that someone might not share your limited viewpoint. Please be quite assured that I in no way have any semblance of a belief that your gods exists. I am not some type of disillusioned Christian that will eventually return to the fold. My lack of belief is fundamental to the way I run my life and extends back some 30+ years. I base my life on rationality; religions are outside of that discipline since they are by admission irrational (belief based on faith). And you are wrong to accuse me of not considering a situation where I would believe – all I need is real, substantial, and credible proof.

    The more down to earth and mundane theory of evolution goes a very long way to explain the formation of the planets and how life adapted to changing surroundings. There is substantial evidence for that. All the time there are alternative explanations to that of a creator god you will not have achieved a proof for his existence.

    Your arrogance that I must believe the same as you is very unfortunate. As to the 10 commandments: Which set do you follow? There were at least two sets of tablets and each had very different commandments on them. Then there is the protestant version, the catholic version, and the Hebrew version, all of which have very different wordings and don’t even agree on subject matter. But possibly of greater importance are the resultant punishments –

    Ten Punishments(Let's post these in the schoolroom!)

    1. Ex. 22:20: He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

    2. Lev. 24:16: And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death.

    3. Ex. 31:15: Whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

    4. Ex. 21:15: He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.

    5. Ex. 21:17: He that curseth his father or his mother, shall surely be put to death.

    6. Ex. 22:19: Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.

    7. Lev. 20:13: If a man lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have com-mitted an abomination: they shall surely be put to death.

    8. Lev. 20:10: And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.

    9. Mark 16:16: He that believeth not, shall be damned.

    10. Mal. 2:1-4: And now, O ye priests, this commandment is for you. If you will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart to give glory to my name, ... behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces.

    So no tolerance here, or mercy, or even a mention of a trial or justice. And of course it does make it easy for judges to set a sentence – when in doubt kill the offender. Saves all that imprisonment and rehabilitation nonsense, right?

    I think maybe you are living on a different planet. Either that or you must be attempting a rather sick joke.

    So now you believe I am blind and have no sense of touch. Atheism is not about denial it is about rational thought, evidence, and proofs. You have not provided any of these.

    Dream on. This is gibberish, which idiot are you quoting? Do you understand what is meant by propaganda? If you want to debate with an atheist then I suggest you discover some facts. You will not attract any respect if you continue to quote misinformation. Try this reference for a start – Click here for an introduction to atheism.

    Do your homework before proceeding any further.

    So explain why he feels it necessary to give commands and expect unquestioning obedience? Explain why his favorite punishment for everything seems to be death? Explain why he must enforce his demands by horrendous threats? Why does he use terror at all?

    This just shows your current level of ignorance and the depth of your religious indoctrination. One of the arguments atheists hold for their disbelief in gods is the lack of evidence for the supernatural. To then claim that they follow another supernatural entity instead shows a level of desperation on your part, and of course significant ignorance. Atheists hold the same level of credibility for satan as they do for gods – namely zero. Of course, from a different perspective, sa’tan is the Hebrew term for adversary.

    The remainder of your post refers to righteousness and sin and how those concepts relate to atheism. Sin is defined as disobedience of God’s commands. Since atheism does not recognize gods then sin as defined here has no meaning to an atheist. You must first establish that a god exists before showing that sin has any realistic value. And mankind is perfectly capable of defining high moral standards that give people any sense of righteousness they need. There is no need for gods to inflict their despotic urges on us for us to live productive and fulfilling lives.

    When you quote from reference material please state your source. If it is web based then a link to the article is better than copying the whole text into a post. If it is an offline book then please provide title and author names. It is clear you are quoting references in your posts. I would like to know with whom I am really debating. It would be nicer if I were debating with you against your words and beliefs.

    Last edited: Jul 2, 2001
  22. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member


    Awright! I always suspected that there was something fundamentally wrong with the universe, and that simple change to 43 explains everything.

    Thanks for passing on the correction.

  23. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Nosy me ...

    What I like most of all about this purely diversionary tantrum is that it ignores everything hitherto objected to in the atheist perception of the Universe. Were one to put before an atheist a man named Jesus of Nazareth complete with wounded wrists and shins and side, no atheist would deny the presence of the wounds. In fact, you would have provided objective, undeniable evidence that a man calling himself Jesus was standing wounded before the atheist.

    Objective demonstration: the objectivism of atheism will not deny the physical evidence placed before it. To the other, I feel it necessary to acknowledge the usual procedure surrounding such objectivism: objective demonstration shows only that the objectively posited hypothesis is true--in this case, that a man is wounded and calls himself Jesus. But I don't see why an atheist would deny what is demonstrable and testable when the evidence is before them: such a denial is religious.
    So ... you have a problem with that?
    * What is objectionable to the idea of a species working toward its own survival?

    * What is objectionable to the idea of that species accomplishing goals relevant to its continued survival?

    Really, irresponsible statements like the above citation make me wonder if Christians aren't just waiting for God to show up and fix everything. That the ultimate goals of Christianity involve the forfeit of mortal life seems to indicate that Christianity is, as a philosophy and living practice, detrimental to the continued human endeavor.
    You are absolutely correct. What is even less acceptable is a set of rules imposed by the illusion of a tyrant. That is, a mass of people awarding to an imagined tyrant the authority to abuse not only that specific mass of people, but all other people as well. The Christian tyrant is a most repugnant tyrant.
    I know you wish that was true; it would make your pride so much easier to inflate. Atheists I know generally deny the existence of God amid a neck-deep flood of irresponsible theology designed to license the adherent to any number of improprieties ranging from human dominion to material extortion.
    Again and again: you wish and you wish. I know it would be easier if people's intellects were limited to the boundaries of your bitter imagination, but it simply isn't so. You'll have to do better than tell people what they think in order to counterpoint their assertions.
    And here you go with that silly bit about Satan. The problem with Satan is that no theology derived from the Bible yet explains exactly what the purpose of Satan is. No theory yet presented adequately explains the limits of Satan's authority, or excuses God from willful malice through His holy servant, Satan-El. Satan is, perhaps, the true redeemer: Christ died only once; the Devil is wounded daily by the lies of a billion faithful. Considering that two-thousand years of careful philosophical work have failed to produce any satisfactory description of Satan, I wish you luck in this endeavor.
    Well, as I once advised a friend of ours here at Sciforums, Lori, here we enter a theological conundrum.

    * I know for a fact that your description of Satan's behavior is inaccurate, assumptive, and based wholly in your hatred.

    * Now: here's your choice--either I have met both your savior and your enemy, and learned a good deal about the nature of the cosmic stake at hand, or else my teenaged visions are as much balderdash as any other religious vision in the world.

    So do you give credibility to a vision that describes a woeful, regretting Christ and a bewildered Devil, the only common trait of either is that nobody knows what the fight is about?

    Or do you sack the credibility of a religious vision, and thereby undermine the credibility of all religious visions describing a scenario more favorable to your preconceived faith?

    But in a faith-based arena, I have empirical proof that the statements or yours I've cited above are utterly false. Objectively, the data and conclusions reached by a plethora of preceeding philosophers has failed to give you theological justification for anything you say about Satan. You are, quite literally, speaking out of your ass.

    Thus, you undermine your own observations of sin, as well, with such apathetic claptrap as The law of sin is the one that governs satan's kingdom.

    Hey--it's your God. If you don't know these things about It, that's not my problem. But if you choose to spout irresponsible theology in a call for human subordination ... well, that is my problem. Have your facts straight--whoops ... that's right: you rely on faith, not facts.

    But really, that's what it comes down to. If Christians had better faith that reality will play out to describe the theology they believe, such issues as these would not be so critical. To wit:

    * I believe it was Radical who asked why these arguments don't spill over onto Islam or Judaism, or other religions. The answer is twofold and simple:

    * Most of Sciforums' posters are western-educated amid the Christian and post-Christian first-world. When we get up in the morning, go to school or work, and when we come home at night to sleep, the most relevant abstract issues statistically find their orientation in the western criteria. Among these are theological matters, largely derived from Christianity. The Christian/Atheist split is much more common and relevant to our posters than, say, a Wiccan/Shiite split. You'll note, too, that many of our alternative theists (myself included) derive our systems from Western ideas; Sufism is as Islamic as I get, and my exposure to far Eastern philosophies is limited.

    * Which brings the second reason about: We just don't have that many Jewish or Islamic posters to debate with. Sure, we might all be able to reach a consensus--or not--regarding Islamic salvation and women, but I'd rather let a Muslim interpret that for me so I can tell him what I find objectionable about it; otherwise, it's just a bunch of Westerners sitting around and harping on Muslims for no better cause than to ignore the issues more immediately relevant to us.

    So we find ourselves constantly faced with ideas with which we have traditionally found fault. That fault would matter as little to me as the inherent faults of Native American shamanism if it was not continually presented in my life as an adversarial entity.

    I would love to leave my issues at the label of Liberty: expression, privacy, individual governance. However, one label has personified for my entire life the effort to destroy those Liberties--Christian.

    I hope the logical snares you've encountered here might show you the paucity of the present state of faith; I'm not so much out to ask people to forfeit their faith, but rather reconcile the concept of what they think their faith is to its actual practice.


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


Share This Page