The problem of evil and hate

Oct 20, 2013 Full story: The Gleaner 335

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Full Story
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#125 Oct 31, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>no, nor can we prove that the tooth fairy doesn't live on Pluto...
Bingo. Hence it's a non-falsifiable non-scientific concept.
woodtick57 wrote:
my money is on tooth fairy being responsible for the creation of the universe...
And at least she leaves us money!
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#126 Oct 31, 2013
LCNLin wrote:
<quoted text>
Burden of proof is on you "Miss England".
You're lucky - it's only because you replied to Skippy in this instance that you are correct.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#127 Oct 31, 2013
LCNLin wrote:
Same mumbo jumbo that Bob posts ~ amuses us all.
Atheists spend much of their time talking about God.
LOL
Actually this thread is cross-referenced across three Topix forums. And it was started by a theist.
LCNLin

United States

#128 Oct 31, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually this thread is cross-referenced across three Topix forums. And it was started by a theist.
Philosophic viewpoints seem to cross over.
Peace

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#129 Nov 1, 2013
LCNLin wrote:
<quoted text>
Relax,
We have all read your mumbo jumbo pixie atheist stuff before.
Says the clown that can't prove his god.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#130 Nov 1, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't really care if people don't take me seriously
We don't.

When you got caught and exposed for your ignorance about the "burden of proof". Instead of admitting that you don't know what it is, you accused me of denying the moon landings.

That was your biggest mistake.

The fact that LCN the Creationist troll is agreeing with you speaks volumes.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#131 Nov 1, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
You're lucky - it's only because you replied to Skippy in this instance that you are correct.
The burden of proof is and always lies firmly on the idiot stupid enough to lie about god being real.

Write this 100 times dude and whack your dumb head onto the sheet so you absorb the information better.

Atheists make no claims.

Atheism is a disbelief in the claims made by theists - which you support based on no evidence whatsoever.

You support liars dude, and you're a liar yourself.

You may f*ck off now.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#132 Nov 1, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
We don't.
When you got caught and exposed for your ignorance about the "burden of proof". Instead of admitting that you don't know what it is, you accused me of denying the moon landings.
That was your biggest mistake.
Not at all. As the entire thread is on record and occurred about a year after you misunderstood the burden of proof. Your denial of the moon-landings was not an ad-hom, and wasn't brought up to distract from the simple fact that you were wrong. And still are.
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that LCN the Creationist troll is agreeing with you speaks volumes.
Doesn't matter if you all agree with me that water is wet. You're both fundie idiots.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#133 Nov 1, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
The burden of proof is and always lies firmly on the idiot stupid enough to lie about god being real.
No, burden of proof rests firmly with whoever is making the positive claim, doesn't matter if they're atheist, theist or scientologist.
-Skeptic- wrote:
Write this 100 times dude and whack your dumb head onto the sheet so you absorb the information better.
You have no info to provide, you merely have a mental block.(shrug)
-Skeptic- wrote:
Atheists make no claims.
Of course they do. Everyone makes claims. It's a natural part of life. Your claim is that a particular concept had been falsified, I maintain it's a non-falsifiable non-scientific concept.
-Skeptic- wrote:
Atheism is a disbelief in the claims made by theists -
This is correct.
-Skeptic- wrote:
which you support based on no evidence whatsoever.
This is incorrect. I do not support theism and especially not creationism. There are even posts I've made in this very thread which indicate the opposite of your claims. And on plenty of other threads too. Which makes this:
-Skeptic- wrote:
You support liars dude, and you're a liar yourself.
You may f*ck off now.
Particularly ironic.

Oh by the way, as I got here there were already lots of pretty pictures judging your posts. Presumably from the creationist bozos around here. Remember, those pretty pictures are very important!
Amused

Lowell, MA

#134 Nov 1, 2013
LCNLin wrote:
<quoted text>
So how are thing in your United Kingdom.?
Keep Pay taxes to the Church of England while you had out advise to Americans
<laughing>
Vast amounts of your US tax dollars go to "faith based" organizations, a far higher percentage than the percentage of British tax dollars that go to the CoE. "Faith based organizations" is just a Bushie euphemism for churches and religious organizations. By farming out social services projects to these organizations, the government is (a) paying a significant part of the overhead of the religious organization, and (b) providing them with money they can use to implement social services programs that serve as bait to draw in potential congregants.

The end result is the same as the British government paying the CoE directly, but with more fig leaves employed by the government to avoid being candid about their support for religious organizations.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#135 Nov 1, 2013
Amused wrote:
<quoted text>
Vast amounts of your US tax dollars go to "faith based" organizations, a far higher percentage than the percentage of British tax dollars that go to the CoE. "Faith based organizations" is just a Bushie euphemism for churches and religious organizations. By farming out social services projects to these organizations, the government is (a) paying a significant part of the overhead of the religious organization, and (b) providing them with money they can use to implement social services programs that serve as bait to draw in potential congregants.
The end result is the same as the British government paying the CoE directly, but with more fig leaves employed by the government to avoid being candid about their support for religious organizations.
we also subsidize the churches in the US by allowing them to be tax free...
Justin

United States

#136 Nov 1, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>your posts would clearly suggest a belief in fantastic, unproven events.
that cannot be mentally stable, can it?
Drug addiction, putting a gun to one's head, or abandoning one's spouse and children: those are examples of mental unstability.

Believing in (or just entertaining the possibility of) the fantasic simply places me in the same intellectual category as Barack Obama, Deepak Chopra, or George R Martin.
Justin

United States

#137 Nov 1, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>we also subsidize the churches in the US by allowing them to be tax free...
I agree that religious organizations or parochial schools should not receive government funding or special tax status, primarily because it creates a financial dependency and leaves them vulnerable to government interferance.

Likewise, I'm opposed to classroom led prayer or incorporation of religious concepts into public school curriculum, because I don't consider the government an authoritative source on the topic of religion and opens the door for pseudo-religious / political indoctrination of students. What I expect from public schools is proper instruction in reading, writing, and arithmatic. They seem to be having enough trouble as is just covering these basics. I'll provide my own education at home regarding topics related to faith.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#138 Nov 1, 2013
Justin wrote:
<quoted text>
Drug addiction, putting a gun to one's head, or abandoning one's spouse and children: those are examples of mental unstability.
Believing in (or just entertaining the possibility of) the fantasic simply places me in the same intellectual category as Barack Obama, Deepak Chopra, or George R Martin.
if you think some god causes it to rain or cures cancer, you are not dealing with reality...
Justin

United States

#139 Nov 1, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>if you think some god causes it to rain or cures cancer, you are not dealing with reality...
First, not dealing with reality and mental instability are two different things. The government, media, and financial institutions of the world are controlled by people who "don't deal with reality" regarding certain important matters having nothing to do with religion, and that's a legitimate concern. However, whether or not I believe that a benelevent God can cure my relative's cancer should be no one's concern but mine.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#140 Nov 1, 2013
Justin wrote:
<quoted text>
God can cure my relative's cancer should be no one's concern but mine.
You shield your stupid beliefs to hide them from the scrutiny of reason. Its because you know that they're stupid beliefs.

The problem with theists is that they wrap others in the lies they tell themselves, and then play victim when challenged on these fundamental lies.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#141 Nov 1, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
You shield your stupid beliefs to hide them from the scrutiny of reason. Its because you know that they're stupid beliefs.
The problem with theists is that they wrap others in the lies they tell themselves, and then play victim when challenged on these fundamental lies.
Actually he was making a good point here, which you conveniently cut off when you quoted him. Most fundies in America WANT their religious beliefs to be taught in public schools while Justin was apparently advocating separation of church and state. And for good reasons. Me, I would be happy to have creationism subject to critical scrutiny in public schools, but if I tried that in the US I would (ironically) likely be pounced on by many fundie parents for violating their child's First Amendment rights.

I know that being English you can't appreciate these little political subtleties, but there ya go.
Amused

Lowell, MA

#142 Nov 1, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>we also subsidize the churches in the US by allowing them to be tax free...
If things worked the way the founding fathers intended, tax exemption for churches would be the trade off for no political involvement of churches.
Tax exempt charities receive that exemption with the proviso that in exchange for gaining the exemption, they are required to avoid engaging in political advocacy. The system breaks down because IRS enforcement of the ban on political activity is utterly toothless and ineffective.
Certain churches want to keep the exemption, but assert a 'right' to engage in political advocacy, and these churches have pushed the envelope, often openly defying the IRS regulations. So far, the IRS has been MIA in responding to these provocations.
If the government held religious tax exempts to their end of the bargain - no political advocacy of any kind- it might actually be worthwhile to forego the revenue in exchange for walling churches off from politics and government. As it works in practice, we give away the revenue and get nothing in return, which is not any kind of bargain.
Justin

United States

#143 Nov 1, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
You shield your stupid beliefs to hide them from the scrutiny of reason. Its because you know that they're stupid beliefs.
The problem with theists is that they wrap others in the lies they tell themselves, and then play victim when challenged on these fundamental lies.
I can't vouch for anyone else and don't present any of my spiritual beliefs as "facts" subject to scrutiny. Unfortunately we live in a society full of self stylized "victims", but I've never played into the role of victim.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#144 Nov 1, 2013
Amused wrote:
<quoted text>
If things worked the way the founding fathers intended, tax exemption for churches would be the trade off for no political involvement of churches.
Tax exempt charities receive that exemption with the proviso that in exchange for gaining the exemption, they are required to avoid engaging in political advocacy. The system breaks down because IRS enforcement of the ban on political activity is utterly toothless and ineffective.
Certain churches want to keep the exemption, but assert a 'right' to engage in political advocacy, and these churches have pushed the envelope, often openly defying the IRS regulations. So far, the IRS has been MIA in responding to these provocations.
If the government held religious tax exempts to their end of the bargain - no political advocacy of any kind- it might actually be worthwhile to forego the revenue in exchange for walling churches off from politics and government. As it works in practice, we give away the revenue and get nothing in return, which is not any kind of bargain.
yes, i would agree, there is no political involvement in churches, but they sure cross that line the other way and still garner their subsidies...

but when have religious cults ever played fair, it is theri nature to not play fair...inherent in their make-up.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 52 min Ooogah Boogah 116,689
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 4 hr Dogen 173,759
Difficulty Loading Topix Pages 8 hr Dogen 9
Are there any dinosaur fossils of their genital... 11 hr cris 1
Why are there no dinosaur pen is fossil? 11 hr cris 1
New review critical of "Origins" 18 hr DanFromSmithville 21
Need clarification on evolution Fri Dogen 7
•••

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••