Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#619772 Apr 25, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh no, no, no....
The atheist handbook is quite clear on this.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary explanations.
And "Omniscience, Omnipresence, Omnipotence, Omnibenevolence, Evil. These five conditions can not co-exist." Is pretty damned extraordinary.
What do they say? "The onus is on you"?
Ready?
Go.
That is absolutely not an extraordinary claim. That is very simple logic. It does not need defending. The only possible realm such conditions could exist simultaneously is in the olympic sized gym most christians have in their head, wherein hangs a giant banner that says "anything is possible with god."

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#619773 Apr 25, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
No, killing someone in war is not sin. Neither is killing in self defense.
Yes, a person (PERSON) stealing from a store IS sin.
Derp.
Do tell, how exactly does war make killing another human being ok. In some situations it may be necessry to preserve one's own life, like in self defense, but that does not make it moral. A necessary wrong, if you will.

So, a person stealing from a store is a sin, but a group of people, united under the modern idea of a "nation," plundering another nation's resources is peachy?

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#619774 Apr 25, 2013
waaasssuuup wrote:
just though of this so i have to lay it down:
the opposite of the christian philosophy to -"love the sinner, hate the sin"
is the antichrist version of
'love the sin(homosexuality), hate the christian!'
Wow. Truer words have never been spoken. I'm quite happy that you had access to a computer with which you could immortalize this little nugget of genius, lest it be overtaken by another transcendent revelation and be lost forever.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#619775 Apr 25, 2013
Al Garcia wrote:
<quoted text>Omniscience, Omnipresence, Omnipotence, Omnibenevolence, Evil. These five conditions can not co-exist. One must drop away.?
One must drop away?
Just because one doesn't understand how those could possibly fit together then either we must do something or God MUST do something?
Perhaps we all can't yet see the big picture. Perhaps there are pieces to our life's puzzle that we don't yet know are missing.
This would be the equivalent of the Atheist saying that the glass is half full and the Christians saying that it's half empty.
Both may be right yet wrong at the same time. Impossible?
No. Maybe the glass is too big..... something neither side considered.
We may all be staunchly set in our beliefs or non-beliefs that we simply fail to see that we may not have all the information and we are all just simply flinging poo at each other.
The "cup" analogy doesn't really fit. That's a matter of perspective. That omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence cannot exist in the same realm as evil is not a matter of perspective. It's simple logic. A universe in which evil exists cannot possibly be presided over by an omnibenevolent, all powerful, all knowing being. Special pleading and appeals to ignorance do not change this fact. The only way you can get around this is to suggest that god thinks unimaginable suffering is good for us in the grand scheme of things which is why he allows it to happen, and that would be a difficult position to defend.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#619776 Apr 25, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Really?
You think "Omniscience, Omnipresence, Omnipotence, Omnibenevolence, Evil. These five conditions can not co-exist." is self evidentiary?
Go ahead and explain that one.
My, oh my.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#619777 Apr 25, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Your assumptions ate incorrect.
I HAVE disowned a brother.
And I'm "paying the price" for it.
My morals are worth it to me.
Blood is not thicker than water.
Fun fact. The phrase "blood is thicker than water" was originally meant to mean your opinion of it - not the common interpretation of "family over all." It originally meant that the "blood" that runs after "blood oaths" is thicker than the "water of the womb." The original reading was "the blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb."

As with all awesome things, it has it's roots in the "covenant making" rituals of the bible.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#619778 Apr 25, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
HA HA HA !!!!
Right wingers are against bigger and bigger gub'ment.
You're confusing us with the libtards.
Except when the government wants to go pillage some third world country or take our rights away in the name of "security" and "freedom," then it's full steam ahead for the right.

“It's all about the struggle”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#619779 Apr 25, 2013
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>Exactly what the sentiment has been from everyone I've told that story to.
My mother had a great and very witty sense of humor and this was one of those gems.
Being a rude, sarcastic bitch is not witty or funny except to another rude, sarcastic bitch.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#619780 Apr 25, 2013
psalms 23 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well God wont and doesnt punish you just for following your evidence. God punish sin, and the simple fact you reject his Son.
<quoted text>
Case being, as far as you know there isnt a God correct? As you know the outcome of an unbelievers fate.. Well, that being said ''if you'' were to die today/tonight then your hope was not in Christ. Your hope was in this world and the things of this world. So yes you are playing russian roulette.. btw, isnt but one way to heaven!
<quoted text>
Yes, and you hold that belief firmly. MY point , is you guys will NEVER get the evidence you all seek from under a microscope, math problems,measure of space time and matter.. YES, knowledge is good, man should learn all he can.. But knowledge will only take you so far..
NO, not dence as you.. just have a lot more commom sence then you..
The evidence leads away from his son, so yes, god would be punishing me for following the evidence. There is no good reason to believe. Simple as that. I can't "reject" something that I don't believe in.

I don't "know" that there is not a god. I simply don't believe in one. This is not a hard distinction to understand. But thanks for throwing in that old christian standby, the threat of eternal damnation for the unbeliever. That was nice.

And no, I don't "firmly believe" that the universe started one way or the other. "Firm belief" denotes a belief that is resistant to change and impervious to reason, and that does not describe my views on the matter. I choose to "believe" where the evidence takes me. If tomorrow the evidence suggested that the universe was birthed by a giant dragon, I would adjust my views accordingly.

That's the difference between you and I. You start with a conclusion and look for evidence to support it, and I start with the evidence and look for a conclusion that fits.

“It's all about the struggle”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#619781 Apr 25, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I'm sure a libtard, non-parent like you knows all the best ways to raise kids.....
Why would you NOT discipline a 6 month old?!
You must like the sound of screaming babies.

You can't seriously expect a 6 month old to grasp why it is being disciplined!

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#619782 Apr 25, 2013
psalms 23 wrote:
<quoted text>
Thats your choice,, by all means persue your theories and hopes in the science world...
No point in discussing my God with you, you are not seeking God..
Everything science has was ''loaned and borrowed remember??? And they got that from GOD...
I'm not "pursuing hopes" in the science world. What are you talking about?

But ok, nice cop out. No point in discussing "your god" because I am not looking to be indoctrinated.

"Loaned and borrowed?" What? I was not saying that science borrows from anything, especially god, I was explaining the big bang to you using simple terminology, and you completely misunderstood it. The universe might have started when a virtual particle was "loaned" (so as not to violate the law of conservation), spawning a singularity and a rapid expansion. Where did you get "science loans and borrows everything" from that?

“It's all about the struggle”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#619783 Apr 25, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>...
better thank at....
Are you drunk?

“It's all about the struggle”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#619784 Apr 25, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, "rational" thinking is like wild guessing?
It IS easy....
Let's see....
You have no proof that you're a woman so I'm gonna assume you're a hermaphrodite.
He claims to be Alice, too.

“THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD;”

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#619785 Apr 25, 2013
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>Hasw nothing to do with BELIEF.
The inconsistencies are there and speak for themselves.
AGAIN:
Jesus' lineage was traced through David's son Solomon. Mt.1:6.
Jesus' lineage was traced through David's son Nathan. Lk.3:31.
Lets deal with these individualy, since you have pasted so may of em..
So what does that prove to you?? Dont you think that Daivid had 2 sons in which it is possible to trace the linage history through?
The announcement of the special birth came before conception. Lk.1:26-31.
The announcement of the special birth came after conception. Mt.1:18-21.
So whats your argument for this so called contradiction??
Are you speaking of the Angel who came to mary or of matthew begining his writings in 1:18 with ''Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise''?
Jesus' parents were told of their son's future greatness. Mt.1:18-21; Lk.1:28-35.
Jesus' parents knew nothing of their son's potential. Lk.2:48-50.
The angel told Joseph. Mt.1:20.
The angel told Mary. Lk.1:28.
Of course the Gospel documents display some differences, even when describing the same events. Actually, this is evidence of ""literary independence""; it demonstrates a lack of ""collusion." " This circumstance most certainly does not demand historical unreliability.

So i guess you critics, would then grip and complain that all 4 gospels are identical, therfore you would say,,''they got together and got there stories straight''...

When Jesus was crucified, a superscription was placed above his head proclaiming,“This is Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews.” It was written in three tongues—Hebrew, Latin, and Greek. These languages represented the three dominate cultures of the Mediterranean world when the New Testament was produced.

It is not without significance that there is a Gospel record designed for each of these societal elements. Matthew was directed to the Hebrews, Mark was written for the Romans, and Luke was designed to address the Greeks. John’s narrative, however, was cosmopolitan in its thrust. Each of these works deserves careful reflection.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#619786 Apr 25, 2013
Pokay wrote:
<quoted text> No, that's what *you* do because you have no way of defending yourself properly.
<quoted text> If they are not the same thing then kindly give us your definition of 'consciousness' and of 'sense of self'. And then explain to me why it matters, when we are talking about 'awareness coming into being' from a state of non-awareness.
So if you admit the nature of self is not testable then that means you cannot explain how awareness ever came into being which means you cannot claim that it is more probable that awareness comes from organized groups of molecules rather than from the quantum matter/energy that makes up those molecules. End of story. What more can you argue about? There should be no argument here except that, in your battle against the idea of an eternal consciousness or "God", there are no rules of etiquette or sportsmanship.
BTW, Just because a cat can't reason and thinks it's own reflection is another cat doesn't mean it has no 'sense of self'. When an object comes hurling at the cat, the cat will move out of the way. Why? Because the cat is aware of itself. Duhhh.
To put it simply, consciousness is the ability to think, self awareness is the ability to think about thinking - the ability to think that there is an "I" doing the thinking.

Why have you moved the goal posts so, so far? Now I have to prove how consciousness came into being to even suggest that it is associated with the physical systems that it appears to be associated with? I have already agreed with you that we do not know how consciousness works, but it does not follow that every observation we can make is therefore meaningless. You realize that this logic could be applied to everything in the universe? Everything we are able to observe might simply be the result of some deeper process that we have not yet uncovered, but to say that this renders all current observations meaningless is lunacy. That is not to say that we should not be open to other explanations for things, though.

And I did not say that cats definitively do not have a sense of self, I specifically said that based on the best tests we can devise they do not appear to have a sense of self. Certain animals pass these tests, certain animals do not. And it is not simply a matter of a cat "thinking it's reflection is another cat." Read up on the mirror test if you want to know how it works.

And really? A cat jumping out of the way proves it has a sense of self? I'm really beginning to think that you do not understand the distinction we are dealing with.

“THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD;”

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#619787 Apr 25, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheists know the bible better thank at Christians.
Sad but true, but then again Satan also knows the scripture.

Kinda like owning a tool but dont know how to use it.. Its worthless!



Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#619788 Apr 25, 2013
Pokay wrote:
<quoted text>How's is this a pertinent answer to 'how awareness came into being'?
And just because we know mass is associated with gravity we can't say that mass causes gravity because we don't know the fundamental cause or mechanism of gravity. Same with awareness. Just because molecules are a part of the organism that displays awareness doesn't mean that molecules are the cause, especially when the quantum state is more fundamental than the molecular state.
You have no way of approaching the question of how awareness came into being, so KMA.
I did not say that mass necessarily causes gravity, I said that it is clearly associated with it based on the evidence we have. Where there is mass, there is gravity. Where there is consciousness, there is a neural net. My point is, you cannot discount the observations that we have because there "might be something deeper."

"The quantum state is more fundamental than the molecular state." So? What's your point? What do you mean by quantum consciousness? I still have no idea what you mean by this other than you use it as a substitute for the word "magic." And why would a quantum consciousness, whatever that means, imply an eternal consciousness?

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Iquique

#619789 Apr 25, 2013
top2m wrote:
God is everywhere.
God is dead....

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#619790 Apr 25, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Dumb ass.
War is an act of nations or states, not individuals.
And nations are collections of people. Or do you think nations are special, somehow?

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#619791 Apr 25, 2013
Pokay wrote:
When I am on my death bed, I still won't seriously consider that "God" assumes a name (like "Jehovah" or "Allah"), but I bet most atheists will break down and consider that there might be some sort of higher power/consciousness, and will quickly humble themselves. But maybe too late to make a difference.....in the "direction" their conscious energy is allowed to take, after the transition of "death".
So, now your "eternal consciousness" nonsense shows it's true colors. It is ego worship and the desire to see others "judged" for their arrogance hidden behind pseudo science. "Direction their consciousness will take..." I wonder what that could be a euphemism for.

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 7 min Dally Mama 228,559
Should Black People in the USA Leave America an... (May '13) 19 min Johnny 606
Play "end of the word" (Jan '11) 27 min andet1987 4,597
Wake up, Black America!! (Sep '13) 42 min Johnny 3,354
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr truth 545,056
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 1 hr Mandela 118,283
Israel's end is near, Ahmadinejad says (Jun '07) 1 hr Mandela 36,919
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 2 hr MUQ1 260,188
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 3 hr mdbuilder 174,202
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 3 hr mike 601,413
Hot gays in Abu Dhabi (Nov '13) 10 hr Sexy bottom 975

Top Stories People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE