Prove there's a god.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#776265 Sep 3, 2014

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#776266 Sep 3, 2014

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#776267 Sep 3, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
This doesn't rebut my argument. I would say that it merely makes the same mistake you did if Harris insisted that he meant what you do - a belief distinct from a motive to invoke it. Just believing an idea doesn't make you want to use it to effect any particular outcome. If the belief is that terrorism will earn you favor with Allah, you have to want what Allah promises for you to behave in accordance with the belief. That's self-evidently true.
Besides, you've already given us your opinion on Harris.
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TT4LRR6...
Suddenly, when expedient, he is your expert witness?
If you believe that terrorism will earn you favor with Allah, and you believe having what Allah promises will make you happy, and you believe it is what you should do, you act.

The agent accepts both propositions - he believes them.

Belief is the motivation.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#776268 Sep 3, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
This doesn't rebut my argument. I would say that it merely makes the same mistake you did if Harris insisted that he meant what you do - a belief distinct from a motive to invoke it. Just believing an idea doesn't make you want to use it to effect any particular outcome. If the belief is that terrorism will earn you favor with Allah, you have to want what Allah promises for you to behave in accordance with the belief. That's self-evidently true.
Besides, you've already given us your opinion on Harris.
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TT4LRR6...
Suddenly, when expedient, he is your expert witness?
What better witness than a person my adversary has quoted at length?

Harris regards "belief" such a strong motivator, we should kill people simply for holding it.

One can be wrong in the whole, right in part.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#776269 Sep 3, 2014
thewordofme wrote:
Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
“When Adam sinned, he sinned for us, and it’s that very sinfulness that sets up our understanding of our need for a savior.” Mohler says.
Mohler says the Adam and Eve story is not just about a fall from paradise: It goes straight to the heart of Christianity. He says that the Apostle Paul (in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15) argued that the whole point of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection was to undo Adam’s original sin.
“Without Adam, the work of Christ makes no sense whatsoever in Paul’s description of the Gospel, which is the classic description of the Gospel we have in the New Testament,” Mohler said.
………………….
Fuzale Rana, president of Reasons to Believe.“But if the parts of Scripture that you are claiming to be false, in effect, are responsible for creating the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith, then you've got a problem.”...“I think this is going to be a pivotal point in Church history because what rests at the very heart of this debate is whether or not key ideas within Christianity are ultimately true or not.”
Excellent points.

Nonsense results when a group embraces the idea that God has no choice but to create new souls with a damning flaw because of actions the new soul had no part in, and can have no blame for.

This is a concept of a god who vindictively visits harm on the innocent, while admonishing his subjects not to do so.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#776270 Sep 3, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, what you are unable to do is to put your words in my mouth. I'm a big fan of self-government. If you think the Supreme Court has stolen that from you, what are you doing to restore representative democracy?
Not only has the Supreme Court stolen it, you support the stealing.

This is not putting words in your mouth. When you express support or approval of the court-made law such as prohibiting the 10 commandments in a courthouse, you are supporting the stealing of self-government.

You can't have it both ways. Either you oppose such measures never consented to, or you oppose self-government.

I didn't make the choice for you.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#776271 Sep 3, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Read it again. The Crusades, witch trials, and Bush's wars are as irrelevant as Stalinism with regard to what a humanist leader would or could do in America. Neither the horrors of of Stalinism nor the horrors of Christianity are wiped out.
Humanists repudiates both "theologies of despair and ideologies of violence," and offer a non-dogmatic alternative to each.
Is all of this misrepresentation error or by design?
You missed the point.

If Stalin is irrelevant to what a humanist would do, Christian bad acts are irrelevant to what Christian leaders would do. Yet, we read here every day of warnings based on what Christians have done when in power.

When I read such warnings in a post, I treat the poster to a dose of Stalin.

That is legitimate and fair. I hold back a bit on Hitler, as he never declared his atheism. But he was obviously not a Christian.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#776272 Sep 3, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I never did that.
Incidentally, which alleged god cannot exist, the Christian god, your god, or one of the others? Please be specific.
You have done it for weeks.

You and Tide have argued the preposterous logic that the god of the Bible cannot exist because of the descriptions given.

You think it makes it easier for you if you can divide the concept of god into distinct pieces, "the Christian god, your god, or one of the others".

The advantage you seek here is that different persons and groups have different ways of interpreting and describing the god concept, and it's easier for you to attack the specific views, some of which are superstitious, than to attack the concept itself. With the delineation, you can utilize biblical errancy and contradictions to attack the one view, and in so doing, pretend you have made hay against the concept itself.

It's the same sort of cleverness that gives rise to the ridiculous argument that a particular god cannot exist because of a vague and unreliable description.

I get up early in the morning.
atheism is destructive

Alabaster, AL

#776273 Sep 3, 2014
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>Why, yes, AIDs, you are.
You just can't repeat that over and over and make it true. Show me proof.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#776274 Sep 3, 2014
Greetings From Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
Urges motivate.
Urges = beliefs.
Beliefs motivate.
High five big winner!
Very succinct.

Humean motivational theory is crap.
atheism is destructive

Alabaster, AL

#776275 Sep 3, 2014
Greetings From Reality Is A Pussy wrote:
<quoted text>
Your playtime tea party brew of evidence won't quench the thirst of a rational skeptic.
You're incapable of providing evidence for the existence of a thing that doesn't exist.
That's why you engage in make-believe. Pretend that there is tea in the cup and enjoy. Drink as much as you want. You'll still be thirsty afterwards.
Thanks for revealing your delusions and weak-willed bigotry with us.
atheism is destructive

Alabaster, AL

#776276 Sep 3, 2014
curiouslu wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep, he also appears to have a problem with honesty and with comprehending what debate is.
Your fear is extra strong. You seem to never sleep as I see you on here 24/7. BTW, you never proved I'm someone else posting on here. When are you going to show the proof?
It's your claim.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#776277 Sep 3, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
No, not "period." Read the First Amendment again.
<quoted text>
When the legally and democratically appointed members of the Supreme Court said so. They were nominated by presidents elected by the people, and confirmed by Senators also elected by the people.
The rulings of the Supreme Court are, by provision of the Constitution itself, NOT consented to by the people.

They make their rulings "After" they are appointed, and they are appointed for life.

When appointed, they also swear an oath to uphold the Constitution.

If the First Amendment said what the courts ruled that it says, it would not have been ratified by the people.

The people did not consent to the power of judges to change the Constitution. What the people consented to was a method of changing it by the amendment process.

In that legitimate process, which is the only process consented to, the people must also consent to the change.

Come on over and join with us self-government advocates - Crick, Jefferson, and Madison.



Since: May 10

Location hidden

#776278 Sep 3, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not an either-or matter. SCOTUS is the legitimate representative of a self-governing people that created it.
When did you become an enemy of self-government?
The self-governing people never created the power of SCOTUS to change the First Amendment, and they never consented to the specific changes.

What they consented to allowed teacher-led school prayer and such things. If it had not allowed it, they would not have consented.

Why do you oppose self-government?

Since: Apr 14

Location hidden

#776279 Sep 3, 2014
I've heard many of you say that this is an atheist thread. If that is true, then prove there is a God, atheists. Come on you can do it.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#776281 Sep 3, 2014
scaritual wrote:
This is what you asked for.
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
<quoted text>Please point out to any post of mine where I exhibited any of those traits.
I supplied it.
I also specified within the past 24 hours (while we've all been talking about what constitutes a homosexual act).

Never mind.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#776282 Sep 3, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Praying? Sure, you can do that anywhere. I thought you were talking about the forms of religious expression that are outlawed.
<quoted text>
What I posted is not hate speech.
You said the only thing we're entitled to is to pray in private places like churches and our homes. Why are you going back on that? Did you mean preach instead of pray?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#776283 Sep 3, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
You're daydreaming. Again. We can pray in court houses, public schools, public parks, etc and there's not a goddamn thing you can do about it.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Knock yourself out.
Well... Now that I have your permission.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#776284 Sep 3, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:

Haha. Enraging a god? Dude... Get over yourself
It aint necessarily so wrote:
The god you worship has an anger management problem. He's way into angrily judging and smiting.
You claim God doesn't even exist, man. You think you've categorically ruled Him out.

How does something nonexistent get upset with you? How's that process work in your mind?
So please explain why you refuse to face this question:
If a sadistic god built a hell and stocked it with the souls of billions of people that it kept alive just to torture them for eternity, were real, and if mankind had the ability to free those suffering souls by slitting the sadistic god's throat from ear to ear, wouldn't that be the highest moral good possible and the greatest act of love ever?
Demonstrate that you're not afraid of your god as you indicate here and give us a straight answer, to the "hypothetical" question, or confess that you are afraid to for fear that it might be accurate or otherwise piss you god off, and that yoy have been reluctant to say so.
I won't criticize you for having that fear and saying so, but I cannot find a reason not to be critical of you holding that belief and trying to conceal it. Why should you?
I've already answered it.

Hypothetically, of course.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#776285 Sep 3, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
That would probably be an excellent rebuttal if I had denied any of the things you claim I denied, or it had addressed any of the points I actually did make.

Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
Well good, I'm glad you don't deny it.

It aint necessarily so wrote:
I denied it. Read my reply again.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
I denied it. Read my reply again.
K.

*rereads*

"That would probably be an excellent rebuttal if I had denied any of the things you claim I denied"

I'm glad you didn't deny it.
< sound of a distant ship’s whistle through the fog and a buoy clanging >
Alrighty then.
What the hell is a ship and a buoy doing out in the middle of the desert?

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
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 2 min New Age Spiritual... 678,601
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 30 min Aerobatty 118,567
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 33 min RiversideRedneck 2,134
News Bill to loosen financial rules would save $24 b... 37 min UidiotRaceUMAKEWO... 2
News Trump budget promises balance in decade, relies... 43 min UidiotRaceUMAKEWO... 4
News An ambitious ruler defeated by his own hubris: ... 44 min UidiotRaceUMAKEWO... 2
What Your Church Won't Tell You by Dave and Gar... (Apr '10) 57 min New Age Spiritual... 33,210
More from around the web