What is with all the "Christianity-Debunking" attempt threads?

reply to post by sir_chancealot


Oh, I'm going to have fun with this one .

Originally posted by sir_chancealot

Originally posted by TruthParadox
...
But with God it's:
"You can choose to disobey me. I'll just torture you forever. AND ever. AND ever. Such is my ego..."
...

His ego? HIS ego?! "Pot-this is the kettle. You're black."

If you make a chair, does it get to tell you who can sit in it? If you build a house, does it get to tell you who can live in it? If you build a car, does it get to tell you who can drive it?

You see, it's arguments like yours that show that logical thought needs to be taught in schools again.

Damn! Cover yourself up man! Your straw-man is showing! Let's keep this PG, shall we?
Seriously, you use an inanimate object to somehow justify God torturing us for all eternity?

Let me tell you how it must be due to God's ego for Hell to exist.
What is the purpose of sending us to Hell?
It can't be to learn from our mistakes, as Hell is eternal...
Hmm..
Could it be that the punishment fits the crime?
No... couldn't be... no crime could fit that punishment.
The crime would have to be infinitely evil to fit the infinite or eternal torture... Even then, God's omnipotent and omniscient nature makes any judgment irrelevant, as it's all his will to begin with...
There is only one purpose and it is not "righteous".

That purpose: EGO

"FOLLOW ME OR SUFFER!!!"

If not, then kindly tell me the purpose of Hell.
Why does it exist?
Also, note that God is omnipotent and omniscient, so just saying "Hell was made for the Demons but it's humans that decide to go there", won't cut it.
He could simply destroy us.
Instead, he sends us to a place where we will be tortured forever.
YAY!

Originally posted by sir_chancealot
Are you REALLY arguing the following: "If there is a God, and IF he created humans, then he has no justification in telling those humans how to live"? That's your argument? Do you realize how logically ABSURD that argument is? Nowhere in our entire existence has the thing that was MADE gotten to tell the MAKER of said thing what he may do with the thing.

AGAIN you rely on ridiculous straw-men to make your "point".
I never said that such a God had no justification in telling us humans how we should live, just that he is in no way justified in torturing us for eternity.
Let's say you have a child.
Does that give you the right to instruct your child on how you think he/she should live? Sure.
Does it give you the right to torture the child if he/she doesn't obey you?

At the very most, you would punish that child so he/she would learn from his/her mistakes. There's a reason for that.
But Hell?
Eternal torture is not something you can "learn" from - it's eternal.
What purpose, then, could there be from such a place.
Starts with an E.
3 letter word...
Something we all have...

EGO!

Originally posted by sir_chancealot
Illogical, absurd thinking like this, and people wonder why our country is going down the tubes?

Our country is going down the tubes because we always expect someone else to pick up the pieces. A remnant of religious thinking which is exploited daily.
There will be no God to fix everything.
We have to take responsibility for things.

Originally posted by sir_chancealot

Yep, and once you stop rolling your eyes, maybe you can get over your OWN ego long enough to look at the facts.

Did you debate against my argument that shows that we only have as much free-will as slaves?
No, of course not.
Nor did you look at the argument myself and others brought up which shows clearly that any judgment becomes irrelevant when dealing with an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent creator - as everything is his will.
You, like all others when seeing you are wrong, will take out one little piece of the argument which you believe you can refute, and ignore all other flaws in your own belief system.

Have fun, but you didn't even get that far to be honest.

Free will might make more sense if people were perfect, or at least all-powerful and all-knowing. Making decisions can be such a struggle when uncertainty clouds the options. I see little freeness involved in tough matters.

The reason people struggle with not being able to believe is because they don't have honest control over it. Our minds automatically decide for us what we believe based on our knowledge, understanding, life experiences, and minds and bodies.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Gigatronix
I prefer a peaceful Muslim to a militant Atheist any day.

I prefer a peaceful (insert label) to a militant (insert label) any day.

Not really much of a point there.

It is much of a point when millions of people around the world can't get along with someone simply because they believe in something different. alot of people would prefer to be around a ranting raving person that believes in the same thing they do then be around someone who is laid back and believes in something else. As an Atheist I catch my fair share of flack from seemingly well meaning people, trying to save my soul and and help me find my moral comapss. I'd rather hang around these people then hang around another Atheist that just wants to bash religion all day.

Maybe it didn't seem like much of a point because you didn't get the point in the first place.

[edit on 12-2-2009 by Gigatronix]

There are many boxes that people reside in. Academia is one, along with religion. Rarely is it as cut and dried as we like to think.

Can religion be the cause of wars? Perhaps one first needs to define religion!

Religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe...a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects...something a person believes in and follows devotedly..."

Almost anything can fit into this definition, including atheism.

Once an individual leaves off labels...I am a Christian, I am an atheist, Buddhist, etc. then one may actually not be boxed, or considered religious in the true sense of the word.

Originally posted by MatrixProphet

I have become real adverse to boxes! They aren't comfortable and limit ones movement. The combination of this God of science and Creator (as you mentioned) allows for more movement!

Well - since this isn't the "describe your belief" thread - I've tried to keep it minimal unless warranted. But - Yes! I believe in an energy intelligent consciousness - that we are all part of the One or Whole (the Creator). Everything is a creation of thought.

I prefer the term - former "assimilated" Christian - born into it - as most are. I stepped aside/out of the box and went: Whoa! This is silly. This is not even close to believable.

What really annoys me is: You mention Jesus - and some people lose their brains. I can be talking to the most logical astute person about some rational subject - - mention Jesus - Poof! That person/intelligence is gone - - replaced by something "squishy".


NOTE: I have never said anything negative about the essence or teachings attributed to Jesus. I actually believe Prophets are ET's sent to earth to help guide man spiritually. No one today is privy to what really happened (unless we have time travelers). Organized religion is something I consider man-made. Beliefs are interpretations of man's text or stories.

[edit on 12-2-2009 by Annee]

Originally posted by moocowman

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by moocowman

 

Hate is a strong word...
What else do you hate besides what Christians do?
There is a lot of really bad stuff in the world...like child molesters, rapists, murderers, drug dealers, etc...do you hate any of those peoples actions?

When you say there is a lot of bad stuff in the world in response to my sig, I take it you mean there is a lot of "other" bad stuff in the world or is "bad" just an opinion?

Yes hate is a strong word, and to be honest yes I do hate the actions of many of those you quoted, don't you? Are those actions not to be hated, I would assume you also hate those actions, if not why not ? If you are an xtian I would assume you equally hate the actions of the homosexual as much as the others as per biblical example.

Interestingly enough, if the bibles are to be taken as historical documents, then the earliest examples of hate come from the Yahweh/jesus god itself.

I would challenge your assertion about God. Of course I would also question your use of "the bibles" There is only one. It has an "Old" Testamanet, and a "New" Testament.

First you say if I am a Christian, you spell it "xtain", you assume I also hate those actions, as I actually do. To assume though is to leave a lot of room to be wrong. As you are when you follow the course of "assuming"
You assume I also hate the actions of homosexuals. Did I say that?
Why would you assume that? I mentioned muder, child molesters, and drug dealers. How is it you jump from those obvious "wrongs" to a sexual preference?

You wrote: 'When you say there is a lot of bad stuff in the world in response to my sig, I take it you mean there is a lot of "other" bad stuff in the world or is "bad" just an opinion? "

You take it I mean. again, you assume. You took it wrong.
I mean there is alot ot bad stuff. "Other" ? other than what? I mean period. To clarify, there are a lot of people, actions, entites, that cause harm to others. I would not say I hate anyone. I could be tempted to hate them, but that actually is not the way God has taught in the Bible. Hatred of another who is commiting wrong is a futile attempt to correct the wrong. I could say that murder is caused by hatred. I could say that drug dealers are acting selfishly, which is the opposite of love. I could say that I hate the actions of murderers, child molesters, etc. Of course by way of logic, to classify an action to be "bad" is to classify it to be wrong. Maybe even evil.
By way of logic, it is not just an opinion that murder is "bad"

God is Love. I would challenge you to read the Bible. You might actually be shocked to find that God has clearly drawn the line about "hating"

"Leviticus 19:17 You shall not hate your brother in your heart."
That is the Old Testament, God in the Old Testament.

"1 John 4:20 If someone says, " I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen? And this commandment we have from Him, that he who loves God must love his brother also."
That is the New Testament, God in the New Testament.

I do not find God teaching hate in the Bible, commanding hate or any other such hateful actions. Actually God teaches quite the opposite.

However, you may assume as you have that God hates bad. Or "sin"
Sinful actions as defined by logic hurt others. So if God does not want us to be hurt, how does that equate to God being hateful?

To all the 'free' will debaters here, may I suggest a book for you to read:

Decisions with Multiple Objectives, Keeney/Raiffa?

Surprise(!), your will isn't 'free' at all. You're a slave to your preferences whether they're inborn, learned, or manipulated by those around you. As long as we're working to select alternatives for our behavior that optimize our objectives subject to our preferences, i.e. values and trade offs, we're rational.

What is fair is to argue that us religious folks are delusional, i.e. that the goals we're optimizing against don't exist or the choices are of such low certainty that they could never be feasibly admitted as choices, e.g. praying to God for help, believing in God, etc. It's also fine with me if you want to denigrate my values and trade offs, e.g. that I value not offending the holy God defined in the bible. They're mine. I'm certain you don't know where I got them and I'm also certain you don't know where you got yours!

Anyway, 'will' ain't 'free' so stop using the adjective unless you've found a compute time zero method for making choices. hahaha

Originally posted by Ichabod

You're a slave to your preferences

Doesn't preferences - indicate a choice?

I don't care what people believe - - I care when they cross over into my life.

reply to post by Annee


Preferences are your values and trade offs. Choices are your alternatives. You employ your preferences to make choices.

As far as not wanting others to impact your life by their choices, that's what the civil law is all about - it's a constraint on you and others. It defines where one person stops and another starts, is subject to interpretation by judges and bureaucrats, changes with the political breeze, etc, etc, etc.

Anyway, glad you didn't use the word 'free' - thanks.

Originally posted by Ichabod
reply to post by Annee

 

Preferences are your values and trade offs. Choices are your alternatives. You employ your preferences to make choices.

As far as not wanting others to impact your life by their choices, that's what the civil law is all about - it's a constraint on you and others. It defines where one person stops and another starts, is subject to interpretation by judges and bureaucrats, changes with the political breeze, etc, etc, etc.

Anyway, glad you didn't use the word 'free' - thanks.

My law is separation of church and state. Free from religious rule or influence. No god belief is necessary or required for logic/intelligent rule.

But first you choose your preferences. I see no difference.

(I simply have a different perspective on Free Will - which would involve my belief)

reply to post by Annee


Ah, maybe you should read the book I suggested. What you're arguing is meta-preference or meta-decisioning, which simply puts you into an infinite recursion of preference formulation. Easier to think of your preferences as data describing how you value and trade off the attributes of your alternatives.

I like a lot of the amendments and even some laws. Not sure which one is most important though. I enjoy invoking my freedom of speech here so that one gets my vote!

Originally posted by Ichabod
reply to post by Annee

 

Ah, maybe you should read the book I suggested. What you're arguing is meta-preference or meta-decisioning, which simply puts you into an infinite recursion of preference formulation.

You get out of a book what you get out of a book. Not everyone is going to even agree with the viewpoint of the author.

I do understand circumstances of your environment.

reply to post by Annee


Your view is the point of many here. myself included. That wonder why the most simple thing isn't avoided Church/State; get rid of that and there'd be no reason for war of religious beliefs toward a country. Icabod is being irrelevant because preference would include that you actually had a choice; christian oppression cancels out preference because there is no other right answer, so there for no choice to change your preference; so there for your point is mute. Keep up the good work Annee.

reply to post by TNT13


Oh, bravo. Deny ignorance? Hmm.

I'm not talking about "the choice" of whether a person accepts Jesus. I'm talking about "choices" in general and thereby the "will." "The choice" is rather a mystery and actually the subject of a heavy, multi-century debate between those arguing the doctrine of election, salvation, etc. Since many involved have already denied God and an afterlife, there's no point in discussing that.

I stand by my statement - will ain't free.

reply to post by Ichabod


I count religion but a childish toy,
And hold there is no sin but ignorance.

Christopher Marlowe

So I'm trying to understand your stance here... Are you blindly religious because there is no "free-will"??? Or are you not religious because of the same? I see both stances contradictory for this purpose, "If there is no free-will then why are you allowed to voice your opinion?" This is the definition of free-will in ethics, religion, and science: The principle of free will has religious, ethical, and scientific implications. For example, in the religious realm, free will may imply that an omnipotent divinity does not assert its power over individual will and choices. In ethics, it may imply that individuals can be held morally accountable for their actions. In the scientific realm, it may imply that the actions of the body, including the brain and the mind, are not wholly determined by physical causality. The question of free will has been a central issue since the beginning of philosophical thought. So I don't totally understand your statement will ain't free because clearly it is; you voicing your opinion here is clear proof of that. If your speaking of a system that we are born into I suppose all will isn't free because one cannot control one's own death. But free will is a basic concept of reality, if you cannot accept the fact that you actually do have free will then that is your personal "preference". It is you that wants to live by this standard you have in your own head, not I that folows things blindly like their is no free-will. By that standard I have more questions, "Do you drive blind-folded?" "Do you eat without, taste or smell?" "Do you have an opinion?" "Do you sleep at 6 and awake at 7 everyday?" "Would you kill if told too?" "Would you believe everything presented too you?"

So try your hardest to wrap my head around your idea of "will ain't free".

[edit on 12-2-2009 by TNT13]

In a metaphysical belief (they vary) - you choose your life experience while still in the energy state (or spirit) world. You choose your circumstances. You choose the level of play you think will give you the best opportunity for what you want to accomplish. You choose your safety features or none (degree of Will).

Yes - just like a very sophisticated video game. You can give yourself a high degree of challenges and 100% Free Will. Or you can play a lower level challenge with safety features and guided or controlled will.

This is my belief and it does afford the choice of having 100% Free Will.

I don't expect Christians to agree. But don't tell me there is no Free Will in my belief.

I think your enviroment and the people around you that form and grow in it, have a greater effect on you than you realize. You say that somone voicing their opinion here is an act of free will, but the personality that feels the desire to speak was formed by everything it experianced in its life. These experiances from teh very beginning were not your choice.... for the first years of your life you had no choice, but neither did your parents.

So at what point can you say anything you do is a free choice. Even if you were to take a pinwheel and spin it to pick you next choice... that would be based on the force was placed on the wheel by your spin... which is affected by your emotional state... and previous experiances.

Its like a long chain of things that were defined from the very beggining and that the ignroance of many links in the chain gives people evidence for free will.

reply to post by TNT13


The operative word is "free" not will. Everyone has a will as evidenced by the many choices they make all day. Your will is demonstrated by your choices and your choices the result of decisions. Those decisions are dominated by goals, preferences and the alternatives you have at any moment.

You're getting confused with the idea that you can "invoke" your will. I'm saying "free will" is a misnomer. Just call it "will" and I'll be happy and so will you because we both agree that we can invoke our "will" any time, any place.

Question is, what is the will? What is it composed of? Who programmed it?

I would challenge your assertion about God. Of course I would also question your use of "the bibles" There is only one. It has an "Old" Testamanet, and a "New" Testament.

I use the plural bibles because there are many different types, I believe (correct me if I'm mistaken) we have yet another type of bible mentioned as of this week on ATS. I have not had the opportunity to read the post, but I believe it is from cypress ?.

I did once have an oldie worldie type bible out the shed (amazing what's left behind in old churches and chapels that have been abandoned) which had unicorns in it. Yes ther are many different bibles.
Just like the word encyclopedia, changes to a plural as there re different types.

First you say if I am a Christian, you spell it "xtain", you assume I also hate those actions, as I actually do. To assume though is to leave a lot of room to be wrong. As you are when you follow the course of "assuming" You assume I also hate the actions of homosexuals. Did I say that? Why would you assume that? I mentioned muder, child molesters, and drug dealers. How is it you jump from those obvious "wrongs" to a sexual preference?

Room to be wrong or not, it was a pretty good guess so I was obviously right, not as though it makes any difference to me. Yes i spell xtian like that coz it saves time, I assume you don't have a problem with that ?

The reason I correctly (as you've now pointed out ) assumed you hate what homosexuals do is because I assumed you were a xtian, room to be wrong ? Maybe so, but you proved me right so there you go.

So how did I jump from these "obvious wrongs" to sexual preference, well hardly a jump my friend, I was trying to discuss how we define bad, or good come to think of it.

I dare say we share some ideas of what we believe to be bad or good, the examples you gave of some types of people I would agree that their actions are what we would generally call "bad".

Your god tells you those actions are bad and that he hates those actions, so that's where you get your morals. You get your morals which include bad good and hate from the yawhejesus god.

So as you believe that god is the first cause, and you get your morals from god then you obviously got your hate from god. QED

Where we differ in our morals maybe quite a bit, who knows but I clearly don't get my morals from Yahweh as I don't hate what homosexuals do.
I have made it clear I don't hate xtians but I hate what they do, however it's fair to say that as far as I can recall I've never really hated anything in my life, I even love marmite.

I have used the word hate in the same context as xtians use the word hate, it would appear that I have emulated the xtians in its usage. Yet again more evidence of god being the creator of hate.

I have not claimed that god hates individuals, neither do I for that matter.

Originally posted by TNT13
reply to post by moocowman

 

Great point and the point I'm trying to get at, christianity has an insane double-standard. A previous poster tryed to point to the fact that jesus says "murder" not killing which is ludacris in it self. Absolute hypocricy.

Dude these people make it up as they go along to suit their own particular agenda, or to make excuses for the fact that the jesusgod is imaginary and the bibles are no more than a cult set up at Nicea.

If it wasn't so disturbing i would fin xtianity laughable.

Henry the 8th got pretty pissed off with the Pope (he of the catholics that invented xtianity) because the pope was collecting more revenue (taxes) than he the king.
So the king then dumps Catholicism and makes himself the head honcho of his own church ie the church of england.
Smart (but fat) Henry then selects his own bishops,cardinals and such for all is kingdom, who swear allegiance to the king (along with the population who don't have no choice) as the king is given his power by Yahwejesusgod.

So instead of the romans screwing the British for every penny hiding behind xtianity, it became the royal family screwing the British hiding behind their version of xtianity.
What a freaking joke .

Never trust a man who hides behind a fish dude, he has no mind of his own.