God and satan Question?

double

Originally posted by TheMaverick
Deaths in the Bible.

God - 2,270,365 not including the victims of Noah's flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, or the many plagues, famines, fiery serpents, Etc because no specific numbers were given.

Satan - 10

So surely the bigger Evil is God ?

I know someone has asked you this before, and you pretended they hadn't - but where did you get your figures from? Internet atheists?

reply to post by Vicky32


I'll answer your question for him/her. The figures come from the book itself when you add it all up. Don't immediately dismiss the research done by atheists just because you believe the bullsh!t in the book. I've looked at the given numbers in the book and the estimate that was given is accurate, not including all of the other unspecified deaths in the other atrocities.

Originally posted by Condemned0625
reply to post by Vicky32

 

I'll answer your question for him/her. The figures come from the book itself when you add it all up. Don't immediately dismiss the research done by atheists just because you believe the bullsh!t in the book. I've looked at the given numbers in the book and the estimate that was given is accurate, not including all of the other unspecified deaths in the other atrocities.

OK, show your working out! (As primary teachers say.) You want me to accept the bull# goven by atheists instead?
Not going to happen.
It's funny, atheists making such a huge meal out of slagging off the Old Testament, getting their ammunition from a book they swear they don't believe in...

Why so angry at a God you say you think doesn't exist?
Vicky
However, at least you're honest, stating that you're anti-Christian! Most atheists pretend they're not, that they're just concerned citizens - making them "concern trolls"!

reply to post by Vicky32


Trolls? Look at your retarded statement of mockery that you gave as a response. You don't think you're a troll? You're a trolling theist who believes nonsense without evidence. Here is a complete list of the killings in the piece of sh!t that people call a book.

dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com...

The books and verses are included to prove the accuracy of the given estimate. You should try applying the same kind of skepticism to your religion, but I guess you prefer the irrational path. You believe one thing without evidence but reject another when evidence supports it. You fail.

Originally posted by Vicky32

Originally posted by Condemned0625
reply to post by Vicky32

 

I'll answer your question for him/her. The figures come from the book itself when you add it all up. Don't immediately dismiss the research done by atheists just because you believe the bullsh!t in the book. I've looked at the given numbers in the book and the estimate that was given is accurate, not including all of the other unspecified deaths in the other atrocities.

OK, show your working out! (As primary teachers say.) You want me to accept the bull# goven by atheists instead?
Not going to happen.
It's funny, atheists making such a huge meal out of slagging off the Old Testament, getting their ammunition from a book they swear they don't believe in...

Why so angry at a God you say you think doesn't exist?
Vicky
However, at least you're honest, stating that you're anti-Christian! Most atheists pretend they're not, that they're just concerned citizens - making them "concern trolls"!

This post is just one example of how the religiously arrogant and close-minded can form severe prejudice regarding atheists, just because Atheists disbelieve their "theory" or just because they simply have logical criticisms of it's preaching and dogma.

The only thing that unites Atheists is there lack of belief in your positive claim that the universe is governed by a big brother, that if you don't submit to, you can burn for eternity. Makes sense, right? Pretty moral story.

"Show you're working out" - I've gotta love that;-

It's what the atheists have been asking the theist ever since they made the positive claim.

Religion is a perfect breeding ground for anyone who wants to make up their own God, and have people agree with them. Scientology is a modern example that uses the same techniques to attract gullibles.

Religious huxsters and charalatans like Harold Camping shouldn't even make it into any new outlet that considers itself serious. He should be on the street preeching and selling pencils.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware



Religious huxsters and charalatans like Harold Camping shouldn't even make it into any new outlet that considers itself serious. He should be on the street preeching and selling pencils.

edit on 22/5/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)

Fail number 1 is when you assume I support Harold Camping! I am neither American nor fundamentalist - why would I?
Then - you men are sadly nothing if not completely predictable.
Did I say it would all be the Old Testament? Yes, I did - and what do I find? 4 people mentioned in the New Testament.
Go hate Jews if you want - but I have yet to come across an Internet atheists who has a bad thing to say against Jews/Judaism. Could that be because so many them are culturally Jewish? Hitchens for instance..)
Don't mistake me, I am not saying you should attack Jews, I just wonder why you don't?
You really should educate yourself about the massive gulf in time and in theme between the Old Testament and the New.
I have noticed that Americans over-emphasise the OT. Why?
Vicky

reply to post by Vicky32

Fail number 1 is when you assume I support Harold Camping! I am neither American nor fundamentalist - why would I?

Never said you did.

Then - you men are sadly nothing if not completely predictable.

Derp.

Did I say it would all be the Old Testament? Yes, I did - and what do I find? 4 people mentioned in the New Testament.

So? The New Testament is just as abhorrent as the Old. It's only until the introduction of the "gentle Jesus; meak and mild" before eternal damnation (hellfire) is introduced.

Go hate Jews if you want - but I have yet to come across an Internet atheists who has a bad thing to say against Jews/Judaism.

LOL - Here come the anti-semite accusations.

Could that be because so many them are culturally Jewish? Hitchens for instance..)

"Culturally" Jewish? You would have to expand on that as i havn't the faintest idea what you are talking about here. Again, i've said nothing anti-semitic.

Don't mistake me, I am not saying you should attack Jews, I just wonder why you don't?

I'm not an anti-semite, my concerns are with abrahamic mono-theism of which Juduism, Christianity and Islam are a part.

Do you think i'm happy that Jews practice genital mutilation?

Do you think i like the fact that their doctrines states "You must thank God that you were not made a woman"?

I don't like fascist doctrine - PERIOD. I'm not exusing any form of it and i'm not witholding criticisms of certain religion or fascist ideology.

You really should educate yourself about the massive gulf in time and in theme between the Old Testament and the New.

What do you know of my education? My theological concerns are abundant with both Old AND New testament. And, as i've stated, other doctrine, not just Christianity.

I have noticed that Americans over-emphasise the OT. Why?

The what? OT? Forgive my ignorance?

I'm not American either.

reply to post by Vicky32

but I have yet to come across an Internet atheists who has a bad thing to say against Jews/Judaism.

Guess what. I hate jews and I hate judaism. I hate christians in general. I guess I'm the first atheist you've come across who hates jews and their nonsense.

reply to post by Condemned0625


Why do you hate anyone?

Such a pointless emotion

reply to post by Condemned0625


I hope you hate religion, and not individuals of religion. SOMETIMES it's not their fault what they preach, they honestly believe they are preaching the "greater good" - It's best to focus your "hate" towards fascist preaching and unprovable claims. Religion and irrationality are the enemies of reason.

Of course, there are huxsters, charlatans and frauds who use religion as a tool for their own selfish-agenda, or purely to stimulate their ego. I hate them too

Never be scared to be intolerant of the intolerant.

Peace comrade,

reply to post by Vicky32

I know someone has asked you this before, and you pretended they hadn't - but where did you get your figures from?

Your find my numbers are pretty accurate vicky,your more then welcome to lay down proof that i'm wrong.

Go hate Jews if you want - but I have yet to come across an Internet atheists who has a bad thing to say against Jews/Judaism.

I don't hate Jews or Christians or Muslims, because i don't blame them for their beliefs,you been corrupted since birth,and you can't un-program your brain from the washing of blind faith,were reason and though takes a back seat in life.

You can't avoid the fact,the greatest minds to ever live on this little blue planet out on the far dark side of infinite space,are all atheists.

I hate Zionism,i make no secret of that...Incase you're interested .

reply to post by awake_and_aware


I hate religion too, but I'm not going to make a special exception for people who just can't help the fact that they were brainwashed into believing nonsense. The adults who were brainwashed as children by their parents are at the ages of reason and have absolutely no valid excuse for continuing to believe it. I despise them and I despise their religion. The only exception I make is for young children. They can't help it because their parents force it onto them without consent and they don't yet have the intelligence to reject the BS due to the lack of evidence. As for the rest who are at their ages of reason, I hate them all.

reply to post by Akragon


Why should I not hate people who endorse an atrocious belief system? Why should I not hate someone who is sexist against women or molests children? Your proposition is the one that is pointless, not mine.

Originally posted by Condemned0625
reply to post by Akragon

 

Why should I not hate people who endorse an atrocious belief system? Why should I not hate someone who is sexist against women or molests children? Your proposition is the one that is pointless, not mine.

It wasn't a proposition it was a question.

Hating others only hurts yourself. Its a pointless emotion

But hate whoever you want.... personally i don't see the point of it.

Originally posted by TheMaverick
you can't un-program your brain from the washing of blind faith,were reason and though takes a back seat in life.

Unprogramme, brain-washing etc., my, don't you feel superior!
It may interest you to know (but probably doesn't) that I was not brought up in a Christian family. I have grown up in the most secular (By choice, not law) country in the world - New Zealand, so there was not the social pressure you may be imagining.
Your self-esteem is all bound up with your atheism, and no doubt all your friendships are too. Woe betide you of you ever find yourself re-assessing your life!
Your friends will drop you like a bad habit, and start denigrating you and your whole world will fall apart. You can't afford to have that happen at least not until you grow up a bit!
There is life beyond your teens!
V.

reply to post by Sorayugiman



This is a reasonable question, and one which no doubt many reflective minds have asked.

If God and Satan do exist, and God is Love, then it is logical to assume that Satan has a very beneficient and useful role to play in the Creation.

reply to post by Akragon


Hating people doesn't hurt me. You can't speak for me when you have absolutely no idea how my mind works.

Originally posted by graphuto
What I mean to say is that I don't need concrete physical evidence to believe in the existance of God, just like I don't need concrete physical evidence to tell me I'm going to wake up in the morning.

The only concrete physical evidence, IMO, is the Holy Bible which has withstood at least 2000 years of scruitny and is the most sold publication on the planet, even to this day.

And why would you ask me not to assert the existance of God in a thread entitled: God and satan Question?

Hard physical evidence isn't always an immediate necessary ingredient in rational reasoning. E.g. there's an area of abstracts and concepts, which have shown great functionality, when procedures they are part of so to speak 'return' to the directly observable and measurable part of existence, and the validity of the whole process can be evaluated pragmatically.

For the non-scientific or -technology minded some mathematical 'constructions' can be mentioned, 'constructions' which are not observable in the physical part of existence.

But because e.g. the square root of minus one exists functionally, doesn't mean, that the non-directly-observable area of abstraction etc can be filled with any bizarre speculations people cook up.

Take the example of an alleged creator-'god'. In any kind of rational reasoning on such an entity, a 'reality-check' is a must, unless you denounce any claim of objectivity whatsoever. A reality check which must also include the physical aspects of existence.

But let me consider your post step by step:

Quote: ["just like I don't need concrete physical evidence to tell me I'm going to wake up in the morning."]

A very bad allegory. You DO need physical evidence every morning to tell you, that you've woken up. That you've done it every morning sofar, isn't a garantee, that this will be the case tomorrow.

Quote: ["The only concrete physical evidence, IMO, is the Holy Bible which has withstood at least 2000 years of scruitny and is the most sold publication on the planet, even to this day."]

Apart from a few platitudes (which you can find better versions of in other religions or semi-religions), I consider the bible as complete non-sense, and the argument, that it has withstood 2000 years doesn't count for anything in the evidence department. Buddhism and hinduism is older than the bible (I take it, that you with '2000 years' refer mainly to NT), so they have 'withstood' even longer time and should according to your peculiar 'logic' then be even more 'true'.

As to popularity as 'evidence'. A lot of untalented popstars are immensely popular, while artistic geniuses can live on the brink of starvation. Besides the popularity of the christianities is rapidly declining, so even if popularity was an 'argument', it would go against you.

Quote: ["And why would you ask me not to assert the existance of God in a thread entitled: God and satan Question?"]

It's only faith-based propagandists, who use such black/white scenarios as yes/no 'answers'. You pop up regurlarly on ATS with your religious opinions, so you must have observed, that the rational criticism you're exposed to isn't so simplistic as your own use of the word 'assert' is. You are asked for evidence, validation, justification, method or whatever is suitable to demonstrate the 'truth' of something. Not an "is...isn't" competition.

This whole rational process of searching 'truth/reality' is categorized under one name: Objectivity. If you deny the value of objectivity, that's fine (there are no 'rules' saying you must follow it), you then have a subjective faith, which suits you (which also is fine with me), but you have no reason whatsoever to push this subjective faith, present it as 'superior' or better, to make any claims in social contexts etc. It's simply one faith amongst myriads of other faiths.

PS I was just kind of creating a foundation for possible later more topic-related posts. It pays to have the systematic methodology sorted out from the start.

reply to post by Condemned0625


You wrote:

["Hasn't the koran also sold many copies? The number of muslims will soon be greater than the number of xtians. That must mean their book will automatically be correct - according to your nonsensical logic."]

Also in this part of christian 'argumentation' there exists a great deal of confusion. Statistics are tailored or misinterpretated to show the christianities' nominal superiority, but this has little or no relevance to 'reality'.

E.g. is it very common for extremist protestants here on ATS to denounce the 'christianity' of catholics in the religious sense. But when it comes to reading statistics, catholics suddenly are housebroken again, and are counted 'christian' for the duration.

Reading statistics can be fishy. Protestantism (as THE christianity) would then be one of the smallest religions/semi-religions somewhat on par with buddhism. And catholicism is now smaller than Islam.

If you make an estimation of professing christians as compared to nominal christians (exact numbers are unavaliable), the overall numbers of christians go down to app. 50%. Etc.

Many of the extremist-christian claims are simply cosmetic scams, and I can understand the strong opposition to this level of christian 'argumentation', when its exposed to requests of evidence. Practically every time the christianities are challenged, we have to go through this theater of fabulated 'evidence', before we can get to topic.