''Evil tyrant'' Define evil? The fact is God is judging people by a standard of right and wrong if you're righteous in his eyes you go to heaven, and you're guilty you are punished in hell. Sin will be punished and that the universe will balance itself out in the end.
@MrEmeraldfusion God's method is evil. The fact is God is fine with torturing people in hell for all of eternity, more sadistic than stalin, hitler etc. Not to mention on top of that, God's allegedy all knowing all powerful, he knows peoples fate long before they are born, he knows their weaknesses and limitations, that life is too tough and will cause them to sin. Yet he is content to sit back and wait for it to happen, then deal out the punishment. How is that not evil?
@lynus111 -No, God is judging people for there chooses and actions. Jesus died on the cross so that we could have life eternal not experience his judgement upon sin. Jesus lived a perfect life he was a human so can everyone else. God knows people have weaknesses and he knows they can overcome their weaknesses; and Jesus overcame sin. Why are you making excuses? No one can force you to commit sin satan couldn't even make Jesus sin it our choose. Take responsibly, stop blaming God.
@MrEmeraldfusion I don't believe in god, Theres no proof. But even if he did exist..He is allegedy all knowing all seeing, he knew your fate before you were born, he could stop if he wanted he could change things if he wanted, he chose not to, why does he choose to create a species simply to test them when he knows damn well a large % of them will fail, all part of his sick evil game. Some say God moves in mysterious ways, I say he's justan ass that people like you try to excuse
@MrEmeraldfusion - I disagree with the idea that Jesus lived a perfect life. I think he was just a man, and I agree with many, but not all of his thoughts/teachings. Jesus just lived life, the same as we all do.
@revjimbob -So if you shoot and kill a man trying to murder you and your family you're evil? If you eat chocolate if the people around you see it as harmful to yourself and harmful to their eating habits are you evil? Yes, I have.
@MrEmeraldfusion If balance is good and unbalance is bad and unbalance is because of freewill then freewill is bad. Why did he create freewill if it inevitably led to unbalance?
@zentrout1 IF we? you mean he? It's still freewill because we have to make the choose it's our choice...who is to say we don't determine our future...Thief choose to steal and the pastor choose to serve God.
@MrEmeraldfusion I don't know. Was I predetermined to slap that person? I'm trying to get to the root of what you mean by "Freewill will be chosen to do God will over man's." Do you mean probably? You hope so? Or absolutely?
I believe in spirit world I don't believe God sends you to hell I believe you send yourself there (more like you are placed in a place your comfortable with)
I personally don't want to go to Heaven more like in the middle (nice people, but not to strict get what I mean)
Aaah, well a hypothetical all powerful being would have the ABILITY to condemn anything it desired to an eternity of horrible torture.
BUT, the idea that it has the RIGHT, implies that it is moral to do so. Which is absolutely NOT the case. I'd say torture is immoral to begin with, but even that aside infinite punishment for finite transgressions is by it's nature disproportionate in the extreme, and thus injust
Therefor a hypothetical God COULD send people to hell, it'd just mean it's EVIL.
Fact is, you can't have your cake and eat it in this matter as a believer. Either your God is good or at least JUST in a neutral sort of way, and Hell does not exist, or at least is not eternal but instead proportionate. Because anything else would not be allowed to exist by an all powerful being.
Or alternatively their god is evil. And eviller by far then the worst humans. Even someone like Hitler is positively moral compared to an eternal hell god! It's THAT bad!
Now of course when you pressure the believers about this that WON'T stick to their guns no matter how absured it gets, or that will shut down the conversation, you can watch their claim about hell evaporate. Because ah, it turns out no REALLY goes to hell, or it's just 'seperation' from god or whatever crap they pull out of their ass when they don't know anymore.
But fact remains; Eternal Hell = Evil God, end of story, no way around that.
@TheSkunkCat Exactly right! I have the ABILITY to walk down the street beating people to death with a hammer. I do not have the RIGHT. It's a derivative of the "Might makes right" philosophy which is almost universally agreed to be pretty damned evil.
I don't think its easier to be bad, I think its much easier to be good. I'm an atheist, and I don't have any trouble staying out of trouble. Why is it so hard to believe that atheists don't want to do any harm? We really don't, you know. We actually care about our fellow human beings, we simply choose not to have our lives controlled by a fictional dictator.
@8698gil No one said that it is hard for atheists to stay out of trouble. No one said you all want to do harm. Also, God is NOT a fictional dictator. He is a loving creator who wants the best for us? Is that so hard to believe? He doesn't cause bad things to happen. It's either something natural or something due to the free will of us humans. The people back in the times of the OT were corrupt. What they did does NOT agree with what God wants. You obviously interpreted the Bible incorrectly.
@nar3sas Actually the majority of religious folk make the argument that without god and the bible people have no moral compass and would engage in 'whatever feels good'. It is a very common argument that atheists lack a moral standard, which is nonsense of course. Claiming god is a loving creator who has nothing to do with natural disasters and other 'bad things' is very convenient, but it does not jive with his being a judgmental god who is all powerful.
@trythinkingnow You cannot say the majority of religious people make that argument. There are many like myself who believe that you don't need to believe in God or follow the Bible to be moral. I know it's nonsense to say that all atheists lack a moral standard. It may be convenient to say that God is a loving creator who has nothing to do with natural disasters and other "bad things", but that is also true. Why blame Him for those things? In the end, we must all be judged for our actions.
@nar3sas Either he looks the other way as bad shit happens when he could intervene which makes him a cruel jerk, or he can do nothing about it which means he is not god. Either he is an all loving creator and the whole concept of sin, hell and salvation is bullshit, or he is a cruel dictator who has laid out rules for his creations to abide by on pain of eternal torture. You can't have it both ways. I would not accuse someone of improper bible interpretation after your experience with "hell".
@trythinkingnow It is simply part of the natural order that bad things must happen. Also, He does intervene, but He does it through good people, and sometimes at such a level that miracles happen. He is not cruel, and He can still do anything. He is an all-loving creator, but sin, Hell, and salvation must exist due to free will. Also, I don't believe people go to Hell forever. It can be the way I say it is. NDE's supprt that greatly. If you do not want to accept all of that, that is your choice.
@nar3sas i dont deny god, i just dont believe YOU. I dont believe in a god either, because there is no evidence for one, nor does it seem to be a need for one, and if there is one there should be evidence. Until evidence IS presented, i will no believe this.
Anyone can be moral, most moral codes takes very little understanding and empathy to understand.
@MagnusNyborg I don't get what you mean about not denying God but not believing in me. Actually, there is evidence for God. People have had Jesus come to them in both dreams and in a waking state in addition to NDE's. Watch this /watch?v=NvvClFSMIzA and the 2nd part. This is one such testimony. You will probably not believe what he says, but he made it clear that he doesn't expect people to believe him. I know people can be moral, but it's not as simple as you say it is.
"People have had Jesus come to them " not evidence, maybe it is a mental illness. Mental patients also testify to this and that. If all you have is claims, then all you have is claims - dont call that evidence please.
@MagnusNyborg I had a feeling you wouldn't believe me, even though I really am telling the truth. It's not a mental illness at all. Mental patients testify to random things, not just seeing Jesus, if they do at all. It is evidence, though it is not evidence for everyone to see. The guy in the video makes it clear that his experience is only good for him since he experienced it, but he tells people to ask Jesus to show Himself to them. Also, this guy is a former Muslim who killed infidels.
@nar3sas if you have evidence, show the evidence, and stop making a bunch of unsupported claims.
Mental patients beahve in exactly the same way religious people do, and often adhere to religion. What distinction is there between mental illness and religiocity in this aspect?
There are christians who kill people aswell, and christian priests who bum little boys in jesus name.
@MagnusNyborg I'm not making unsupported claims. If you take what I'm saying as such, that is a huge loss for you. I'm giving you evidence. Mental patients do not behave in exactly the same way religious people do. Religion doesn't make people insane. I'm not going to talk to you anymore about comparing being religious to being mental because that's rubbish. I know Christians have killed people. Christian priests who "bum" little boys aren't real Christians. That should be obvious.
Yes you are, unless you can present evidence for a god, then you are making unsupported claims. Where are your evidence?
No christian accepts christian priests bumming little boys, but why is it so common that they do? And how come most christians dont accept most other christians as true christians? Are you a true christian?
@MagnusNyborg No, I'm not, but it's because of your closed-mindedness that you're saying that I am. The people who have met Jesus is complete support for God, whether you want to take it or not. That is your choice, and this is to be left at that. I don't think it's common that priests do that. There may be some touching in most cases, but not what you're saying. A true Christian is one who actually follows Christ's example by being a good person, so even people who don't believe are Christians.
@MagnusNyborg Yes, you are close-minded. I gave you evidence. I'm not dodging ignoramous. I gave you what you need. It's for you to accept or not. The negativity of atheists has affected you greatly since you can't see the passiveness in what I'm saying. Do not take me seriously if you do not wish. You're insignificant in comparison to God. Delusional people? These are Christians, former Hindus, former atheists, and former Muslims. It would seem some atheists are delusional then.
@zentrout1 My views have changed since my last comment on this video. I guess I would be a deist now. Honestly, I'm not sure why He created corrupt people. I believe that our souls are all pure but that we are made corrupt by our bodies. It would be great if humans and animals had always lived in a completely peaceful world with no problems, but then there would be no such thing as happiness since there would be no such thing as sadness. It makes you wonder what kind of being God is.
The beginning of this video was a complete misunderstanding of what God is. He CAN do anything He wants with us, but he does NOT do that. He is NOT an evil tyrrant as the ignoramous in the beginning of the video said. He judges us fairly, so we choose whether to accept Him or not. WE choose to go to Hell or not. That is based on our actions, which is our spirituality, not our beliefs or the traditions we follow.
If a being is omnipotent then it is, in need of nothing, desiring of nothing, wanting for nothing.
God needs us to worship him apparently, or he has put a lot of effort into trying to force us to do so. God desires that we obey him and behave in a certain way in order to please him. God wants us to do all of the above. God is not omnipotent. God is not god.
@trythinkingnow Desiring and wanting are not related to omnipotence. Its definition is simply having the ability to do anything. God does NOT need us to worship Him, and He has DEFINITELY not put in a lot of effort into trying to force us to do anything. God gave us the choice to do whatever we want, so he draws joy from us worshipping Him. Yes, we should obey Him by behaving in a certain way. You worship Him by doing good actions and not doing bad ones. That's how you go to Heaven.
@nar3sas Baloney. Either you claim god is the alpha and the omega and is wanting for nothing, or you must claim that god is an imperfect, incomplete being with wants and needs. God gives us the 'choice' to do as he demands, or face an eternity in hell. To suggest that this is some sort of free will or freedom to choose that has any meaning is absurd. Choose HIS WAY...or be tortured for eternity...for no reason at all since it cannot make any difference to him as a perfect being.
@trythinkingnow God draws joy from us doing His will not to fill any imperfection He has, but from us choosing to be with Him out of joy for us. I don't think that makes Him imperfect for wanting us to be with Him. God DOES give us the choice to choose Hell or Heaven. To me, it's simply a matter of doing good deeds and not doing bad ones when it comes to going to Heaven. WE choose to go to Heaven or Hell becuase WE choose to be good or bad. Is it wrong for Him to want the best for each of us?
@nar3sas If only it were that simple. I choose to be good. I do good deeds to the best of my ability and intentionally avoid doing bad deeds. If god gets worshiped in the process does not matter to me one way or the other. Am I going to heaven? Christianity says no way in hell...so does islam.
@trythinkingnow I believe it is that simple but not easy. It is much easier to give in to being bad rather than being good. The Bible talks about that. It talks about the path to Heaven being narrow but the path to Hell being wide. That's realistically very true. We need to learn to not care about what the crowd goes with and stick to what's right. That's what Christianity is about. If God does exist, you worship Him through good deeds. You will go to Heaven if you do good and don't do bad.
@nar3sas The bible does NOT say ANYTHING about 'the path to hell' being wide. In fact it does not mention the path to hell. In fact not until the king james version incorrectly translates 'hades' as 'hell' instead of its correct meaning which is 'the unknown' is hell ever mention in the bible.
In short: Hell is NEVER mentioned in the bible. Also, regarding what is right, WHO determines that? The bible again I suppose. So killing rebellious children is cool, right?
@trythinkingnow I checked in the Bible and on the Internet, and you're right. It seems Hell was used only in the King James Version. I must have heard what I told you from a priest or someone else. Of course, what I told you is still true. It's easy to give in to the crowd and do evil and therefore harder to do something good which is in disagreement with the majority. The Bible does not determine what is right. It is part of that. Killing rebellious children? The Bible does NOT support that.
@nar3sas Alas, yes the bible does support the killing of rebellious children, Deuteronomy 21:18-21: If you have a "stubborn and rebellious son," then you and the other men in your neighborhood "shall stone him with stones that he die." Leviticus 20:9 "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death."
@trythinkingnow Actually, the Bible does not support the killing of rebellious children. It mentions the laws that the corrupt people at the time followed, not laws that God made, so the blame is not to be put on God. They realistically had those laws since it was an ancient time. Even now, there are corrupt laws, but is God telling the groups people who have these laws to follow them? Of course not.
@MagnusNyborg The Bible does not support that. It's clear that this was one of the many corrupt laws of the corrupt people during ancient times. That's what that verse was. It was not given to the people by God. It was obviously man-made. That's all I have to say, so just think about that.
@nar3sas why does not the bible support this? It is in the bible, and the bible is claimed to be the words of god, true and infallible. Or are you saying the bible is full of errors?
@MagnusNyborg The Bible does not support it. It is there to show you the corruption of the people during OT times. It's complimented by the NT in order to show us that there was something wrong with that and that we're supposed to be compassionate like Jesus. I'm not saying the Bible is full of errors. It is the people who interpret it falsely who are full of errors.
@nar3sas if it is in the bible, then the bible supports it - if the bible does not support it, remove it. Simple as that. But if you remove it, then you admit the bible is not true.
OT is gods law, have you really cleared this idea of yours with your god, or are you pulling it out of your ass?
As far as i know, god is not doing anything, lest telling people what they should or should not do, except from what is written in the bible (written by men).
@MagnusNyborg The Bible does not support something just because it is in the Bible. It's not as simple as removing it. It's there for a reason. Removing it would not be admitting that the Bible is not true. OT is not God's law. You are really out of it when it comes to interpreting it correctly. I'm not pulling anything out of my ass. Stop talking like that because it's retarded. God is doing something, whether you realize that or not. Let's just stop since our conversation is pointless.
@MagnusNyborg I made it clear that your interpretation is incorrect. The Bible is correct, and you're crazy apparently. Christians wouldn't curse me out because I'm being a true Christian. A child of Satan? You're really out of it. Again, let's stop since our conversation is going nowhere.
@nar3sas if the bible is correct, then it also supports killing rebellious children - it is right there in the bible. And i have read these parts and more.
Do you even connect the dots from what is actually written in the bible, and what you say here?
@MagnusNyborg The Bible is correct but does not support the killing of rebellious children. It's there in the Bible, but it wasn't God who made that law. I've connected the dots and what I've said here. I believe your interpretation is incorrect, and you believe mine is. Let's leave it at that and stop. Bye.
@MagnusNyborg It's obvious that you're not going to think differently no matter what I say, so our conversation is going to end here. I've made that clear, so let's realize that and stop. Bye.
@nar3sas you have a mental block, and are unable to see the illogic in what you say.
If the bible is true and correct, then all that is rwitten is true and correct, and since it is gods laws written down, your god supports killing rebellious children, because that is what it says.. Simple logic from what is written. Very simple logic, but you have this mental block preventing you from realising this error in logic.
@MagnusNyborg I do not have any illogic in what I say or any mental block. You do. The Bible is true and correct, but not in the way you say it is. God does not support killing rebellious children. It's not like that just because it says that the PEOPLE of OT times killed rebeliious children. Simple logic. You're the one with the mental block preventing you from seeing the truth. I respect your belief. Even though I believe I'm so right it's obvious, I don't want to continue. Let's be mature.
@nar3sas "I do not have any illogic in what I say or any mental block"
You definitely do, take a deap breath, think this through, and perhaps you will realise what the error is. If not, well you wont be the first one to misunderstand this. Christians do this all the time...
@MagnusNyborg I don't at all. You do, so you're the one who needs to take a deep breath and think this through. You're making up errors. You believe all Christians do it, but that's not necessarily the case. Also, if you were thinking things through, you would have realized before that us continuing this conversation is pointless. Bye.
@nar3sas oh yes you do. This part of religion always amuses me, so often when they claim illogical statements, they just shrug it off and keep claiming they are still right.
Not all christians/religious people do it, but you do, and it is more common than i understand you would like to accept. And rehashing my own words wont work, it is you logic that broke.
@MagnusNyborg Oh no I don't You do. I'm sure it does amuse you with your simple brain. My statements are not illogical, and I've made it clear why that's the case. Not all Christians/relgious people interpret the Bible correctly, but I do. Is that what you were saying? You're right then. Your logic is broken. It's funny how you can't see that. Well, that's quite unfortunate, but you'll see the truth eventually. :)
@nar3sas sorry, the word is hubris (not english speaking)
And you claiming YOU INTERPRET THE BIBLE CORRECTLY WHERE OTHERS DONT, that IS hubris. No wonder you cannot see the logical error in your claims. You are so full of it, or in other terms A Buffon. You cannot be taken seriously. Does that clarify my position?
@MagnusNyborg I'm not squirming at all. You are. My logic exceeds yours. The Bible does not support killing rebellious children, and not everything said in the Bible is to be taken as a command from God. Say whatever you want, but that's the truth. Just give up.
Another example of hubris, and of squirming. And another example of the mental block you have, you are in no respect infallible, and right now you are just huffing and puffing in order blow a smokescreen. And if your god is watching, he is shaking his head.
@MagnusNyborg I made my points, and you're still continuing like an idiotic child, so it's obvious that my logic exceeds yours. It's not hubris or squirming. I never said I was perfect, but I'm better than you. Plus, you're the one with the mental block, not me. I'm not "huffing and puffing in order to blow a smokescreen". You're such an immature child. Go get a life. If God is watching, He's proud of me and shaking His head because of you. It's amazing how pathetic you are. Again, get a life.
@MagnusNyborg You can say I made claims all you want, but they are actually forms of support. Also, you're right about the error in logic still remaining, but it's not with me. I know you're from Sweden, so it should be no surprise that you're this way. Most of you guys are brought up as atheists, so maybe that's why you guys are likely to be devoid of respect for other people's ideas about religion and to be immature the way you are.
@MagnusNyborg The error is still with you, not me. The Bible can still be true with the passage in Leviticus being kept, but that passage is not a promotion of killing rebellious children. Until you realize this, you are simply wrong. You're not going to have things your way. Stop being so persistent like an immature child. It's not going to happen.
@MagnusNyborg There's no ad hominem, repeated hubris, or logical errors on my part. You're the one with all 3 of those. Yes, apparently it is the sign of a "buffon", or a lunar crater on the far side of the moon. :) I did not admit there was a logical error. You may have, but not me. It's amazing how immature and delusional you are. :)
@nar3sas it always amazes me that those who cant reason, resort to ad hominem, hubris and/or logical fallacies at some point in any discussion. It is like they are defending something they know they cant defend, and have to make up for it in other areas. And for some reason, this is almost always in the defence of a religious belief they have accepted on fatih alone. Are you one of those?
@MagnusNyborg I know what you mean. You've resorted to all of them, and you're an atheist. I've been able to defend myself completely, while you've failed badly in defending yourself and have had to make up for it by continuing a pointless conversation in an attempt to make yourself feel better. It's not almost always in the defense of a religious belief. I have not accepted Christianity based on faith alone, which is why I'm much more reasonable than an immature person like you.
@MagnusNyborg Actually, that's not the pattern of our conversation. I'm sure you would like it to be that way so you could feel better about yourself, but that's not the case. I have been making original arguments and am definitely smart enough to come up with more original points. I don't just parrot what you say. When you start being disrespectful, you're going to get that back, which is what you've been. The respectful and mature thing to do now would be to end the conversation.
@MagnusNyborg Actually, it isn't in either this conversation or in my other ones, but you're free to believe in whatever you want to. This conversation definitely has been interesting and illuminating. I don't think I'm really a zealot, but it doesn't matter what you call me. I know who I am, and I am what I am. Anyways, bye.
@MagnusNyborg I know it's hubris, but I do not have that. I DO interpret the Bible correctly, unlike an ignoramous like yourself. I can see logical errors when I make them, but I haven't made any with you. You're the one who can't see how illogical you've been. I'm not full of it. If I'm a buffon, that must mean I'm a lunar crater on the moon. :) You might want to start thinking. You cannot be taken seriously. Your position has been clarified as that of a closed-minded ignoramous. :) Bye.
@MagnusNyborg What's "hybris", and what's a "buffon"? It seems like you need to learn how to spell, you immature child. :) Go play with your toys. You're failing badly. :)
@nar3sas Doesn't he know everything ahead of time? How can he derive joy from being worshipped when he knows from the beginning who is going to worship him and who isn't? That's just weird.
@zentrout1 I'm not so sure that He knows everything ahead of time. I don't think He requires worshipping in the sense that most people believe, which includes praying and going to church. I believe worshipping Him is done whenever good actions are done, regardless of one's religion. I know what you mean by Him knowing what thoughts we're going to have before we have them and what actions we're going to do before we do them being weird, but that can't really be proven anyways.
@nar3sas Oh, now we're into what can be "proven?" I think that about wraps it up because it would be mighty difficult to "prove" what this god "requires" for example. It certainly sounds like we're no longer talking about the Christian god.
@zentrout1 You're right. You should only go with what has been proven since that's all you can be certain of, and it would be difficult to prove what He wants exactly. I've realized that relying on the Bible (a mere book) to know what our creator wants from us is unreliable since many other books have been written. So we're definitely not talking about the Christian god anymore. All I believe is that our fate depends on how good we are, and that is a safe assumption.
sorry, you are mistake. ;Christians certainly have a concept of what constitutes truth, morality & the social good-just as you. These beliefs are expressed in all manner of good actions including feeding the hungry, aiding the poor, caring for widows and orphans, missions, opposing evil wars, social oppressions, and building hospitals and schools among many other endeavors. There is real good & evil & maybe it's your conscience bothered by certain behaviors. God rules our eternal destinies
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
reality=there is nothing wrong with us when we are born. we're born good. the bible has trained us how to be evil by discouraging the goodness "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of god". that means your dead level best will not satisfy god. such a god is not good. the idea of forgiveness encourages evil thus if you do wrong, there is no greater consequence than if you do good, just say forgive me and keep doing wrong.
True Christians follow the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth SERIOUSLY. YES! they will screw up. they're Only Human while alive. but nonetheless, u can look @ someone's Life and tell if they r in fact a True Christian.
there is a huge difference between admitting no one is perfect and saying there is no one righteous. if anything has encouraged wrong to be done, it's the fundamental christian faith. if a person feels like their deadlevel best is not good enough, he will not be motivated to do right at all. it is a disincentive to be moral. it is not atheists who have no morals.
@chiefdancingostriche u have an improper view of the True Christ-follower. Knowing that he can NEVER reach Perfection on his on, he humbles himself, cries out to God for forgiveness of his sins, believes that Jesus the Christ cleansed him of his violations of the Law of God Almighty when He died on the cross and rose from the grave (defeating Death and Hell), and following the example that Jesus set for him. Jesus was the Ultimate Servant.
Just a thought as I was taking a leak. Would an emotionless thing called evolution take care to make it feel good when you have a number 2, Or care to make a sneeze feel good, or make a yawn feel good, or make filling our lungs with fresh air feel good, or why would it care to let humans love one another if all that mattered was procreation. Why would this emotionless creator care to make it feel good to laugh or to laugh at all. Why bother filling us with joy or jealousy? Anyone?
@TheRoss10001 what happens whenever we feel good is, god condemns us for sinning by feeling good. god never wants us to feel good about anything. he wants us miserable, like him.
@chiefdancingostriche Yes, God abhors all pleasures, and is a tyrant who wants us all to suffer and be miserable. Just like your parents when they tell you not to drink and drive, drive recklessly, go out too late, eat pills, do drugs, accept rides from strangers, etc. All those things can be so much fun and feel good, but nooooo, those with authority just want us to be miserable. Seriously? Such a non-argument.
@Sickopath333 god is the parent that says whatever we do isnt' good enough for him. "none righteous" pretty well says it all. i can do my best and god would say "not good enough", fuck him. i will do my best to be good, if that's not good enough for god, he can suck.
@chiefdancingostriche Yes, God will say that your best is not good enough. No one's is. The Jews, who He personally watched over and guided were not particularly righteous or holy despite His interventions. Why is this such a problem? What God, like any parent wants, is for people to admit and be open to the fact that they are not perfect, have made mistakes, have been selfish and hurtful, so they should confess it and seek forgiveness, to be in relationship and accept guidance and wisdom.
@Sickopath333 it is a problem because god is a malcontent who is never satisfied. the none righteous thing, it actually DISCOURAGES morality. yes we make mistakes, how is that such a problem? but to equate slipping on a banana peel with murder is ridiculous. so i say fuck your damn malcontented god. he is evil, not good. he was invented by a murderor who was using his mentality to get away with it.
@chiefdancingostriche Wait, wait, wait. Equate slipping on a banana peel with murder? Where in the world did that come from? You are really rambling here. Admitting that you are imperfect does not discourage morality in the slightest, but can actually be a great motivator because it acknowledges a humility and a reason for that person to take seriously their flaws and improve themselves. Denying any wrong-doing will only continue the status quo at best, and at worst could justify any evil.
@Sickopath333 "Equate slipping on a banana peel with murder? Where in the world did that come from? You are really rambling here. "
When I read that, the first thing I thought of was when, according to the bible, god strikes dead some guy who was trying to save the ark of the covenant from falling to the ground.
If that is the being we're supposed to be getting our morals from, who punishes indiscriminately, no thanks.
@chrismca I don't think an adult would copy and paste from someone's post the part that they wanted to attack while ignoring the main point. God wants us to be humble and admit our wrongs. A lot of people absolutely refuse to admit this, deny that God could possibly know what He's talking about, and go about the rest of their lives however they want. What you are comparing is God's role as Judge to His role as our Father, and saying He can't be both so He's neither. Nice try though.
@Sicko: So you've chosen "indifferent to reason" Fine. Adult humans are by definition rational. But you claim an invisible spirit tells us how to live through a book that is filled with racism, genocide, contradiction, and superstition. And on top of that, you claim to know god's desires. Those claims are not rational (nor remotely humble).
As for the "father" label: It's a metaphor intended to deceive about the nature of this mythical monster so well described by the fiction of the pentateuch.
@chrismca So you've chosen arrogant, condescending jerk who only makes sweeping generalizations to undermine the other person's stance without laying forth any real arguments. Fine. You claim that from nothing everything came into existence when something came out of nowhere at a time when time didn't exist until that something came and expanded very rapidly. And you claim that this was not chaos, but instead lead into stability and order. These claims are not rational. See what I did there?
@Sicko Sure I see what you did -showed the difference (and this same point is made often) between atheists and theists. When atheists have no evidence (eg, the origin of the universe) they say they don't know. When theists have no evidence (eg, the personality traits some particular god wants us to have) they conjure dogma.
@chrismca No, when atheists have no evidence, they still maintain that their stance is superior because they are logical/skeptical, that they don't need to supply evidence anyways since their side is neutral and lacks a burden of proof (that's another issue entirely though), and so forth. They say they don't know, but still will say it couldn't possibly be God (even though they have no evidence for why that's the case; part of that issue I mentioned).
@MagnusNyborg I don't believe atheism, show me the evidence for atheism, that there is no God, that you are rational for holding this belief, that it is not more appropriate to be agnostic instead, or I will continue to not believe that atheism is the rational, skeptical, reasonable position when its beliefs rely upon faith without evidence and it ridicules theism for doing the exact same thing. At least theists have positive logical arguments for God, what does atheism have?
@Sickopath333 do you also believe in loch ness omnsterism and bigfootism? Unless there is evidence, there is no need to believe anything. I see no evidence for any gods, and until i do i wont believe it. I dont need to prove that i am right, because by default all positive positions need to be defended, not the negative positions. Like in a court of law, defendand is innocent until proven guilty, gods are not believed oy exist until there is evidence for them.
@MagnusNyborg Yes, a positive position must be defended, but the default, neutral response to that is either apathy or ignorance (don't care, don't know). A rejection of that position can not be neutral by definition. Once you reject that positive position, you must be ready to defend your stance. You reject theism, what can you offer for your side? I reject that death exists, but I don't need to prove my side. Your analogies are flawed, but I don't have enough space to elaborate.
@MagnusNyborg So are you an atheist or an agnostic? If you're an atheist, what evidence do you have that allows you to accept that reality that there is no god? And by the way, that's an epistemological issue, an interesting discussion in philosophy; how certain are you that the evidence you see is even real or that your mind is rational and reasonable, able to process things coherently? Not insinuating anything, but your used analogies don't demonstrate deeper understanding in philosophy.
@Sickopath333 you are using the wrong definition for atheism. I dont believe in a god, just as i dont believe in loch ness monster or bigfoot. They all lack reasonable evidence for existing.
All real things provide some form of evidence for its existance.
@MagnusNyborg No, I'm using the classical definition, you're using a poor modern definition. That is not a good analogy. Are you saying you merely withdraw belief on the Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot, invisible unicorns, FSM, etc.? You don't assert that they don't exist, you just don't believe that they do? And you assume this is the neutral stance? They don't just lack evidence, we have evidence that speaks to the contrary that they don't exist. Are there any Muslim Congress members?
@Sickopath333 using a definition of atheism proponed by religious people is a bad idea, if you listened to the Atheist Experience you would know wich definition they use - the one i use.
I dont believe in Bigfoot or Loch Ness monster simply because of lack of evidence, and the situation with regards to gods are the same (no accepted evidence). This is the neutral stance, same as the stance used by courts of law. Positive claims require evidence, neutral claims are the default. (cont)
@MagnusNyborg Again, I use a definition proposed by those who know their history and philosophy, not by sneaky atheists who wish to win arguments or at least come out in a draw by definition. Their only burden is to attack theistic arguments, they don't have to supply any of their own, so even if the theist defends everything perfectly the atheist forces a draw.
Your analogy is horribly flawed. You can't compare scholarship with the legal system because they're distinct systems.
@Sickopath333 (cont) belief needs to be justified. If you believe something you dont have evidence for, you are being irrational. If you have personal justification, fine, i cant argue with that, but do realise I still dont have a reason for believing you. If there where evidence against bigfoot etc, why do people still believe they exist? Negative claims can not be rejected by evidence, unless the evidence points to a complete logical contradiction. (cont)
@MagnusNyborg (cont) The evidence you speak off have been rejected again and again, and every other religion rejects your religion. I just believe in one god less than you, ergo none. Until you can provide evidence to the contrary, this is my stance. It is neutral, it doesnt assume anything.
@MagnusNyborg Yes, and the evidence for evolution has been rejected again and again, does that matter to you though?
And every religion rejects your religion.
I just believe in one more God than you, ergo one.
"It is neutral, it doesn't ASSUME anything." Oh that made me laugh. It assumes that there is no God. You say there is absolutely no evidence for God, but you have just as much non-evidence for there being no God, yet you assume that is the case! Or do you know there is no God?
@Sickopath333 it assumes that unless there is no evidence for a god, then it is rational to not believe it. Im getting sick of explaining this issue of rejection to you repeatedly, and i can only assume it is because you are an inteleectual moron who cannot comprehend.
the evidence for evolution is not rejected by those who study it most, i.e. scientists. I know you and your sickophant buddies reject it, but you do that willfully, not by reason.
@MagnusNyborg Oh I comprehend the idea of rejection perfectly, that's why I'm arguing against it. It's fallacious. The word you use is unintentionally a perfect example for my side. You reject the idea of God, yet you offer nothing to support that this rejection is valid. The only thing you have offered is bad, modern definitions, terrible analogies, and now an ad hominen.
So those who reject evolution do it by will rather than reason, however those who reject God do so by reason not will.
@Sickopath333 do you believe in the existance of bigfoot or loch ness monster? If not, why not? That is the basis of the rejection, or rather, not believing the existance of a god to be true unless evidence supports it.
Try comprehend this, I know you are struggling, but please try.
@MagnusNyborg Do you merely withdraw your belief in the existence of bigfoot or loch ness monster, or do you maintain that they do not in fact exist? If so, why? If not, why not? Here's a more apt analogy for you. 5 billion light years away there is a galaxy that has all the people and events of the Star Wars movies, but all of the names are replaced with Star Trek names. There is no evidence for this random claim. Do you merely withdraw your belief or assert that this doesn't exist? Why?
@Sickopath333 there is no proof that they dont exist, but it is impossible to be 100% sure. There are soo many porblems with their existance that from a colloqial perspective i would claim they dont exist. But they are not life-changing existances, soo with that respect it is not a big deal if i am wrong.
I dont believe in a god, because there is no evidence of one. I cannot say for 100% sure, but as long as there are no good rational evidence, im not going to believe. (cont)
@MagnusNyborg Which is my entire point. You can't go to that spot I pointed to, you can't even see that far; are you then irrational for asserting it's probably not real? When presented with any claim, you have 4 main responses: agreement, rejection, ignorance (IDK), or you withdraw any firm judgment until you learn more (maybe some bias, but no choice is made yet). This is on a continuum of course, some middle ground, but rejection is not neutral, and should have some rationalization.
@Sickopath333 i dont believe what there is no evidence for, get this fact through your head. Reading religious doctrines shows more evidence of mental psychopaths inflicting their misconceptions on groups of people, than the existing of a god. Therefor, with the lack of evidence for a god existing, it is more rational to believe one does not exist.
The remaining question then is, how does all of this work, and how can we separate truth from fantasy. And religion (faith) is not the way.
@Sickopath333 (cont) however, there still is a posibility to be wrong, because of lack of evidenc either way. The only truly unsupported path is the one of claiming a god exists, and that he has specific proerties that really dont match reality.
@MagnusNyborg Even if you do make the analogy it doesn't work the way you wish it would.
Atheism can only be a viable stance if it is the neutral one, when it isn't. A negative position can never be neutral, rejecting someone's claim can not be neutral. A neutral position is apathy or ignorance. Without this special pleading to be the neutral position, atheism is crippled by its own standards. It is a belief. Beliefs need evidence. Atheism has none. That's why I reject that definition.
@Sickopath333 Hmm. If the issue were one for which we have no evidence (origin of the universe, is there a heaven, etc) and an atheist said "god had no role," then he'd have to be wrong, because he cannot provide support. Further, he'll be told so by his fellow atheists. And that's a big difference between atheists and theists: If a theist, when discussing the same topic, said "god had a role," then this similarly unsupported claim is likely to be supported by his peers. Am I wrong?
Haha! MOOhammad is cute. :)
SalemMoonlight 1 day ago
Hell is not real. I believe in a deity
TheFreedomwriter1234 5 days ago
I'm a MOOslim and MOOhammad is the last prophet and I read the COWran.
GotZest 1 week ago
@GotZest MEOW what is so funny? moo
repomayne 1 week ago
''Evil tyrant'' Define evil? The fact is God is judging people by a standard of right and wrong if you're righteous in his eyes you go to heaven, and you're guilty you are punished in hell. Sin will be punished and that the universe will balance itself out in the end.
MrEmeraldfusion 3 weeks ago
@MrEmeraldfusion God's method is evil. The fact is God is fine with torturing people in hell for all of eternity, more sadistic than stalin, hitler etc. Not to mention on top of that, God's allegedy all knowing all powerful, he knows peoples fate long before they are born, he knows their weaknesses and limitations, that life is too tough and will cause them to sin. Yet he is content to sit back and wait for it to happen, then deal out the punishment. How is that not evil?
lynus111 3 weeks ago
@lynus111 -No, God is judging people for there chooses and actions. Jesus died on the cross so that we could have life eternal not experience his judgement upon sin. Jesus lived a perfect life he was a human so can everyone else. God knows people have weaknesses and he knows they can overcome their weaknesses; and Jesus overcame sin. Why are you making excuses? No one can force you to commit sin satan couldn't even make Jesus sin it our choose. Take responsibly, stop blaming God.
MrEmeraldfusion 3 weeks ago
@MrEmeraldfusion I don't believe in god, Theres no proof. But even if he did exist..He is allegedy all knowing all seeing, he knew your fate before you were born, he could stop if he wanted he could change things if he wanted, he chose not to, why does he choose to create a species simply to test them when he knows damn well a large % of them will fail, all part of his sick evil game. Some say God moves in mysterious ways, I say he's justan ass that people like you try to excuse
lynus111 3 weeks ago
@MrEmeraldfusion well said
zachariahm10 2 weeks ago
@MrEmeraldfusion - I disagree with the idea that Jesus lived a perfect life. I think he was just a man, and I agree with many, but not all of his thoughts/teachings. Jesus just lived life, the same as we all do.
paulcorda 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrEmeraldfusion How exactly does this work? "Jesus died on the cross so that we could have life eternal not experience his judgement upon sin."
zentrout1 2 weeks ago
@MrEmeraldfusion
"Define evil?"
Causing harm to others is a good aspect to start with. This God of yours is certainly evil. Have you read the bible?
revjimbob 2 weeks ago
@revjimbob -So if you shoot and kill a man trying to murder you and your family you're evil? If you eat chocolate if the people around you see it as harmful to yourself and harmful to their eating habits are you evil? Yes, I have.
MrEmeraldfusion 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrEmeraldfusion
"So if you shoot and kill a man trying to murder you and your family you're evil?"
Fucking hell, mate - I never claimed to be offering a complete definition - if you want that you can go to an online dictionary as good as I.
Lazy bastard.
"If you eat chocolate if the people around you see it as harmful to yourself and harmful to their eating habits are you evil? "
No, you are a fat bastard.
No defence to the claim that God is evil, I see.
revjimbob 2 weeks ago
@MrEmeraldfusion Why not create a universe which is balanced right out of the gate?
zentrout1 2 weeks ago
@zentrout1 -God did.
MrEmeraldfusion 2 weeks ago
@MrEmeraldfusion "Sin will be punished and that the universe will balance itself out in the end."
zentrout1 2 weeks ago
@zentrout1 -Yes, everything will balance out.
MrEmeraldfusion 2 weeks ago
@MrEmeraldfusion Right. So he created an unbalanced world which requires balancing.
zentrout1 2 weeks ago
@zentrout1 -No.He created a balanced world which became unbalanced.
MrEmeraldfusion 2 weeks ago
@MrEmeraldfusion He knows all things correct? He created a world he knew would become unbalanced.
zentrout1 2 weeks ago
@zentrout1 right. And the unbalance was a result of freewill.
MrEmeraldfusion 2 weeks ago
@MrEmeraldfusion If balance is good and unbalance is bad and unbalance is because of freewill then freewill is bad. Why did he create freewill if it inevitably led to unbalance?
zentrout1 2 weeks ago
@zentrout1 - Freewill will be chosen to do God will over man's.
MrEmeraldfusion 2 weeks ago
@MrEmeraldfusion Who is doing the choosing?
zentrout1 2 weeks ago
@zentrout1 -We are through the grace of God.
MrEmeraldfusion 2 weeks ago
@MrEmeraldfusion And its human nature to choose wrong via free will?
zentrout1 1 week ago
@MrEmeraldfusion If we already know what will be chosen it hardly sounds like free will. Its already determined.
zentrout1 1 week ago
@zentrout1 IF we? you mean he? It's still freewill because we have to make the choose it's our choice...who is to say we don't determine our future...Thief choose to steal and the pastor choose to serve God.
MrEmeraldfusion 1 week ago
@MrEmeraldfusion You are to say, you did above.
zentrout1 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
" will be chosen to do God will over man's"
So we already know. Its predetermined.
zentrout1 1 week ago
@zentrout1 Are you choosing to be on the internet?
MrEmeraldfusion 1 week ago
@MrEmeraldfusion I don't know. Was I predetermined to be on the internet? If yes, then no, I'm not choosing.
zentrout1 1 week ago
@zentrout1 - You walk down the street and slap someone did you choose to do it or did God force you to do it?
MrEmeraldfusion 1 week ago
@MrEmeraldfusion I don't know. Was I predetermined to slap that person? I'm trying to get to the root of what you mean by "Freewill will be chosen to do God will over man's." Do you mean probably? You hope so? Or absolutely?
zentrout1 1 week ago
God hates democracy, liberty and freedom. Maybe that's why conservatives love him so much!
MrSelidor7 1 month ago
I believe in spirit world I don't believe God sends you to hell I believe you send yourself there (more like you are placed in a place your comfortable with)
I personally don't want to go to Heaven more like in the middle (nice people, but not to strict get what I mean)
UkexP 1 month ago
you send yourself to hell aka eternal darkness if you continue to be complacent and arrogant about this subject matter.
ajhrockerboy6 1 month ago
Comment removed
Wiley4832 1 month ago
Aaah, well a hypothetical all powerful being would have the ABILITY to condemn anything it desired to an eternity of horrible torture.
BUT, the idea that it has the RIGHT, implies that it is moral to do so. Which is absolutely NOT the case. I'd say torture is immoral to begin with, but even that aside infinite punishment for finite transgressions is by it's nature disproportionate in the extreme, and thus injust
Therefor a hypothetical God COULD send people to hell, it'd just mean it's EVIL.
TheSkunkCat 1 month ago
@TheSkunkCat
Fact is, you can't have your cake and eat it in this matter as a believer. Either your God is good or at least JUST in a neutral sort of way, and Hell does not exist, or at least is not eternal but instead proportionate. Because anything else would not be allowed to exist by an all powerful being.
Or alternatively their god is evil. And eviller by far then the worst humans. Even someone like Hitler is positively moral compared to an eternal hell god! It's THAT bad!
TheSkunkCat 1 month ago
@TheSkunkCat
Now of course when you pressure the believers about this that WON'T stick to their guns no matter how absured it gets, or that will shut down the conversation, you can watch their claim about hell evaporate. Because ah, it turns out no REALLY goes to hell, or it's just 'seperation' from god or whatever crap they pull out of their ass when they don't know anymore.
But fact remains; Eternal Hell = Evil God, end of story, no way around that.
TheSkunkCat 1 month ago
@TheSkunkCat Exactly right! I have the ABILITY to walk down the street beating people to death with a hammer. I do not have the RIGHT. It's a derivative of the "Might makes right" philosophy which is almost universally agreed to be pretty damned evil.
goratrix1799 1 month ago
I don't think its easier to be bad, I think its much easier to be good. I'm an atheist, and I don't have any trouble staying out of trouble. Why is it so hard to believe that atheists don't want to do any harm? We really don't, you know. We actually care about our fellow human beings, we simply choose not to have our lives controlled by a fictional dictator.
8698gil 3 months ago
@8698gil Spot on and well said.
trythinkingnow 3 months ago
@trythinkingnow Thank you.
8698gil 2 months ago
@8698gil No one said that it is hard for atheists to stay out of trouble. No one said you all want to do harm. Also, God is NOT a fictional dictator. He is a loving creator who wants the best for us? Is that so hard to believe? He doesn't cause bad things to happen. It's either something natural or something due to the free will of us humans. The people back in the times of the OT were corrupt. What they did does NOT agree with what God wants. You obviously interpreted the Bible incorrectly.
nar3sas 2 months ago
@nar3sas Actually the majority of religious folk make the argument that without god and the bible people have no moral compass and would engage in 'whatever feels good'. It is a very common argument that atheists lack a moral standard, which is nonsense of course. Claiming god is a loving creator who has nothing to do with natural disasters and other 'bad things' is very convenient, but it does not jive with his being a judgmental god who is all powerful.
trythinkingnow 2 months ago
@trythinkingnow You cannot say the majority of religious people make that argument. There are many like myself who believe that you don't need to believe in God or follow the Bible to be moral. I know it's nonsense to say that all atheists lack a moral standard. It may be convenient to say that God is a loving creator who has nothing to do with natural disasters and other "bad things", but that is also true. Why blame Him for those things? In the end, we must all be judged for our actions.
nar3sas 2 months ago
@nar3sas Either he looks the other way as bad shit happens when he could intervene which makes him a cruel jerk, or he can do nothing about it which means he is not god. Either he is an all loving creator and the whole concept of sin, hell and salvation is bullshit, or he is a cruel dictator who has laid out rules for his creations to abide by on pain of eternal torture. You can't have it both ways. I would not accuse someone of improper bible interpretation after your experience with "hell".
trythinkingnow 2 months ago
@trythinkingnow It is simply part of the natural order that bad things must happen. Also, He does intervene, but He does it through good people, and sometimes at such a level that miracles happen. He is not cruel, and He can still do anything. He is an all-loving creator, but sin, Hell, and salvation must exist due to free will. Also, I don't believe people go to Hell forever. It can be the way I say it is. NDE's supprt that greatly. If you do not want to accept all of that, that is your choice.
nar3sas 2 months ago
@nar3sas i dont deny god, i just dont believe YOU. I dont believe in a god either, because there is no evidence for one, nor does it seem to be a need for one, and if there is one there should be evidence. Until evidence IS presented, i will no believe this.
Anyone can be moral, most moral codes takes very little understanding and empathy to understand.
MagnusNyborg 2 months ago
@MagnusNyborg I don't get what you mean about not denying God but not believing in me. Actually, there is evidence for God. People have had Jesus come to them in both dreams and in a waking state in addition to NDE's. Watch this /watch?v=NvvClFSMIzA and the 2nd part. This is one such testimony. You will probably not believe what he says, but he made it clear that he doesn't expect people to believe him. I know people can be moral, but it's not as simple as you say it is.
nar3sas 2 months ago
@nar3sas i dont believe what you say is true.
"People have had Jesus come to them " not evidence, maybe it is a mental illness. Mental patients also testify to this and that. If all you have is claims, then all you have is claims - dont call that evidence please.
MagnusNyborg 2 months ago
@MagnusNyborg I had a feeling you wouldn't believe me, even though I really am telling the truth. It's not a mental illness at all. Mental patients testify to random things, not just seeing Jesus, if they do at all. It is evidence, though it is not evidence for everyone to see. The guy in the video makes it clear that his experience is only good for him since he experienced it, but he tells people to ask Jesus to show Himself to them. Also, this guy is a former Muslim who killed infidels.
nar3sas 2 months ago
@nar3sas if you have evidence, show the evidence, and stop making a bunch of unsupported claims.
Mental patients beahve in exactly the same way religious people do, and often adhere to religion. What distinction is there between mental illness and religiocity in this aspect?
There are christians who kill people aswell, and christian priests who bum little boys in jesus name.
MagnusNyborg 2 months ago
@MagnusNyborg I'm not making unsupported claims. If you take what I'm saying as such, that is a huge loss for you. I'm giving you evidence. Mental patients do not behave in exactly the same way religious people do. Religion doesn't make people insane. I'm not going to talk to you anymore about comparing being religious to being mental because that's rubbish. I know Christians have killed people. Christian priests who "bum" little boys aren't real Christians. That should be obvious.
nar3sas 2 months ago
@nar3sas "I'm not making unsupported "
Yes you are, unless you can present evidence for a god, then you are making unsupported claims. Where are your evidence?
No christian accepts christian priests bumming little boys, but why is it so common that they do? And how come most christians dont accept most other christians as true christians? Are you a true christian?
MagnusNyborg 2 months ago
@MagnusNyborg No, I'm not, but it's because of your closed-mindedness that you're saying that I am. The people who have met Jesus is complete support for God, whether you want to take it or not. That is your choice, and this is to be left at that. I don't think it's common that priests do that. There may be some touching in most cases, but not what you're saying. A true Christian is one who actually follows Christ's example by being a good person, so even people who don't believe are Christians.
nar3sas 2 months ago
@nar3sas im not close minded, you are, i am asking for evidence for you claims, and you are just dodging.
If you have evidence, show the evidence, else all you have are claims and i cannot take you seriously.
Many delusional people would never be proof of anything, so what reason and evidence do you have for your claims?
MagnusNyborg 2 months ago
@MagnusNyborg Yes, you are close-minded. I gave you evidence. I'm not dodging ignoramous. I gave you what you need. It's for you to accept or not. The negativity of atheists has affected you greatly since you can't see the passiveness in what I'm saying. Do not take me seriously if you do not wish. You're insignificant in comparison to God. Delusional people? These are Christians, former Hindus, former atheists, and former Muslims. It would seem some atheists are delusional then.
nar3sas 2 months ago
@nar3sas God created corrupt people? Why did he do that?
zentrout1 2 weeks ago
@zentrout1 My views have changed since my last comment on this video. I guess I would be a deist now. Honestly, I'm not sure why He created corrupt people. I believe that our souls are all pure but that we are made corrupt by our bodies. It would be great if humans and animals had always lived in a completely peaceful world with no problems, but then there would be no such thing as happiness since there would be no such thing as sadness. It makes you wonder what kind of being God is.
nar3sas 2 weeks ago
The beginning of this video was a complete misunderstanding of what God is. He CAN do anything He wants with us, but he does NOT do that. He is NOT an evil tyrrant as the ignoramous in the beginning of the video said. He judges us fairly, so we choose whether to accept Him or not. WE choose to go to Hell or not. That is based on our actions, which is our spirituality, not our beliefs or the traditions we follow.
nar3sas 3 months ago
If a being is omnipotent then it is, in need of nothing, desiring of nothing, wanting for nothing.
God needs us to worship him apparently, or he has put a lot of effort into trying to force us to do so. God desires that we obey him and behave in a certain way in order to please him. God wants us to do all of the above. God is not omnipotent. God is not god.
trythinkingnow 3 months ago
@trythinkingnow Desiring and wanting are not related to omnipotence. Its definition is simply having the ability to do anything. God does NOT need us to worship Him, and He has DEFINITELY not put in a lot of effort into trying to force us to do anything. God gave us the choice to do whatever we want, so he draws joy from us worshipping Him. Yes, we should obey Him by behaving in a certain way. You worship Him by doing good actions and not doing bad ones. That's how you go to Heaven.
nar3sas 3 months ago
@nar3sas Baloney. Either you claim god is the alpha and the omega and is wanting for nothing, or you must claim that god is an imperfect, incomplete being with wants and needs. God gives us the 'choice' to do as he demands, or face an eternity in hell. To suggest that this is some sort of free will or freedom to choose that has any meaning is absurd. Choose HIS WAY...or be tortured for eternity...for no reason at all since it cannot make any difference to him as a perfect being.
trythinkingnow 3 months ago
@trythinkingnow God draws joy from us doing His will not to fill any imperfection He has, but from us choosing to be with Him out of joy for us. I don't think that makes Him imperfect for wanting us to be with Him. God DOES give us the choice to choose Hell or Heaven. To me, it's simply a matter of doing good deeds and not doing bad ones when it comes to going to Heaven. WE choose to go to Heaven or Hell becuase WE choose to be good or bad. Is it wrong for Him to want the best for each of us?
nar3sas 3 months ago
@nar3sas If only it were that simple. I choose to be good. I do good deeds to the best of my ability and intentionally avoid doing bad deeds. If god gets worshiped in the process does not matter to me one way or the other. Am I going to heaven? Christianity says no way in hell...so does islam.
trythinkingnow 3 months ago
@trythinkingnow I believe it is that simple but not easy. It is much easier to give in to being bad rather than being good. The Bible talks about that. It talks about the path to Heaven being narrow but the path to Hell being wide. That's realistically very true. We need to learn to not care about what the crowd goes with and stick to what's right. That's what Christianity is about. If God does exist, you worship Him through good deeds. You will go to Heaven if you do good and don't do bad.
nar3sas 3 months ago
@nar3sas The bible does NOT say ANYTHING about 'the path to hell' being wide. In fact it does not mention the path to hell. In fact not until the king james version incorrectly translates 'hades' as 'hell' instead of its correct meaning which is 'the unknown' is hell ever mention in the bible.
In short: Hell is NEVER mentioned in the bible. Also, regarding what is right, WHO determines that? The bible again I suppose. So killing rebellious children is cool, right?
trythinkingnow 3 months ago
@trythinkingnow I checked in the Bible and on the Internet, and you're right. It seems Hell was used only in the King James Version. I must have heard what I told you from a priest or someone else. Of course, what I told you is still true. It's easy to give in to the crowd and do evil and therefore harder to do something good which is in disagreement with the majority. The Bible does not determine what is right. It is part of that. Killing rebellious children? The Bible does NOT support that.
nar3sas 2 months ago
@nar3sas Alas, yes the bible does support the killing of rebellious children, Deuteronomy 21:18-21: If you have a "stubborn and rebellious son," then you and the other men in your neighborhood "shall stone him with stones that he die." Leviticus 20:9 "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death."
trythinkingnow 2 months ago
@trythinkingnow Actually, the Bible does not support the killing of rebellious children. It mentions the laws that the corrupt people at the time followed, not laws that God made, so the blame is not to be put on God. They realistically had those laws since it was an ancient time. Even now, there are corrupt laws, but is God telling the groups people who have these laws to follow them? Of course not.
nar3sas 2 months ago
@nar3sas "All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)"
So how does the bible not support killing rebellious children?
MagnusNyborg 2 months ago
@MagnusNyborg The Bible does not support that. It's clear that this was one of the many corrupt laws of the corrupt people during ancient times. That's what that verse was. It was not given to the people by God. It was obviously man-made. That's all I have to say, so just think about that.
nar3sas 2 months ago
@nar3sas why does not the bible support this? It is in the bible, and the bible is claimed to be the words of god, true and infallible. Or are you saying the bible is full of errors?
MagnusNyborg 2 months ago
@MagnusNyborg The Bible does not support it. It is there to show you the corruption of the people during OT times. It's complimented by the NT in order to show us that there was something wrong with that and that we're supposed to be compassionate like Jesus. I'm not saying the Bible is full of errors. It is the people who interpret it falsely who are full of errors.
nar3sas 2 months ago
@nar3sas if it is in the bible, then the bible supports it - if the bible does not support it, remove it. Simple as that. But if you remove it, then you admit the bible is not true.
OT is gods law, have you really cleared this idea of yours with your god, or are you pulling it out of your ass?
As far as i know, god is not doing anything, lest telling people what they should or should not do, except from what is written in the bible (written by men).
MagnusNyborg 2 months ago
@MagnusNyborg The Bible does not support something just because it is in the Bible. It's not as simple as removing it. It's there for a reason. Removing it would not be admitting that the Bible is not true. OT is not God's law. You are really out of it when it comes to interpreting it correctly. I'm not pulling anything out of my ass. Stop talking like that because it's retarded. God is doing something, whether you realize that or not. Let's just stop since our conversation is pointless.
nar3sas 2 months ago
@nar3sas "The Bible does not support something "
Soo the bible is not correct then? I wonder how many christians will now curse you out as not being a ture christian... A child of satan.
MagnusNyborg 2 months ago
@MagnusNyborg I made it clear that your interpretation is incorrect. The Bible is correct, and you're crazy apparently. Christians wouldn't curse me out because I'm being a true Christian. A child of Satan? You're really out of it. Again, let's stop since our conversation is going nowhere.
nar3sas 2 months ago
@nar3sas if the bible is correct, then it also supports killing rebellious children - it is right there in the bible. And i have read these parts and more.
Do you even connect the dots from what is actually written in the bible, and what you say here?
MagnusNyborg 2 months ago
@MagnusNyborg The Bible is correct but does not support the killing of rebellious children. It's there in the Bible, but it wasn't God who made that law. I've connected the dots and what I've said here. I believe your interpretation is incorrect, and you believe mine is. Let's leave it at that and stop. Bye.
nar3sas 2 months ago
@nar3sas "The Bible is correct but does not support the killing of rebellious children."
So the bible is not the word of god? What other parts of the bible is not the word of god?
MagnusNyborg 2 months ago
@MagnusNyborg It's obvious that you're not going to think differently no matter what I say, so our conversation is going to end here. I've made that clear, so let's realize that and stop. Bye.
nar3sas 2 months ago
@nar3sas you have a mental block, and are unable to see the illogic in what you say.
If the bible is true and correct, then all that is rwitten is true and correct, and since it is gods laws written down, your god supports killing rebellious children, because that is what it says.. Simple logic from what is written. Very simple logic, but you have this mental block preventing you from realising this error in logic.
MagnusNyborg 2 months ago
@MagnusNyborg I do not have any illogic in what I say or any mental block. You do. The Bible is true and correct, but not in the way you say it is. God does not support killing rebellious children. It's not like that just because it says that the PEOPLE of OT times killed rebeliious children. Simple logic. You're the one with the mental block preventing you from seeing the truth. I respect your belief. Even though I believe I'm so right it's obvious, I don't want to continue. Let's be mature.
nar3sas 2 months ago
@nar3sas "I do not have any illogic in what I say or any mental block"
You definitely do, take a deap breath, think this through, and perhaps you will realise what the error is. If not, well you wont be the first one to misunderstand this. Christians do this all the time...
MagnusNyborg 2 months ago
@MagnusNyborg I don't at all. You do, so you're the one who needs to take a deep breath and think this through. You're making up errors. You believe all Christians do it, but that's not necessarily the case. Also, if you were thinking things through, you would have realized before that us continuing this conversation is pointless. Bye.
nar3sas 2 months ago
@nar3sas oh yes you do. This part of religion always amuses me, so often when they claim illogical statements, they just shrug it off and keep claiming they are still right.
Not all christians/religious people do it, but you do, and it is more common than i understand you would like to accept. And rehashing my own words wont work, it is you logic that broke.
MagnusNyborg 2 months ago
@MagnusNyborg Oh no I don't You do. I'm sure it does amuse you with your simple brain. My statements are not illogical, and I've made it clear why that's the case. Not all Christians/relgious people interpret the Bible correctly, but I do. Is that what you were saying? You're right then. Your logic is broken. It's funny how you can't see that. Well, that's quite unfortunate, but you'll see the truth eventually. :)
nar3sas 2 months ago
@nar3sas "Not all Christians/relgious people interpret the Bible correctly, BUT I DO"
Ooh the hybris, you are a buffon.
MagnusNyborg 2 months ago
Comment removed
nar3sas 2 months ago
@nar3sas sorry, the word is hubris (not english speaking)
And you claiming YOU INTERPRET THE BIBLE CORRECTLY WHERE OTHERS DONT, that IS hubris. No wonder you cannot see the logical error in your claims. You are so full of it, or in other terms A Buffon. You cannot be taken seriously. Does that clarify my position?
MagnusNyborg 2 months ago
Comment removed
nar3sas 2 months ago
@nar3sas i have only one thing to say about that - ROFLMAO.
MagnusNyborg 2 months ago
@MagnusNyborg I know. What you said is really funny. :) But that is what a "buffon" is according to the definition.
nar3sas 2 months ago
@nar3sas you can squirm as much as you like, squirming does not change the logic of
"Bible is all true" + (Leviticus 20:9 NLT) = Bible supports killing rebellious children
Dont worry, your god will probably not notice anyway.
MagnusNyborg 2 months ago
@MagnusNyborg I'm not squirming at all. You are. My logic exceeds yours. The Bible does not support killing rebellious children, and not everything said in the Bible is to be taken as a command from God. Say whatever you want, but that's the truth. Just give up.
nar3sas 2 months ago
@nar3sas "My logic exceeds yours."
Another example of hubris, and of squirming. And another example of the mental block you have, you are in no respect infallible, and right now you are just huffing and puffing in order blow a smokescreen. And if your god is watching, he is shaking his head.
MagnusNyborg 2 months ago
@MagnusNyborg I made my points, and you're still continuing like an idiotic child, so it's obvious that my logic exceeds yours. It's not hubris or squirming. I never said I was perfect, but I'm better than you. Plus, you're the one with the mental block, not me. I'm not "huffing and puffing in order to blow a smokescreen". You're such an immature child. Go get a life. If God is watching, He's proud of me and shaking His head because of you. It's amazing how pathetic you are. Again, get a life.
nar3sas 2 months ago
@nar3sas "I made my points"
Well, true, or atleast you made claims. But the error in logic still remains.
MagnusNyborg 2 months ago
@MagnusNyborg You can say I made claims all you want, but they are actually forms of support. Also, you're right about the error in logic still remaining, but it's not with me. I know you're from Sweden, so it should be no surprise that you're this way. Most of you guys are brought up as atheists, so maybe that's why you guys are likely to be devoid of respect for other people's ideas about religion and to be immature the way you are.
nar3sas 2 months ago
@nar3sas "you're right about the error in logic still remaining, but it's not with me"
The error is with you if you still accept the book as true. Two choices:
1. Accept that the bible is not true
2. Remove the passage in Leviticus.
Until at least one of these things happen, you are simply wrong.
MagnusNyborg 2 months ago
@MagnusNyborg The error is still with you, not me. The Bible can still be true with the passage in Leviticus being kept, but that passage is not a promotion of killing rebellious children. Until you realize this, you are simply wrong. You're not going to have things your way. Stop being so persistent like an immature child. It's not going to happen.
nar3sas 2 months ago
@nar3sas always this ad hominem, repeated hubris, and logical errors. The sign of a buffon.
And you already admitted there was a logical error...
MagnusNyborg 2 months ago
@MagnusNyborg There's no ad hominem, repeated hubris, or logical errors on my part. You're the one with all 3 of those. Yes, apparently it is the sign of a "buffon", or a lunar crater on the far side of the moon. :) I did not admit there was a logical error. You may have, but not me. It's amazing how immature and delusional you are. :)
nar3sas 2 months ago
@nar3sas it always amazes me that those who cant reason, resort to ad hominem, hubris and/or logical fallacies at some point in any discussion. It is like they are defending something they know they cant defend, and have to make up for it in other areas. And for some reason, this is almost always in the defence of a religious belief they have accepted on fatih alone. Are you one of those?
MagnusNyborg 2 months ago
@MagnusNyborg I know what you mean. You've resorted to all of them, and you're an atheist. I've been able to defend myself completely, while you've failed badly in defending yourself and have had to make up for it by continuing a pointless conversation in an attempt to make yourself feel better. It's not almost always in the defense of a religious belief. I have not accepted Christianity based on faith alone, which is why I'm much more reasonable than an immature person like you.
nar3sas 2 months ago
@nar3sas read the conversation over, and there is an interesting pattern.
I say something
You say that back
I add something new
You add that back
I say somethin more
You add also that back
and it keeps repeating
Do you have any original arguments, or are you not smart enough to come up with original points and just parrot what i say?
MagnusNyborg 2 months ago
@MagnusNyborg Actually, that's not the pattern of our conversation. I'm sure you would like it to be that way so you could feel better about yourself, but that's not the case. I have been making original arguments and am definitely smart enough to come up with more original points. I don't just parrot what you say. When you start being disrespectful, you're going to get that back, which is what you've been. The respectful and mature thing to do now would be to end the conversation.
nar3sas 2 months ago
@nar3sas Actually, it is. And actually, it is evident in your other conversations aswell.
This has been interesting, and illuminating, in more sense than you are aware of, but i must now bid adieu. A zealot is a zealot is a zealot...
MagnusNyborg 2 months ago
@MagnusNyborg Actually, it isn't in either this conversation or in my other ones, but you're free to believe in whatever you want to. This conversation definitely has been interesting and illuminating. I don't think I'm really a zealot, but it doesn't matter what you call me. I know who I am, and I am what I am. Anyways, bye.
nar3sas 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MagnusNyborg I know it's hubris, but I do not have that. I DO interpret the Bible correctly, unlike an ignoramous like yourself. I can see logical errors when I make them, but I haven't made any with you. You're the one who can't see how illogical you've been. I'm not full of it. If I'm a buffon, that must mean I'm a lunar crater on the moon. :) You might want to start thinking. You cannot be taken seriously. Your position has been clarified as that of a closed-minded ignoramous. :) Bye.
nar3sas 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MagnusNyborg What's "hybris", and what's a "buffon"? It seems like you need to learn how to spell, you immature child. :) Go play with your toys. You're failing badly. :)
nar3sas 2 months ago
Comment removed
trythinkingnow 3 months ago
@nar3sas Doesn't he know everything ahead of time? How can he derive joy from being worshipped when he knows from the beginning who is going to worship him and who isn't? That's just weird.
zentrout1 2 weeks ago
@zentrout1 I'm not so sure that He knows everything ahead of time. I don't think He requires worshipping in the sense that most people believe, which includes praying and going to church. I believe worshipping Him is done whenever good actions are done, regardless of one's religion. I know what you mean by Him knowing what thoughts we're going to have before we have them and what actions we're going to do before we do them being weird, but that can't really be proven anyways.
nar3sas 2 weeks ago
@nar3sas Oh, now we're into what can be "proven?" I think that about wraps it up because it would be mighty difficult to "prove" what this god "requires" for example. It certainly sounds like we're no longer talking about the Christian god.
zentrout1 2 weeks ago
@zentrout1 You're right. You should only go with what has been proven since that's all you can be certain of, and it would be difficult to prove what He wants exactly. I've realized that relying on the Bible (a mere book) to know what our creator wants from us is unreliable since many other books have been written. So we're definitely not talking about the Christian god anymore. All I believe is that our fate depends on how good we are, and that is a safe assumption.
nar3sas 1 week ago
@nar3sas That would depend upon what we mean by "fate."
zentrout1 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
sorry, you are mistake. ;Christians certainly have a concept of what constitutes truth, morality & the social good-just as you. These beliefs are expressed in all manner of good actions including feeding the hungry, aiding the poor, caring for widows and orphans, missions, opposing evil wars, social oppressions, and building hospitals and schools among many other endeavors. There is real good & evil & maybe it's your conscience bothered by certain behaviors. God rules our eternal destinies
shieldsff 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 3 months ago
reality=there is nothing wrong with us when we are born. we're born good. the bible has trained us how to be evil by discouraging the goodness "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of god". that means your dead level best will not satisfy god. such a god is not good. the idea of forgiveness encourages evil thus if you do wrong, there is no greater consequence than if you do good, just say forgive me and keep doing wrong.
chiefdancingostriche 3 months ago
True Christians follow the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth SERIOUSLY. YES! they will screw up. they're Only Human while alive. but nonetheless, u can look @ someone's Life and tell if they r in fact a True Christian.
UnexpectedWonder 3 months ago
there is a huge difference between admitting no one is perfect and saying there is no one righteous. if anything has encouraged wrong to be done, it's the fundamental christian faith. if a person feels like their deadlevel best is not good enough, he will not be motivated to do right at all. it is a disincentive to be moral. it is not atheists who have no morals.
chiefdancingostriche 3 months ago
@chiefdancingostriche u have an improper view of the True Christ-follower. Knowing that he can NEVER reach Perfection on his on, he humbles himself, cries out to God for forgiveness of his sins, believes that Jesus the Christ cleansed him of his violations of the Law of God Almighty when He died on the cross and rose from the grave (defeating Death and Hell), and following the example that Jesus set for him. Jesus was the Ultimate Servant.
UnexpectedWonder 3 months ago
Just a thought as I was taking a leak. Would an emotionless thing called evolution take care to make it feel good when you have a number 2, Or care to make a sneeze feel good, or make a yawn feel good, or make filling our lungs with fresh air feel good, or why would it care to let humans love one another if all that mattered was procreation. Why would this emotionless creator care to make it feel good to laugh or to laugh at all. Why bother filling us with joy or jealousy? Anyone?
TheRoss10001 3 months ago
@TheRoss10001 what happens whenever we feel good is, god condemns us for sinning by feeling good. god never wants us to feel good about anything. he wants us miserable, like him.
chiefdancingostriche 3 months ago
@chiefdancingostriche Yes, God abhors all pleasures, and is a tyrant who wants us all to suffer and be miserable. Just like your parents when they tell you not to drink and drive, drive recklessly, go out too late, eat pills, do drugs, accept rides from strangers, etc. All those things can be so much fun and feel good, but nooooo, those with authority just want us to be miserable. Seriously? Such a non-argument.
Sickopath333 3 months ago
@Sickopath333 god is the parent that says whatever we do isnt' good enough for him. "none righteous" pretty well says it all. i can do my best and god would say "not good enough", fuck him. i will do my best to be good, if that's not good enough for god, he can suck.
chiefdancingostriche 3 months ago
@chiefdancingostriche Yes, God will say that your best is not good enough. No one's is. The Jews, who He personally watched over and guided were not particularly righteous or holy despite His interventions. Why is this such a problem? What God, like any parent wants, is for people to admit and be open to the fact that they are not perfect, have made mistakes, have been selfish and hurtful, so they should confess it and seek forgiveness, to be in relationship and accept guidance and wisdom.
Sickopath333 3 months ago
@Sickopath333 it is a problem because god is a malcontent who is never satisfied. the none righteous thing, it actually DISCOURAGES morality. yes we make mistakes, how is that such a problem? but to equate slipping on a banana peel with murder is ridiculous. so i say fuck your damn malcontented god. he is evil, not good. he was invented by a murderor who was using his mentality to get away with it.
chiefdancingostriche 3 months ago
@chiefdancingostriche Wait, wait, wait. Equate slipping on a banana peel with murder? Where in the world did that come from? You are really rambling here. Admitting that you are imperfect does not discourage morality in the slightest, but can actually be a great motivator because it acknowledges a humility and a reason for that person to take seriously their flaws and improve themselves. Denying any wrong-doing will only continue the status quo at best, and at worst could justify any evil.
Sickopath333 3 months ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
@Sickopath333 "Equate slipping on a banana peel with murder? Where in the world did that come from? You are really rambling here. "
When I read that, the first thing I thought of was when, according to the bible, god strikes dead some guy who was trying to save the ark of the covenant from falling to the ground.
If that is the being we're supposed to be getting our morals from, who punishes indiscriminately, no thanks.
I am capable of determining my own morals.
BastEternal 3 months ago
@Sickopath333 "...God, like any parent..." what a profoundly stupid thing to write.
Name for me another parent who (a) reserves the right to torture his children, and (b) is considered good.
Either come right out and 1) say that you're indifferent to reason, 2) learn to reason, or 3) sit there quietly while the adults talk.
chrismca 3 months ago
@chrismca I don't think an adult would copy and paste from someone's post the part that they wanted to attack while ignoring the main point. God wants us to be humble and admit our wrongs. A lot of people absolutely refuse to admit this, deny that God could possibly know what He's talking about, and go about the rest of their lives however they want. What you are comparing is God's role as Judge to His role as our Father, and saying He can't be both so He's neither. Nice try though.
Sickopath333 3 months ago
@Sicko: So you've chosen "indifferent to reason" Fine. Adult humans are by definition rational. But you claim an invisible spirit tells us how to live through a book that is filled with racism, genocide, contradiction, and superstition. And on top of that, you claim to know god's desires. Those claims are not rational (nor remotely humble).
As for the "father" label: It's a metaphor intended to deceive about the nature of this mythical monster so well described by the fiction of the pentateuch.
chrismca 3 months ago
@chrismca So you've chosen arrogant, condescending jerk who only makes sweeping generalizations to undermine the other person's stance without laying forth any real arguments. Fine. You claim that from nothing everything came into existence when something came out of nowhere at a time when time didn't exist until that something came and expanded very rapidly. And you claim that this was not chaos, but instead lead into stability and order. These claims are not rational. See what I did there?
Sickopath333 3 months ago
@Sicko Sure I see what you did -showed the difference (and this same point is made often) between atheists and theists. When atheists have no evidence (eg, the origin of the universe) they say they don't know. When theists have no evidence (eg, the personality traits some particular god wants us to have) they conjure dogma.
chrismca 3 months ago
@chrismca No, when atheists have no evidence, they still maintain that their stance is superior because they are logical/skeptical, that they don't need to supply evidence anyways since their side is neutral and lacks a burden of proof (that's another issue entirely though), and so forth. They say they don't know, but still will say it couldn't possibly be God (even though they have no evidence for why that's the case; part of that issue I mentioned).
Sickopath333 3 months ago
@Sickopath333 i dont believe you, show me the evidence for your belief, or i will continue to not believe you. Simple as that.
MagnusNyborg 3 months ago
@MagnusNyborg I don't believe atheism, show me the evidence for atheism, that there is no God, that you are rational for holding this belief, that it is not more appropriate to be agnostic instead, or I will continue to not believe that atheism is the rational, skeptical, reasonable position when its beliefs rely upon faith without evidence and it ridicules theism for doing the exact same thing. At least theists have positive logical arguments for God, what does atheism have?
Sickopath333 3 months ago
@Sickopath333 do you also believe in loch ness omnsterism and bigfootism? Unless there is evidence, there is no need to believe anything. I see no evidence for any gods, and until i do i wont believe it. I dont need to prove that i am right, because by default all positive positions need to be defended, not the negative positions. Like in a court of law, defendand is innocent until proven guilty, gods are not believed oy exist until there is evidence for them.
MagnusNyborg 3 months ago
@MagnusNyborg Yes, a positive position must be defended, but the default, neutral response to that is either apathy or ignorance (don't care, don't know). A rejection of that position can not be neutral by definition. Once you reject that positive position, you must be ready to defend your stance. You reject theism, what can you offer for your side? I reject that death exists, but I don't need to prove my side. Your analogies are flawed, but I don't have enough space to elaborate.
Sickopath333 3 months ago
@Sickopath333 i accept reality, it gives evidence for its existance.
MagnusNyborg 3 months ago
@MagnusNyborg So are you an atheist or an agnostic? If you're an atheist, what evidence do you have that allows you to accept that reality that there is no god? And by the way, that's an epistemological issue, an interesting discussion in philosophy; how certain are you that the evidence you see is even real or that your mind is rational and reasonable, able to process things coherently? Not insinuating anything, but your used analogies don't demonstrate deeper understanding in philosophy.
Sickopath333 3 months ago
@Sickopath333 you are using the wrong definition for atheism. I dont believe in a god, just as i dont believe in loch ness monster or bigfoot. They all lack reasonable evidence for existing.
All real things provide some form of evidence for its existance.
MagnusNyborg 3 months ago
@MagnusNyborg No, I'm using the classical definition, you're using a poor modern definition. That is not a good analogy. Are you saying you merely withdraw belief on the Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot, invisible unicorns, FSM, etc.? You don't assert that they don't exist, you just don't believe that they do? And you assume this is the neutral stance? They don't just lack evidence, we have evidence that speaks to the contrary that they don't exist. Are there any Muslim Congress members?
Sickopath333 3 months ago
@Sickopath333 using a definition of atheism proponed by religious people is a bad idea, if you listened to the Atheist Experience you would know wich definition they use - the one i use.
I dont believe in Bigfoot or Loch Ness monster simply because of lack of evidence, and the situation with regards to gods are the same (no accepted evidence). This is the neutral stance, same as the stance used by courts of law. Positive claims require evidence, neutral claims are the default. (cont)
MagnusNyborg 3 months ago
@MagnusNyborg Again, I use a definition proposed by those who know their history and philosophy, not by sneaky atheists who wish to win arguments or at least come out in a draw by definition. Their only burden is to attack theistic arguments, they don't have to supply any of their own, so even if the theist defends everything perfectly the atheist forces a draw.
Your analogy is horribly flawed. You can't compare scholarship with the legal system because they're distinct systems.
Sickopath333 3 months ago
@Sickopath333 (cont) belief needs to be justified. If you believe something you dont have evidence for, you are being irrational. If you have personal justification, fine, i cant argue with that, but do realise I still dont have a reason for believing you. If there where evidence against bigfoot etc, why do people still believe they exist? Negative claims can not be rejected by evidence, unless the evidence points to a complete logical contradiction. (cont)
MagnusNyborg 3 months ago
@MagnusNyborg (cont) The evidence you speak off have been rejected again and again, and every other religion rejects your religion. I just believe in one god less than you, ergo none. Until you can provide evidence to the contrary, this is my stance. It is neutral, it doesnt assume anything.
MagnusNyborg 3 months ago
@MagnusNyborg Yes, and the evidence for evolution has been rejected again and again, does that matter to you though?
And every religion rejects your religion.
I just believe in one more God than you, ergo one.
"It is neutral, it doesn't ASSUME anything." Oh that made me laugh. It assumes that there is no God. You say there is absolutely no evidence for God, but you have just as much non-evidence for there being no God, yet you assume that is the case! Or do you know there is no God?
Sickopath333 3 months ago
@Sickopath333 it assumes that unless there is no evidence for a god, then it is rational to not believe it. Im getting sick of explaining this issue of rejection to you repeatedly, and i can only assume it is because you are an inteleectual moron who cannot comprehend.
the evidence for evolution is not rejected by those who study it most, i.e. scientists. I know you and your sickophant buddies reject it, but you do that willfully, not by reason.
MagnusNyborg 3 months ago
@MagnusNyborg Oh I comprehend the idea of rejection perfectly, that's why I'm arguing against it. It's fallacious. The word you use is unintentionally a perfect example for my side. You reject the idea of God, yet you offer nothing to support that this rejection is valid. The only thing you have offered is bad, modern definitions, terrible analogies, and now an ad hominen.
So those who reject evolution do it by will rather than reason, however those who reject God do so by reason not will.
Sickopath333 3 months ago
@Sickopath333 do you believe in the existance of bigfoot or loch ness monster? If not, why not? That is the basis of the rejection, or rather, not believing the existance of a god to be true unless evidence supports it.
Try comprehend this, I know you are struggling, but please try.
MagnusNyborg 3 months ago
@MagnusNyborg Do you merely withdraw your belief in the existence of bigfoot or loch ness monster, or do you maintain that they do not in fact exist? If so, why? If not, why not? Here's a more apt analogy for you. 5 billion light years away there is a galaxy that has all the people and events of the Star Wars movies, but all of the names are replaced with Star Trek names. There is no evidence for this random claim. Do you merely withdraw your belief or assert that this doesn't exist? Why?
Sickopath333 3 months ago
@Sickopath333 there is no proof that they dont exist, but it is impossible to be 100% sure. There are soo many porblems with their existance that from a colloqial perspective i would claim they dont exist. But they are not life-changing existances, soo with that respect it is not a big deal if i am wrong.
I dont believe in a god, because there is no evidence of one. I cannot say for 100% sure, but as long as there are no good rational evidence, im not going to believe. (cont)
MagnusNyborg 3 months ago
@Sickopath333 (cont) no i dont believe the star wars galaxy, i can t disprove it, but there is no reason to believe it since:
1. Star Wars is a wellknown fictional movie.
2. Some of the inventions in SW is scientifically incorrect (i.e. science have experimental evidence that suggest them completely bogus
I dont believe it, and for good reasons i claim it is soo far fetched that you probably just made it up (wich you did)..
MagnusNyborg 3 months ago
@MagnusNyborg Which is my entire point. You can't go to that spot I pointed to, you can't even see that far; are you then irrational for asserting it's probably not real? When presented with any claim, you have 4 main responses: agreement, rejection, ignorance (IDK), or you withdraw any firm judgment until you learn more (maybe some bias, but no choice is made yet). This is on a continuum of course, some middle ground, but rejection is not neutral, and should have some rationalization.
Sickopath333 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Sickopath333 i dont believe what there is no evidence for, get this fact through your head. Reading religious doctrines shows more evidence of mental psychopaths inflicting their misconceptions on groups of people, than the existing of a god. Therefor, with the lack of evidence for a god existing, it is more rational to believe one does not exist.
The remaining question then is, how does all of this work, and how can we separate truth from fantasy. And religion (faith) is not the way.
MagnusNyborg 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Sickopath333 (cont) however, there still is a posibility to be wrong, because of lack of evidenc either way. The only truly unsupported path is the one of claiming a god exists, and that he has specific proerties that really dont match reality.
MagnusNyborg 3 months ago
@MagnusNyborg Even if you do make the analogy it doesn't work the way you wish it would.
Atheism can only be a viable stance if it is the neutral one, when it isn't. A negative position can never be neutral, rejecting someone's claim can not be neutral. A neutral position is apathy or ignorance. Without this special pleading to be the neutral position, atheism is crippled by its own standards. It is a belief. Beliefs need evidence. Atheism has none. That's why I reject that definition.
Sickopath333 3 months ago
@Sickopath333 Hmm. If the issue were one for which we have no evidence (origin of the universe, is there a heaven, etc) and an atheist said "god had no role," then he'd have to be wrong, because he cannot provide support. Further, he'll be told so by his fellow atheists. And that's a big difference between atheists and theists: If a theist, when discussing the same topic, said "god had a role," then this similarly unsupported claim is likely to be supported by his peers. Am I wrong?
chrismca 3 months ago