Is God a Delusion? 9/12

[AgeOfReasonXXI]

with his comments on how meaningless life is on atheism, Craig gives the game away: he just finds it too depressing that on atheism the Universe is not designed with him in mind and there isn't a God who loves him and has a special plan just for him. so it cannot be true! of course, he uses a different wording and disguises it with a whle buch of bogus arguments :)) wishful thinking is stronger than death

[Vanmeter815]

I think the comments and this debate display clearly to the discerning mind that atheism is anti-reason. It is 10x more dumbed down ignorant than the most radical fundamentalist American Christian could ever dream to achieve.

[Domzdream]

Er...atheists do not generally have boards with 'god hates fags' on them. You guys evidently do. Your religion is responsible for some of the world's greatest tragedies and prejudices ever to corrupt this earth.

And clearly you still think it's a healthy way of thinking. To me, that's psychopathy. It's simply insanity. To think something you can't detect with any of your senses (which ultimately requires faith not knowledge, by definition), THAT is irrational. And ignorance.

[hexusziggurat]

@Domzdream I actually have a few friends that are gay. I can no more judge them they I can persecute them for exercising their free-will within the confines of human laws. It is not my jurisdiction to police their sexual preferences, nor should it be for any Christian. If somebody who is gay asked me if its "wrong" it is my duty as a Christian to tell them. They may not like it...but each time I sin it is the same as any transgression against God..hence I am no better for sinning differently.

[Domzdream]

But dont you see how your religions is damaging you. and your better judgements as a human being. You religion is supposed to unite people, but rather, as you well know it, it segregates and divides people from differently minded people and persecutes them to the fullest dgree. How can an articulate and fairly intelligent person such as youself not see this as a bad thng in society. I just do not get this in you (good)theists at all. Its contradicting.

[hexusziggurat]

@Domzdream I have never felt damaged by accepting that my sinful ways hurt me & moreover those around me. I've been willing to walk further to see the other side of that coin in most conversations that are not antagonistic, & even have done in some of those as well. When ANYONE asserts a method/law/belief, by its very nature it segregates unless by & large it appeals directly to the masses. I think its the people at the polarities that often get the spotlight no matter which camp they belong to.

[Domzdream]

I agree.

It's your basic group mentality function.

[hexusziggurat]

@Domzdream "world's greatest tragedies"? Actually scoicio-economical reasons have driven people to far greater wars & with much more frequency.

When it comes to religion, with regards to prejudice & tragedies....we know as Christians that those actions are in transgression to the teachings of Christianity. Radicals poison every pool with extreme rules using extreme methods to carry out punishment, there is no direct correlation with theistic belief-systems to create radicals.

[Domzdream]

sir. In your bible it tells you to smite all those around you who ridicule christianity, let alone insult your parents.

If you do not do this, you are not following christianity at all.

That's a good thing. Your more or less rational thinking is taking place. You (obviously) overlook these passages because you think they a tad too literal. But that is what is supposed to happen as your book instructs.

Was it not your jesus who instructed death upon all those didnt recognize him? Check it out

[hexusziggurat]

@Domzdream are you mixing old testament with new testament?

[Domzdream]

It matters not. It's all in the the bible. Afterall, apparently, it's god's word, isn't it?

So, no excuses if it all sounds kooky.

[hexusziggurat]

@Domzdream hey some of it sounds a bit odd to me as well but I am a believer. I thin anything written/motivated by a divinity would sound kind of odd since the meanings would have to overspan many cultures. So there would have to be literal truths & possibly metaphoric truths as well, not all cultures teach/learn in the same fashion. Some things seem "less" sinful to me than others, but i have to remember that's from my personal perspective & would in no way compare to a being such as God.

[Domzdream]

Have you ever wondered why it is every one who has a near death experience sees their own personal god they were taught? Look it up. Europeans see jesus or angels. Indians see the blue figure of kali, etc. Ever wonder why no islamist has ever reported seeing jesus or the virgin mary right afer that death moment? It is so frigging obvious it hurts me spleen. Of course people will see what they were taught. It's what they know and what they have been engrained with.

[hexusziggurat]

@Domzdream I guess it would hurt me just as much if we are to assume there could only ever be one answer to the finality. Perhaps it is as you suggest that we see something we have familiarized ourselves with....perhaps thats the truth....maybe its a fallacy or perhaps thats what is actually approaching us, i couldn't give you an answer on that. It would be difficult in the very least to suppose what is actually transpiring at the time of death...perhaps science could delve into this aspect.

[Domzdream]

Further....

By definition, faith means believing in somehting without knowledge or proof. It's like wishing it to be so (prayer).

Wishing something to exist doesnt make it real.

Now, knowledge is different. It can be tested and retested over and over again.

Do you believe in pixies? (this is a serious question).

[hexusziggurat]

@Domzdream personally i haven't invested the effort to realize the pixie "truth". So i'm agnostic on the pixie issue.

"Now, knowledge is different. It can be tested & retested over & over again." I'd tend to disagree with this statement as it seems to more aptly apply to scientific methodology. If we imagine there are happenings within the universe that only ever happen 1 time in all existence or maybe 1 time in a trillion years it is no less true just b/c 1 person were to have witnessed it.

[Domzdream]

Come on. Be honest. We both know pixies DO NOT exist. Or other fantastical creatures. What Im saying is, god, prayer, pixies, goblins, all these things are subject to faith, not observation (unless you're on magic mushrooms, heheh, but I digress. mmmm...shroomies).

As to the science bit. Everything we observe on earth can be tested and varifies, thus why it's called science. Science requires NO faith. We know it works. We can see it. Even anti matter. It's invisible to the eye. But we...

[hexusziggurat]

@Domzdream Well for the science bit...it works but it doesn't always give the entire answer. Science also falls under the presupposition that as long as something can be retested then it can be varified. But is there some things can can only ever occur 1 time? Lets say you actually witnessed something fantastic & knew it for what it was then it disappeared. I can't very well say you're absolutely wrong in your own testimony simply b/c i can't verify the experience by science

[Domzdream]

I can agree on that with you.

Just because something is unknown doesn't mean that it's unknowable.

I actually believe in ghosts (I think it's energies that power our bodily vessels). But please understand. I mention I believe (not know) they exist based on pictures and others' experiences (including my own) that there is something to this. But I cannot for sure say that they exist, because I just don't know enough on this to comment on effectively. But I do think there's something to this...

[Domzdream]

...

I do think that people tend to dismiss things far too quickly if they cannot measure occurences with a protractor.

So, yes, wether or not these things exist, I dont know. BUt wether there is a god. or a hundred gods, no way. Even philosophically this argument shreds apart, with the theists ultimatey scabbling in desperation for their writ, because they cannot find an even ground in a rational arena of discourse. Ive seen it many times, and it's pityful.

Sorry for sounding high and mighty

[hexusziggurat]

@Domzdream np. I believe philosophically anything can be reasoned. I think philosophy serves us better to pose more questions, not neccesarily garner more answers. Though if one were to pose a q? about gods/god the very action assumes one can somehow quantify or show reasonable evidence to what is assumed a divinty...though by the very definition the divinity(s) could just not allow it since it is within their power to do so. It is better to ask a q? that sets a grounds for possibilities first.

[Domzdream]

Why would a god not allow for himself or itself to be revealed? Wouldnt this save god a lot of space in hell? Plus, he chooses a time in the bronze age to apparently reveal himself, er...in human form. In adition, he chooses a place where illiterate savages exist. Not a very smart move on his behalf, wouldnt you say?

If I were a god, I'd reveal myself all over the world in one swoop, then lay down the laws. But no, he expects all this from us worms, including love. It's a tall order, no?

[hexusziggurat]

@Domzdream there was a story in the bible that talked about how a man tried to build a tower to heaven to see God. The morals of that story still remain true, we would seek God on our terms only but never go to Him on His terms even though His wisdom is far more profoound than our own. Its like the child that sees something & wants to do it their own way even though there could have been a million before them that could shed so much more wisdom on the better path of that action.

[Domzdream]

Ever considered (just purely based on demographics) that god(s) is made in the image of man, and the other way around? You know of the word anthropomorphic, yeah?

We cannot be made in the form of god. Just based on abiogenesis alone, this proposition falls apart. Let's keep it real here and stick to what we know for starters.

We have limbs and bodily functions due to evolution within our environment, like ALL life on earth. Now apply this to god. God needs a cock? A spleen? A leg?

Come on...

[hexusziggurat]

@Domzdream made in God's "image" not an exact duplication. This likely pertains more to the fact that as humans we can understand a deeper relationship than say, a sea cucumber can with another being. Remembering God's prominent attributes that come forward....we humans duplicate those (or at least "can")...love, forgiveness etc.

[Domzdream]

No. It says exaclty in the bible, we are made in his image. Admit it.

Sound to me like you're disregarding what it says there and how ridiculous this proposition is. Sounds to me like the rational side of yourself is battling to accept some of the biblical propositions and have no choice but alter the out dated, illogical piffle, and reshaping it to fit in current times.

You're cheating.

[hexusziggurat]

@Domzdream I am hardly "cheating" read what image says in the dictionary. A physical "likeness" or a mental "representation". Not an exact duplication.

[hexusziggurat]

@Domzdream now in the next part about the bronze age, there is an assumption there. Many of us presume that simply b/c we can cram more advanced tech jargon in our heads that somehow that makes us more advanced. It sure doesn't in regards to God. God is about love & a relationship...science doesn't give us that..our heart does (metaphorically speaking) which means that God can approach humanity at any time & if we listen with our heart we can hear Him & understand Him for His intent.

[Domzdream]

Hogwash!

The more info we have about a thing, the less we have room for things like witches and demons.

Three hundred years ago we thought it was Zeus chucking lightning bolts. The we found out it was energy IE electricity.

Only about 50 years back,people believed in possession. Now we know this as schizzophrenia.

Science has no place with emotions. Rather, it shows how and why things work. It's two different contexts and natures altogether.

[hexusziggurat]

@Domzdream yet the more info we have about the risen Christ & people still reject it. Jesus didn't just do a few parlor tricks to make people "think" he was the messiah.....he fullfilled over 300 of the prophesies including removing diseases that are still uncurable toaday, walking on water, & much more...besides the fact he rose from the dead & clarified that God indeed had a hand in the whole shabang. Even skeptical scholars cannot deny the overwhelming evidence. Science is merely a tool yes.

[lipoicacid]

Where this ''info''??? Where is the proof that he existed and that he did what everone and thier dog were claiming to do???

[Domzdream]

We have no evidence of these events ever occured, other than the bible itself. Which you KNOW has been chopped, edited, re edited again, altered, and rewritten to suit people of the current age it was written in.

To follw these writings today is folly and should be discarded by any thinking, rational minded person. BUt not forgotten, mind you. But put aside, and replaced by useful script.

[lipoicacid]

The bibles are borrowed myth.Christianity was created by the Roman authorities.What you see as evidence for talking donkeys and zombie rabbis gods who use spit to heal blindness do not the meet the standards of the reasonable and logical =/

[hexusziggurat]

@lipoicacid ok lipo, don't use it then, thats your choice. I disagree with your statement & your logical outworkings, thats my choice.

[lipoicacid]

''I disagree with your statement & your logical outworkings'' Perhaps you could show me where my logic and reason have failed me???...

[lipoicacid]

....No....I think not.This is where they usually exit stage right....

[lipoicacid]

....At least you did not ''bless me''...thank you...it makes me regurgitate =/

[lipoicacid]

''thats my choice'' Yes.That is the beuaty of a ''belief system''-you can chose absurdities and ignorance above reason and real evidence and somehow rationalize the choices as being equally valid.Good show! =/

[hexusziggurat]

@lipoicacid I invoke the same on you about absurdities & ignorance.

[lipoicacid]

@hexusziggurat Perhaps you would like to enumerate and then gainsay said absurdities and ignorant statements? We are waiting slave.

[hexusziggurat]

@lipoicacid slave? evidence? pushing? invisble voices? bold assertions? curiousity? sky daddy? Why bother coming to the channel? Why bother even saying anything if your mind is made up? Are you trying to convince me.....or yourself.....

[Domzdream]

Yes, from religius minded followers. If it were so highly supported as you propose, then there wouldnt be so many disagreements now would there.

[hexusziggurat]

@Domzdream disagreements in religion can be understood as in the interpretation of what humans do. How we should dress, pray, time we should pray, foods we should/n't eat etc. Even if 1000 people saw the same event they would write about it differently & perhaps enuciate the major proponents of the event differently. They are not all wrong..they just see through different eyes & hear through different ears filtered by what they deem important in life, based on personal choices.

[Domzdream]

wrong! I'm sorry, but I cannot accept this premise. How can you be fine with different interpretations.

Are you fine with a woamn's clitoris being hacked off with a sharpened stone so she cannot feel pleasure?

Plus, these religious principles are forced on us by the religious (muslim theocracy, christian Inquisition).

Getting stoned to death because I've eaten shellfish isn't my idea of a good example of religion.

I cannot believe you're fine with that! geez, dude.

[hexusziggurat]

@Domzdream @Domzdream what makes you think that i'm fine with anything you mentioned. Have I honestly forced anything on you? Do you believe I belong to some religious institution that governs what I do? Do you think I like waking up & being restricted to any degree by a set of standards that I KNOW are better off for me but much better off for my fellow humans.

Williams reasoning & logic are extremely sound...& it is completely governed by logical outworkings that fall well within science.

[Domzdream]

They sound like they do, but if listen carefully, slowly, they don't really. He uses a very mixed language to obfuscate the listener. The one day I slowly went over this whole debate (followed by a headache) and he doesnt really contribute anythingdifferent than your average person. The only diff is he uses a complex language, with an injection of science facts, and he ends up sounding like he knows what he's talking about, but he still hasnt shown any evidence for god. And he never will...

[Domzdream]

...he'll only keep using complex language to keep obfuscating over and over again.He's a master of semantics.

These standards you suffer to are set up religious dictators of the BC age. WHy not move on and think for yourself?

Oh, and enjoy shellfish.

You say religion isnt forced on me but 150 years ago, it would have been. Just look at islam today. If you arent a theist, you get tortured, executed, raped, all the lovely things theists enjoy doing. Then they proclaim their love.

Nice one.

[hexusziggurat]

@Domzdream "master of semantics" ...no a master of logical outworkings, b/c if he was an atheist he be applauded. Move on & think for myself?....I am thinking for myself & I live in this day & age...I do enjoy shellfish & everything else thats tatstes good! 150 years ago you are complaining about, why don't you move on!!! I haven't seen the torture, execution or rape of any atheists today, we're moving on!!! All those attrocities are in contradiction to Christianity...we know this.

[Domzdream]

Logic or semantics, he still has to show us a deiety, any deiety. Even a muslim one. Anyone. No? None?

Can you? I think not. But keep having that faith, brother. Not knowledge. We'll keeping providing you with hard earded knowledge which took thousands of years. A compilation of knowledge which took many sacrifices and hard work.

---

I'm glad you think torturing heretics is wrong. Thumbs up from me man. You're moving forward.

[hexusziggurat]

@Domzdream whats with the woman's genitallia? of course i don't really agree with the concept of "hacking". Forced? inquisition??? I didn't realize there was an inquisition going on today in 2010....Whats with the shellfish bit?

[Domzdream]

(ahem)

Read your bible.

Peple were killed by stoning after eating shellfish. This was a rule which was introduced by Moses, who was given these rules by your god. These foods were unclean apparently, so only clean food (food not of the sea) was only allowed to be ingested and sacrificed to the Hebrew god (your god).

The defiance of this rule was getting panneled with big stones- until dead. OUCH!

[hexusziggurat]

@Domzdream so are you talking about Judaism or Christianity? I follow Christianity with a great & healthy respect for those who passed before me & bore witness to Gods interactions with mankind directly. I greatly respect OT, but am indeed a follower of NT. If anyone wants to pay homage to the old teachings go right ahead, thats your perogative as a free-willed human...though we can't take things out of context. I'd probably ask a historian or a practitioner of OT to explain the passage to me.

[Domzdream]

What's OT? ANd What's NT?

Yes, I agree with you about having the freedom to practice what they want. It's nobody's business. But when theists force their ways into society, education, frigging science! economy...and they DO, for me that's a deal breaker and I have to defend and repudiate it entirely.

If your god interacts directly with mankind, then why are there no proofs of this? And why is it still known as a faith then, rather than knowledge?It's very,very obvious to me. Why not you?

[hexusziggurat]

@Domzdream OT= old testament (Judaism), NT= new testament.

You do understand that there's different methods of providing information to the masses of course & different interpretations of how theists believe they should act as according to scripture.

Now when the scripture says for the humans to spread "the word", everybody is going to do that in different ways b/c we're all unique beings. Sometimes some methods will be perceived as more invasive than others.

Its more obvious to me each day.

[hexusziggurat]

@Domzdream also if one were to understand even the most modest idea of what it means to be a "god" then we understand that its a "supreme being" in many senses of the term. In our case God can easily achieve communictaion on the most profound level with even a micro-oganism...it simply has nothing to do with the receiver-end of the communication. The receiver is only limited by which they can carry out a request to its physical capacity (or perhaps more with the use of tools).

[Domzdream]

Let me get this straight. What you're saying is god's way of talking to us is far superior than what we can conceive? Then what's the point of communicating in the first place?

It's like reading Shakespear to an ant.

Why do you think it's only one god?

[hexusziggurat]

@Domzdream yes i believe beyond any doubt (even if we are not talking about the Christian God). By definition of being a supreme being things like language are transcendable...a divinity would not be restricted by the same measures we are. The point of communicating is to express oneself...whether that be questions, requests, thankfullness, general conversation, whatever it may be. Why one God, i don't really think about that. I won't condemn others for piety in another God tho.

[lipoicacid]

''By definition of being...'' Many things have ''definitions.This does not prove that they exist or provide foundation for argument on thier behalf.

[hexusziggurat]

@lipoicacid ''By definition of being...'' Many things have ''definitions.This does not prove that they exist or provide foundation for argument on thier behalf."

There is no arguement being made there in any case whatsoever. It is simply establishing language terminology to grasp what the concept of "supreme being" actually means.

[lipoicacid]

''establishing language terminology to grasp''.You grasp things that exist. Where is the proof that this ''supreme being'' exists???Even more important where is the evidence that it gives a damn what you do??? =/

[hexusziggurat]

@lipoicacid please go read a dictionary to see what the word "god" actually means. I don't dispute His existence.

[lipoicacid]

I do not need a dictionary to tell me what is meant by a ''god''.Within certain parameters it can be [and has been] described variously.

[lipoicacid]

''I don't dispute His existence'' That is your problem.Disputing its' existence is what you should do for yourself even if you have confidence in its' existence.

[lipoicacid]

''I don't dispute His existence'' No doubt the reasons you have for not disputing ''his'' [I guess you saw daddys'penis] existence only escapes the ''spiritually ignorant'' like myself =/

[lipoicacid]

The Judeo-Christian god is an amalagation of many religions and myths.

[Domzdream]

But you have to condemn them. It says so in the bible. You have to in fact eliminate people who are against god's teachings.

Ulitmately, was it not jesus who stated in:

Luke ch.19 Jesus says anyone who doesn't recognise me, bring them before me and slaughter them.

[lipoicacid]

Thanks.And yes if Jesus Daddy says ''love'' means kill those who do not ''recognize'' me.This cult member who ''does not dispute'' ''his'' existence [will] obey.

[hexusziggurat]

@Domzdream if we believe that we're less barbaric simply by advancement of technology/intellect then by the same regard we find new ways to disregard words of wisdom in favour of self-indulgent ways of life, proclaiming that individuality & personal welfare begin to trump that of the populace or worse still, can't be governed by something which we can't in turn govern (God).

Love requested is never really love..it's not coerced. Love is freely given & without regard to receiving anything back.

[Domzdream]

Yes, you can throw around these words (love) like paper, but that's like saying I love you to a rock. What would that prove? What would you get out of it? Nothing.

The reason for saying the words 'I love you' is for us to get a reaction back. A confirmation. We obviously hope for the same and equal reaction back. If you told your partner 'I love you' and she didnt answer-unless you're a simpleton, you'd wonder if she loves you. You'd care why she isn't answering back. You'd ask...

[hexusziggurat]

@Domzdream if love expects something back, that is different for love hoping for something back. If i loved my spouse & she didn't love me back, i won't hold it over her b/c then all i have is a selfish love & thats just a warped sense of the the emotion.

[Domzdream]

Yes, but you'd still be a pushover in staying in a relationship that doesnt want you. What would be the point? In fact, you'd be dead weight for her.

Again, love, is the effect or reaction to the action applied, IE be it communication, or other. But it's still due to interaction.

[hexusziggurat]

@Domzdream yes i agree to an extent. But the humans are the one not reciprocating, at least those in denial of His existence. So in fact the more you push God away the more God is not with you. So in your statement you basically point out what has already been understood & recounted in the Bible. Love is good when you freely give it, its even better when its freely given back from the one you do love. But love with expectations is poor form & no way represents "unconditional" love..

[lipoicacid]

@hexusziggurat ''denial of His existence'' The evidence would be??? =/

[lipoicacid]

@hexusziggurat ''the more you push God away the more God is not with you.'' ''Pushing'' [either literal or figurative] requires a tangible or percieved object on which to ''push''...

[lipoicacid]

@hexusziggurat ...He does not speak to invisible beings or hear voices so do not think he is taken your bold assertions as a given.You are not taken seriously...

[lipoicacid]

@hexusziggurat ...You and you kind are merely a curiousity =/

[lipoicacid]

@hexusziggurat ...But please go on.Tell us more about sky daddys rejected ''love'' and how we may more acceptable to daddy ='[

[Domzdream]

You have to acknowledge for a god to actually be there in the first place. And that requires knowledge, not faith.

So now we're back to square one again. The proof of any god's existence. There are none. Faith is required.

I've already gone over the love subject- I wont go there again. Id just be repeating myself.

[hexusziggurat]

@Domzdream its strange that in the video William Lane Craig gives excellent sound arguements for those without any "proof". I would argue the proof is all around us, & that we are just unwilling to take that as good enough proof. For any human to reason that "their" personal way of establishing proof would be more profound than what is currently being offered give plenty of reason why humanity adores their egoism & disregards their humble pie.

[Domzdream]

See I, when I listen to William, I get the feeling it's really just word games with him. in the end, he hasnt really show proof. Just a brilliant (I'll admit) slaughter of word games and semantics. But NO proof (remember, the onis is on you, not the atheists, to prove there is a god).

The proof all around us is proof of trees and matter all comprised of atoms, nutrons, gluons, etc) We have the proof, yes. But I see no god there. I see raw science. I see cause and effect,

[Domzdream]

...

you'd investigate (if you cared, thus stating the word 'love' in the first place).

See there? An action/reaction is taking place. A communication if you will. Now, to throw out that word so frivolously, like you theists seem to do, is synonymous with that 'rock' analogy I just gave you.

You'd get nothing out of it. You can apply this same scenario to you god at your will, but I wont get into that.

[Domzdream]

...but we know it's there. We can test it and varify it. Hell, we built the hydron collider and create anti matter in a containment unit. We even know that blackholes exist.

Now, as to the universe bit. Regardless, wether we are there to witness these occurences, they still happen and are not contingent upon our witnessing them.

[lipoicacid]

Yes.Confidence in the scientific method does dumb one down. Why can't they join the intelligent among us in our worship of our heavenly sky daddy who loves us ='[

[hexusziggurat]

@lipoicacid i never said science dumbs one down, in fact it only does so if it is used explicitly to declare all things vallid if it is the only filter by which we understand reality.

Saying things like "sky daddy" is also debasing, i never asked once that those who choose differently should worship to understand. Now that would simply be working on the opposite of the polarity of the scientific-only committment....its not one or the other.

[lipoicacid]

''i never said science dumbs one down...'' It's calledsarcasm.Makes one think does it not? =/

[hexusziggurat]

@lipoicacid i could go without the sarcasm, thankyou.

[lipoicacid]

Science is a method and process.You used it when you learned to walk...

[lipoicacid]

You use it when your eyes focus on an object.Attempt to pull the scientific [method] down to the level of your belief system are not taken seriously.

[lipoicacid]

''Daddy'' describes it well.One obeys daddy because daddy ''said so''.Do you think Muslims would become martyrs if sky daddys' book did not say endorse it???

[lipoicacid]

''...should worship to understand.''What you fail to realize is they [do]undersand and they reject it....

[lipoicacid]

However your ego will tell you that they do not.If they [did] understand how could they not ''chose'' as you have chosen???Perhaps they are not as spiritually evolved as you are?=/

[Domzdream]

Exactly.

[Domzdream]

How on this green earth does bleeding for people aboslve us of our sins? It's stupidly ridiculous. How does this absolve us off our responsibilities? It's dumb. Also, why didn't we have a free will in choosing this. Nobody asked this tin god to kill himself for us.

I love this saying by Hitchens, you will get free will, you have no choice in the matter ha ha.

[Craigmin]

"It's dumb." -Domzdream

Maybe *you* are just too stupid and autistic to make any sense of a simple children's story like "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe".

[Domzdream]

Hey, man.

Don't make dith the thtory, thir. Itth tho rude. And I am not auti-th-tic.

[hexusziggurat]

@Domzdream we did have a choice....the several million jews at the time chose to have Jesus put to death. THAT was the human choice. Jesus was not willing to run from CHOICE that humans were going to make to persecute him. Jesus didn't climb up on the cross by himself.

[Domzdream]

No, maybe not directly. But indirectly, definitely.

Tell me something. If Superman (who can smite you with a flick of his finger) was being tied to the cross, but knowing he could kill you, but still just going along with it. He's either A) a massochist, B) a pushover, C) a dumbass.

I say jesus was all the above, A,B, and C.

He's apparently a god. A creator of universes who lets a few of his own creations nail him to a stick.

Come on man....

[hexusziggurat]

@Domzdream & that is the misuse of true power. Just b/c one has the power to destroy evrything doesn't mean they should use it at every opportunity...its not dumb it shows restraint & that you a not a slave to your own capabailities. His power is not what defines Him. God's love, forgiveness, willingness to have a relationship is what defines Him. If Jesus did anything other than what he did do...it would contradict his own teachings of turning the other cheek & love one's enemies.

[Domzdream]

Pffff...hahaha. Yeah right. Oh, yes, jesus is soo forgiving. After sitting there for hours under a tree, fashioning a scurge ( a frigging whip with beads made of metal beads tear your flesh off your body), then storming at the merchants flailing wildly and screaming at the top of his voice in anger. That's NOT the actions of a forgiving man, but ratehr the mark of a psycho. But yes, god is a psycho, so no srprise there.

Another thing, you keep refering to god as a 'He'. Are you certain of that?

[hexusziggurat]

@Domzdream do you pose your a-b-c answers base on what YOU would do in his position? You'll have to remember that if you are stacking up your mind vs. the mind of a supreme being.....well you should know the results, i would hope.

[Domzdream]

Let me tell you what. If there is a supreme being (psssst...there isn't one), I cannot wait until I can get close enough to kick him in his god-nuts for all the harm he's done to his creation.

WHACK!

But any rational minded person knows that this wont occur.

[hexusziggurat]

@Domzdream I truly hope that one day you could get close enough. It would mean there is no longer any hangups in your heart & you have truly learned love.

[Domzdream]

If you mean to get close enough to faith? forget it. It's like finding out the easter bunny isn't real, then having to back to believing in it again, though having a superfluous amount of evidence for there not being one. It literally is that to me.

But yes, I am truely happy- Physically, emotionally and spiritually.

[hexusziggurat]

@Domzdream I aplaud you then. We must remember that as unique as all humans are, that there will be just as vast a multitude of pathways that we all journey along to reach that inner peace. We must be forgiving in that we know not what each other has suffered but should earnestly wait to lend that helping heart when the time is right.

[Domzdream]

Hehehe. You're a sweet and kind person. Have a great weekend.

[Mylth]

Or rather read around these issues if you will, and read both sides .

[Mylth]

I was there when this took place down the back. And I wondered at the time why there were some claims people made that seemed not to be refuted. But after watching this again and after having studyed a fair amount of history, the bible, and theology since I can't believe how throughly ignorant Bill Cooke actually is. The views he is pushing are so remote and outside the views of current scholarship that Craig does not have to refute them at all, all you have to do it read a decent book.

[sarahfazee]

see amazingly what is the main purpose of every religion what they say actually? if we go depth into it they all says"

WORSHIP ONE GOD" PRAY TO ONE GOD. thats all most of them says. all says someone is creator of us, universe, and this life is test for hereafter. as science yet not discovered SOUL and cannot discover heaven or hell.

[ginganz13]

Thats simply not true. There have been thousands of gods, the idea of one god is very recent.

There is a list of things that religion says it has 'discovered' and it is constantly shrinking.

The list of things that science has discovered that actually work is growing.

All we are waiting for now is for your god to die just like the thousands of gods before him.

[CONSIDERyou]

I think a thousand gods makes a hell of a LOT more sense than just one God.

Even the "one" God presupposed that there are other gods when he said, "Thou shalt not put the other gods before Me."

[MrGrandDragon]

In that case One God is the superior truth

[CONSIDERyou]

Obviously he's biased.

[sarahfazee]

Islam is the true religion

[ginganz13]

Interesting how all the religions that have ever existed or still have followers claim a monoploy on 'truth'.

The energy they expend re-iterating their alleged 'self evident truth' is breathtaking.

[Domzdream]

No it isn't it's plagerized from christianity. You're following a basterdized verison of the ancient hebrew, IE christianity.

[pobanmanu]

Hahaha.

[ubi2002]

The question raised about the probability of being behind someone...etc was such a waste of time. Was he even sincere?

[YinHoNg]

His following response didn't make any sense and although he obviously thought he was being clever he didn't refute of Dr Craig's argument of improbability and specificity.

[CONSIDERyou]

I thought it was a good argument...of course there was a followup to the question which was only implicit.

[emopeacekid]

this atheist knows nothing of the study of the historical Jesus except what he has read in some Jesus seminar article.

[invanorm]

That may be true, but it hardly means his views are rendered false.

You may not have read the lord of the rings but you can still believe and have evidence to prove that it is a work of fiction.

[emopeacekid]

Actually most Historical Jesus scholars do not think the Gospels are fiction like the Lord of the Rings. Have you ever read the gospels?

[WhereTheyAre]

"Jesus scholars do not think the Gospels are fiction"

Most Historical Jesus scholars are, like William Lane Craig, believers. The rest of them agree that Jesus was a historic figure, but nothing more than a human philosopher.

Like any other religion, Christianity was based on historical events, but the supernatural core is always a work of fiction.

[emopeacekid]

Bro have you ever did any research on the Historical Jesus?

[WhereTheyAre]

"Bro have you ever did any research on the Historical Jesus?"

Bro*, have you ever being familiar with the concept of History?

[emopeacekid]

Nice insult bra but it shows that you are truly ignorant of the Historical Jesus. Folks like you make me laugh. If you do know something about historical Jesus research answer one question. Any first year student of New Testament would know this. Without Wiki or any other research, what do most scholars think is the first written document of the New Testament, its date and who wrote it? Peace bro!

[Prophetes]

It's hilarious that the atheist didn't want to respond to the fine tuning argument.

[ginganz13]

Almost as hilarious as the assertion an omnipotent universe creating entity that has a profound personal interest in our sex lives......

[ChuckWagon1955]

I don't remember Dr. Craig making that assertion.

[WhereTheyAre]

The fine tuning argument for the existence of a giant divine penguin is invalid.

- This universe is tuned to allow THIS expression of intelligent life as WE know it. To assume that our view of life defines the general concept of life is at least egocentric.

- Modern theories of quantum mechanics demanding the existence of multiple universes are FAR more rational, simple, and logically valid than the existence of any god.