Suicidal Thoughts, Generally Low Self-Esteem and Atheism

Author: RationalMadman

Posts

Total: 88
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@Juice
 You seem to feel superior to religious folk, right? And I think your reference to the authors of the bible being peasants is just a general pejorative. I don't think you actually think they were all occupational, or status oriented peasants. I think (or I hope) that you understand they represent various walks of life.
I do not look down on religious people the same way I do not look down on poor people, but I am damn happy that I am not like them. 
You're happy you're not like poor people? What are poor like?

I didn't actually state that you look down on the religious, I stated that you feel superior. Is that wrong?

And what are religious people like that you're so happy you're not like?



Have you ever read the God Delusion? Please read it. It is honestly a good book which goes through all the aspects on religion. 
I've never read it, but am familiar with his views on religion, and view it as warped.

An example,


After 9/11, RD expressed disappointment that Abrahamic religion as a whole isn't included in the Muslim terrorist condemnation. It's bad enough that he didn't just target the actual terrorists (preferable), or even just the particular Islamic faction involved, but wanted to include all Muslims. And of course if that's not bad enough, he wants to include Christianity and Judaism.

I don't think RD even has a reasonable definition of religion. People tend to use the term to their convenience.

Does his book imply anything different from what I sated?
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Juice
The God Delusion is preaching to the converted. And only people already of the view that Religion is false will applaud it. 

My assessment of it was that was not written properly. Gave significant red herrings - and ad hominin attacks and missed the point. One example was his "God of the gaps" analogy.  

And for the record I don't look down on atheists or poor people either.  I do dislike elitism and arrogance. And Atheism is one of the most arrogant positions I have come across - it is not dissimilar to the Leftwing progressive position. 


Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Juice
Perhaps this is because atheists are more practical and are not blinded by the false hope of a next life in eternal bliss. Being depressed because you are sane and in touch with reality is better than being happy while misled, deluded and clouded from the truth. As to how I am a happy atheist, despite knowing that I am just a small particle in an infinite space with no meaning, I am happy with truth, even though it may not be favourable. 
You must be an unusual atheist. Most atheists I know are impractical and airhead.  Many end up in prison, for theft and sex related crimes, mostly kiddie crime. Many commit suicide and or are on drugs and alcohol. Not too many get married, or if they do - are on to their 4 or 4th marriage. Many are gay or lesbian.

Most of them don't think very much - although they have an high view of themselves. A lot go to uni and study the Arts.  They tend to steer away from Engineering and science or economics.  In the legal field, they tend to end up working for Legal Aid. Most are depressed.  I have to say it very rare to meet a happy atheist. In fact I cannot think of any at all. I know lots who party - but partying is not the same as being happy.  And although I value truth - the question of truth is not always black and white. When the atheist says something like they are happy with truth even though it may not be favourable - it is as its essence a cry of despair. In fact I am not even persuaded it has any truth in the remark. And interestingly and ironically is premised on a view that truth is an ABSOLUTE - which atheists by virtue of their loyalty to non-absolutes makes it a redundant point anyway.  

It is like the book 1984 by George Orwell. Would you rather be a happy mindless drone who is blinded from truth, or Winston (protagonist), who understands himself and the errors of his society? Though Winston bears the burden of truth, he is enlightened by it.
1984 was and remains a classic novel.  Yet its comparison to religion is nonsensical. Its point was against fascism or socialism and in that context it is vibrant.  Religion does not blind the masses per se.  Nor does it require blind obedience. And just because some like to say it does not make it so. Repeating a lie over and over again does not make it truth - it only makes it propaganda of which the book 1984 - was at pains to demonstrate is the problem. Atheism today, along with Dawkins repeats ad nauseum such propaganda and most of the atheists I know simply drink it up without thinking.  

I am happy that my happiness does not come from a book written out by peasants centuries ago. I am happy because my happiness does not rely on eternal bliss. I am happy that I do not fear eternal burning. I am happy that I am not morally commanded by a superior being. I am happy that I have the freedom of thought.

Well there we go again. More fake reporting.  Christians do not obtain their happiness from a book.  Even making that statement simply shows evidence of reading someone else's work and not attempting to understand what you are rejecting.  In fact what you reject is not Christianity - but the sad and pathetic imagery that Dawkins or whoever you read has put out there - they might label it Christianity or religion - but they don't even have the integrity to find out what Christians and religions actually believe.  I don't believe in God for the rewards or the punishments. Another point of fake news from yourself.  My happiness does not rely upon eternal bliss.  I too am happy that I have freedom of thought.  

But that produces a dilemma doesn't? You have to reject that I am telling the truth.  You see, it is impossible for you to have free thought and for me to have free thought. At least from your point of view. 


I am happy that I am an atheist.
I am happy I am not an Atheist.  But let me be clear - that is not what makes me happy.  
Juice
Juice's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 63
0
0
5
Juice's avatar
Juice
0
0
5
-->
@Tradesecret
I have pity for you. I have great pity for you. 

You start off by listing a bunch of random qualities that are supposed to prove atheist as some sort of degenerate. Which is embarrassing because atheist are statistically smarter. Oops. 

 Religion does not blind the masses per se.  Nor does it require blind obedience.
I have to say, I physically laughed when I read that. I laughed. Religion is ALL about blind obedience. Religion is ALL about blind faith. It is quite literally a battle of who can ignore the most facts in the name of pure belief. 

most of the atheists I know simply drink it up without thinking.  
You really are a comedian. Either that or you are actually looking at a mirror. This is YOU. YOU are the one who blindly believes in an old musty book. YOU are the one you has blind faith. You say that I drink up facts without thinking? You are terribly wrong. I am not like you. I actually look at facts. I actually question things. I actually think. I actually value science and reasoning.  

Well there we go again. More fake reporting.  Christians do not obtain their happiness from a book.
Perhaps you misunderstood me. Here is what I know. Christians, whether conscious or not, are happy that they will live in eternal bliss, so long they bend their backs. They are happy that their good deeds are noticed. They are happy that they have a purpose. They are happy that they are not a little organism on a spinning ball in the middle of nowhere. They are happy that there is a superior being who cares and loves them. 

And I understand. Who doesn't want to be loved? Who doesn't want purpose? Who doesn't want to be recognised? But I personally do want to be happy because of a fictional character. I personally do not want to make up someone to love me. Because that is sad. Imagine needing to make up an imaginary person, and then feel satisfied that you are loved by your own false creation. Sounds a bit like doublethink from 1984. 

I too am happy that I have freedom of thought.  
How exactly are you more free than an atheist? I could very easily make the case that atheist are freer than religious people. 

If you wish to respond, please give me a short summary on why you believe God is real, despite millions of years worth of evolutionary science, and leading biologists, geologists, historians, politicians and evolutionists say otherwise. 


I have attached a video where Sam Harris deconstruct Christianity in 10 minutes. Please take the time to watch it. 


Juice
Juice's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 63
0
0
5
Juice's avatar
Juice
0
0
5
-->
@RoderickSpode
I didn't actually state that you look down on the religious, I stated that you feel superior. Is that wrong?
No. 


And what are religious people like that you're so happy you're not like?
Deluded. 


RD does not mention Muslims (or at least does not use them as a case against religious folks) in his book.  He uses facts and simple logic. The fact that you believe it is warped shows that you are clearly no very comfortable with accepting that you might be wrong. 
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
The God Delusion is preaching to the converted.

And who  are   Vicars or Chaplains or   Pastors and  the  Priests "preaching" to, when the hold their church services?

Who are they presenting  their sermons and homilies to?

Do they read from the book of bible when they present or conduct  a  reading about the  Christ and his "wonders"? 
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Juice
I have pity for you. I have great pity for you. 
I don't need you pity. 

You start off by listing a bunch of random qualities that are supposed to prove atheist as some sort of degenerate. Which is embarrassing because atheist are statistically smarter. Oops. 
Sorry, old chap, my list of qualities are not supposed to prove anything except the fact that most of the atheists I know are like that. I love the studies that people such as yourself produce and reproduce.   But they are biased studies - and easily shown to be so.   Academics rarely if ever actually go the lower economic socio groups to select their specimens for atheists.  They don't. They go to the local uni's. They never go to the local tradies to select their Christian counterparts - and I use Christian intentionally because from my point of view - if Christians were selected as a subgroup as opposed to all religious - and if atheists were selected from how people lived their lives - then the studies would demonstrate quite a different picture. Unfortunately, if such a study was produced - it would be rejected as being biased. Hence - whenever studies are done - unless it fits the picture of how the academics wants to frame the answer - it is dismissed. Fake studies are becoming more the norm today. 

 Religion does not blind the masses per se.  Nor does it require blind obedience.
I have to say, I physically laughed when I read that. I laughed. Religion is ALL about blind obedience. Religion is ALL about blind faith. It is quite literally a battle of who can ignore the most facts in the name of pure belief. 
Again - I am glad you can laugh. But the fact is - churches are voluntary organisations.  We love logic and we like to teach people how to use logic and reasoning.  The fact of religions verses Christianity needs to be mentioned as well.  We don't have to ignore facts. We embrace them. 

most of the atheists I know simply drink it up without thinking.  
You really are a comedian. Either that or you are actually looking at a mirror. This is YOU. YOU are the one who blindly believes in an old musty book. YOU are the one you has blind faith. You say that I drink up facts without thinking? You are terribly wrong. I am not like you. I actually look at facts. I actually question things. I actually think. I actually value science and reasoning.  
Why? I don't blindly believe in a musty old book. I took several years to learn the ancient languages so that I could read it myself.  I learned all about the ancient cultures so that I could understand as best I could how they lived back in those times so that I could best understand what the authors are saying.  I trained with people from all different religions and non-religions in order to make sure that I could best understand these cultures and languages.  I am not convinced that you look at facts and question them. I too value logic and science and reasoning. 


Well there we go again. More fake reporting.  Christians do not obtain their happiness from a book.
Perhaps you misunderstood me. Here is what I know. Christians, whether conscious or not, are happy that they will live in eternal bliss, so long they bend their backs. They are happy that their good deeds are noticed. They are happy that they have a purpose. They are happy that they are not a little organism on a spinning ball in the middle of nowhere. They are happy that there is a superior being who cares and loves them. 
Christians as a rule don't believe that their eternal bliss is dependent upon them being good - so bending their back is a straw man argument. Are we happy we have a purpose? Of course. So what. Is it what makes us happy? No.  Are we happy we are not little organisms on a spinning ball? Absolutely. But again - this is not what makes us happy.  Our identity is not found in our happiness.  Our joy is not found in being happy. Do we like that God cares for us? Of course - why would we not be ok with that? 

And I understand. Who doesn't want to be loved? Who doesn't want purpose? Who doesn't want to be recognised? But I personally do want to be happy because of a fictional character. I personally do not want to make up someone to love me. Because that is sad. Imagine needing to make up an imaginary person, and then feel satisfied that you are loved by your own false creation. Sounds a bit like doublethink from 1984. 
But you don't understand. And that is the issue.  these things are not what makes us happy.  I don't want to be happy just to please you. I dont want to be happy just to believe whatever you tell me is true - or to believe whatever i read in a book (science text book). I don't make anyone up to love me. I don't know anyone who does that. Gee I don't even believe that people from other religions - who believe in false gods - make their gods up to believe them. What a silly thing to say. 


I too am happy that I have freedom of thought.  
How exactly are you more free than an atheist? I could very easily make the case that atheist are freer than religious people. 
Because unlike you - I can actually think without the restraints of living in a box. I can think outside the box and not be restricted by what my non-faith tells me I can believe in. I can tap into the mind of the Almighty God of the Universe - which you simply just shut your mind from.  I am free from sin - which you are not. In fact - you deny even the concept of sin - which is even more telling.  You walk around like you are free - and yet you know you are trapped. 


If you wish to respond, please give me a short summary on why you believe God is real, despite millions of years worth of evolutionary science, and leading biologists, geologists, historians, politicians and evolutionists say otherwise. 
I don't wish to engage in that line of thinking. I don't find it very helpful and typically leads to ill feeling on both sides. 

I have attached a video where Sam Harris deconstruct Christianity in 10 minutes. Please take the time to watch it. 


Thanks for the video of Sam Harris.  I found his comments quite sad really.  He engages in straw man arguments - he set up a picture of God - which the bible does not even portray and then set about decimating that one.  Not really helpful unless you are preaching to the choir.  He utilizes an moral argument that relies upon natural law - or absolute law - and yet fails to provide any reason why it is valid.  He does not address the issue of evil - despite trying to say that God is evil.  He uses ad hominen and scorn laced arguements - not particular helpful ones. In fact I cannot recall him even using one valid argument.  Not one even had been scratching my head. 

God is impotent or God does not care.  LOL! Seriously.  I always find it interesting that on one hand atheists love to accuse God of doing nothing to address the evil in the world - so little girls get raped etc - and then when God judges an entire nation for being evil like raping little girls - then he is cruel and unjust.  The fact is God is not superman. He does not fly into a world to save people like that. And no Christian thinks that he does. It is a strawman argument. Similarly to say that God does not care conveniently forgets that for God the biggest problem of the world is sin. Yes, that thing that atheists deny exists. And God just happened to deal with that problem himself.  

That was another bit of misinformation Harris portrayed.    The bible does not support or condone human sacrifice. It does not. The Hebrew people of all the people at that time and around that time are historically recorded as condemning human sacrifice. They had statutes against it. And when they did practice it because they had mixed with the pagan nations who did practice it - God judged them.  It has a sacrificial system. It was bulls and sheep and birds. Not human. 

Jesus was not a human sacrifice in the sense of human sacrifices as we understand them.  From a human point of view he was executed not to God - but for religious offences of blasphemy.  No one offered Jesus up to the God to appease God in his righteousness. There was no priest at his death. 

Yet from a biblical point of view - as the Messiah - and as Fully Man and Fully God - it is a picture of God coming down to earth to do what humanity could not do themselves.  Does God sacrifice to God? now Christians do not say that God died on the cross.  Yet how many sacrifices - human sacrifices in all of the stories you hear about - have the sacrifice rising from the dead? None. Well now we Aslan I suppose - and the little girl from Frozen and others who have used the Jesus story.  

And then Sammy boy decided to use God is msyterious. Wow! I have no issue with God being mysterious. If the God of the Bible is accurate then God being mysterious is accurate as well.  But this does not mean we have to hide our heads in the sand.  

I say the problem of evil for instance is a significant issue for atheists. I think the existence of evil actually proves the existence of God.  I think it is one of the best proofs for God's existence. 

I think the bigger problem however for atheists is the issue of good.  Why are people good? And also why do people die? 

Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Jesus was not a human sacrifice in the sense of human sacrifices as we understand them.  

 That's exactly what he was . A very human sacrifice in a plot that went too far and almost horribly wrong.  You should learn to read the bible for yourself.  Jesus tried to back out  of this extremely dangerous plot but his "father" ignored him. But I don't have all the evidence to prove it. 

But I know of a brilliant author of the University of   Sydney's School of Divinity in Australia  who had  worked intensively on the Dead Sea Scrolls and  that I once met here in England.    Now hurry , and research who it that I am talking about.

  I can recommend the biblical lexicon they (the singular they)spent years researching and writing too.
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@SirAnonymous

Nihilism is the logical result of naturalistic atheism.
What about any other kind of existentialism? 


SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@Danielle
I think nihilism is the best fit for purely naturalistic atheism, although I can see how it could be used to justify other forms of existentialism. If the natural realm is all there is, any meaning we try to give our lives is ultimately illusory. Nothing has any value in the end. We live, and we die.
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
What happens if you believe in a God that didn't do a book. 
A NONE BOOK WRITING GOD if you will? 

Are Your saying that , " Beliving in a none book writing god " is the same as being a atheists ?


Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
The reason why idolatry in denial(atheism) cannot fulfill is because it is built on sand.

Where does every "Life has no meaning, so I make my own meaning" path end up? A brick wall called vanity.

Better to live for The Truth. Loving The Truth naturally leads one towards emotional and psychological well being. 

Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
What happens if you believe in a God that didn't do a book. 
A NONE BOOK WRITING GOD if you will? 

Are Your saying that , " Beliving in a none book writing god " is the same as being a atheists ?

What an insightful thought you have produced. And oh so true.  A believer of whatever without some form of objective truth that is transparent and can be analysed leaves us only with subjectivity, relativism, fluidity.  This of course is the position of an atheist. And his moral universe. 
Juice
Juice's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 63
0
0
5
Juice's avatar
Juice
0
0
5
Sorry, old chap, my list of qualities are not supposed to prove anything except the fact that most of the atheists I know are like that.
Anecdotal Fallacy. Facts 

I love the studies that people such as yourself produce and reproduce.   But they are biased studies - and easily shown to be so.   


I have to say, I physically laughed when I read that. I laughed. Religion is ALL about blind obedience. Religion is ALL about blind faith. It is quite literally a battle of who can ignore the most facts in the name of pure belief. 
Again - I am glad you can laugh. But the fact is - churches are voluntary organisations. 
Please tell me you are joking. Yes, churches are technically voluntary, but what choice are you giving a small child who you've instilled upon them that praying to the wrong God will end with the burning in eternity? You have robbed the child of any freedom when you shoved the bible in their face and forced them to bend their knees. If one chose, they could choose to instil any quality into a little child. Given the right conditions, you could almost certainly mould a killed out of a child with constant violence and abuse. 

We don't have to ignore facts. We embrace them. 
Yes, except for the big bang. And geological evidence that the world is older than 10 00 years. And the fact that lights are detected from stars millions of years away, showing the universe is older than the bible record. You know, just ignore that stuff and perform some ad hoc manoeuvres and your religion should be safe.  


I took several years to learn the ancient languages so that I could read it myself.  I learned all about the ancient cultures so that I could understand as best I could how they lived back in those times so that I could best understand what the authors are saying.  I trained with people from all different religions and non-religions in order to make sure that I could best understand these cultures and languages.  I am not convinced that you look at facts and question them. I too value logic and science and reasoning. 
What you have done is equivalent to analysing the Harry Potter series in a foreign language. The very fact that you swiped Dakwkins aside with a wave of your hand's dhows that you are not open to facts. Dawkins book contains facts which are followed by logic which are easily understood. He uses testable evidence, recognised studies and logic, all three of which the bible lacks. Where is the evidence in the bible? Where are the testable studies? 


Christians as a rule don't believe that their eternal bliss is dependent upon them being good - so bending their back is a straw man argument. Are we happy we have a purpose? Of course. So what. Is it what makes us happy? No.  Are we happy we are not little organisms on a spinning ball? Absolutely. But again - this is not what makes us happy.  Our identity is not found in our happiness.  Our joy is not found in being happy. Do we like that God cares for us? Of course - why would we not be ok with that? 
Contradiction after contradiction. You state that you are happy with a purpose. You state that you are happy you are not a little organism on a spinning ball. And then you state that you are happy God cares about you. But this is exactly what I was saying. We ARE a little organism on a spinning on a ball. The only difference is that you cannot face it and wrap yourself in cotton while I face it head-on. But then after this you state that these things don't make you happy. So what does make you happy?


And I understand. Who doesn't want to be loved? Who doesn't want purpose? Who doesn't want to be recognised? But I personally do want to be happy because of a fictional character. I personally do not want to make up someone to love me. Because that is sad. Imagine needing to make up an imaginary person, and then feel satisfied that you are loved by your own false creation. Sounds a bit like doublethink from 1984. 
But you don't understand. And that is the issue.  these things are not what makes us happy.  I don't want to be happy just to please you. I dont want to be happy just to believe whatever you tell me is true - or to believe whatever I read in a book (science text book). I don't make anyone up to love me. I don't know anyone who does that. Gee I don't even believe that people from other religions - who believe in false gods - make their gods up to believe them. What a silly thing to say. 


I too am happy that I have freedom of thought.  
How exactly are you more free than an atheist? I could very easily make the case that atheist are freer than religious people. 
Because unlike you - I can actually think without the restraints of living in a box. I can think outside the box and not be restricted by what my non-faith tells me I can believe in. I can tap into the mind of the Almighty God of the Universe - which you simply just shut your mind from.  I am free from sin - which you are not. In fact - you deny even the concept of sin - which is even more telling.  You walk around like you are free - and yet you know you are trapped. 

I don't wish to engage in that line of thinking. I don't find it very helpful and typically leads to ill feeling on both sides. 
A wise a move. 

The fact is God is not superman.
No he's not. He's G O D. He can kill every living organism on the planet without a trace with the flick of a hand. He can send a wave strong enough to kill anything and everything. He can certainly save little children are being raped. He could certainly save the Jews from being gassed.


He does not fly into a world to save people like that.
What happened to being Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnipresence? What happened to loving everyone like his children?The only reason that God didn't save the Jews from being gassed with they children is either a) he couldn't or b) he didn't care. Tell me, which one is it. 

 I found his comments quite sad really.  He engages in straw man arguments - he set up a picture of God - which the bible does not even portray and then set about decimating that one.
He really doesn't though. Everything he gets is from the bible. Where exactly does he start making things up?

Jesus was not a human sacrifice in the sense of human sacrifices as we understand them
Do I even need to address this?

I think the bigger problem however for atheists is the issue of good.  Why are people good? And also why do people die? 

Why are people good? Religion does not help solve this issue. Is murder bad because it is or is it bad because God says it is? If it is a) then God is simply making an observation and telling us humans, and if it's b) then the question of good becomes even more confusing, as Ancient Greeks were fairly moral beings (in the sense that they believed murder was bad) and were not commanded by God 

I am truly confused as to how people can really still believe in God despite mountain loads of contradictory evidence. 


RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@Juice
I didn't actually state that you look down on the religious, I stated that you feel superior. Is that wrong?

No. 
You don't look down on the religious, but just feel superior?


And what are religious people like that you're so happy you're not like?
Deluded. 

I appreciate you answering the question, but  it wasn't by any means meant to be a replacement for this one

"You're happy you're not like poor people? What are poor like?"


RD does not mention Muslims (or at least does not use them as a case against religious folks) in his book.  He uses facts and simple logic. The fact that you believe it is warped shows that you are clearly no very comfortable with accepting that you might be wrong. 

Did you think I meant the book was warped? If so, like I said, I never read it.

This is what I consider warped.

My respect for the Abrahamic religions went up in the smoke and choking dust of September 11th. The last vestige of respect for the taboo disappeared as I watched the "Day of Prayer" in Washington Cathedral, where people of mutually incompatible faiths united in homage to the very force that caused the problem in the first place: religion. It is time for people of intellect, as opposed to people of faith, to stand up and say "Enough!" Let our tribute to the dead be a new resolve: to respect people for what they individually think, rather than respect groups for what they were collectively brought up to believe.



It's actually quite creepy.

He's no doubt an intelligent, perhaps brilliant man in the science field he thrives in. He just needs to stay out of the subject of religion. He needs to stay in his lane. And that article makes it quite clear.


that you are clearly no very comfortable with accepting that you might be wrong. 

Do you accept you might be wrong?
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Juice
Your stand is backed up by a book written by peasants and strung together with faith.

Oh I see, I figured you were the type to make assumptions about my beliefs before you ask and learn. We can make these exchanges short and sweet, we can do that by you making no assumptions and by asking me if you wish to know something. Thanks.
To start with, my position is well thought out, carefully weighed and un-biased. I use the whole picture of what is available (religion as a whole, as well as what we know through science) to make the best conclusions. But thanks for asking.

My stance is supported by leading scientists and millions of years of evolution.

Science is not atheism, never was. It is a neutral study, did your boy Dawkins tell you that in his book lol? Theism and science are perfectly compatible. We can get to that, but you're going to have to start asking questions instead of making assumptions. Thanks.

I recommend you read some of Richard Dawkins books, they really do enlighten you.

Son, I've been in this game probably half your lifespan or more. I already know what is written just by debating Atheists for this long. Nothing enlightening about atheism or natural selection, but thanks for looking out for me.

I do not know that the creator does not exist, but I know enough not to be fooled.

Nobody in this conversation is trying to fool you, settle down we need to cover some ground before you get all this twisted.

Take the garden fairies for example.

Why? am I arguing in favor of fairies? no need to insult my intelligence, Theism is a well grounded proposition. We can get to that, but we obviously need to hash some things out.

What if I told you that there are faires in your garden which you cannot detect with any of your senses? What if I gave no evidence? What if I told you that it is real and that you have to "have faith" in order for it to work. True, I do not know with 100% conviction that the fairies do not exist, but I am pretty damn certain. I do not believe in God as certainly as I do not believe in garden fairies.

Have I told you anything yet?

Because I have something called facts. I have scientists. I have proof and as I said, I have millions of years worth of evolutionary science on my side. You have a book which is written by peasents and endorses slavery. I am not the arbiter of truth, I am simply a moth who is drawn to truth. I simply stand with truth.

Scientists are not on your side, you've placed them on your side. Evolution and the processes of our universe are intelligently produced and accomplished. Processes are associated with intelligence, intelligence with agency therefore the processes that take place within the universe are compatible with a Creator, creation is a process. Inanimate forces cannot generate processes and know how something should unfold to work, that requires thought and mind.
You're not the only one who loves truth and who would never put anything in between yourself and the truth, you've decided for whatever reason you are the arbiter of truth and I'm here to correct that. I've always been drawn to truth, that's why I engage in all of this.

"Athiest love to delude themselves". Funny coming from a religious lad from you, considering your life revolves around a musty old fictional book. I am a higher than you. My personal view is superior, because it can be backed up with facts. My views are supportable. My views can be proven. My views are testafiable. My views are logical. My views have withstood intense questioning. And yet they stand.

Yet your stands, well, it is all faith. Blind belief. It really is pitiful how gulliable one can be.

You haven't shown anything at all yet, you're just patting yourself on the back, have made immature assumptions. Nothing new here, this is how you guys tout yourselves, whatever makes you feel special I suppose but let me know at any point if you're interested in a mature conversation with zero assumptions about my character.

One of RationalMadmans questions was how an athiest can be happy knowing that they are just a organism on a spinning ball in a void of nothing. That was my answer. As to you question of happiness between athiest and religious folks, I still stand by my statement.

What?

I am happy that I can face the world without needing to be wrapped in cotton. I am happy I can face the truth. I am happy that I don't need God to look over me in order to feel secure.

Sounds like you are happy to make assumptions more than anything else. But thanks for the warm sentiments lol. From here on out, I'm going to ignore your assumptions and insults and reply directly to any relevant content, which as it stands right now is not very much. When you decide you want to know about my beliefs, how they were formed or what I feel just ask.

Sure, spending early mornings in churches praying to what you believe loves you can be a great comforter. People want to be loved. People want to be cared about. People want to be noticed. But I do not want love from a fictional character. I am proud that I am strong enough to love myself without needing assistance from God.

Was all that necessary to answer a simple question? I'm not asking what you want or what I want, that wasn't the question. What I'm asking is what do you THINK about the implications if it were true.
BTW, stop lumping me in with all religious types and what you've decided to assume about them, thanks. 

Karma is not real. When I say this, I mean the kind of karma which takes note of your evil and bites you back. Karma is just a label people put on unlucky events. Take this as an example. I hit a schoolmate in class and then fell over at lunch, breaking my leg. Karma did not snap my leg. Karma did not direct me to fall. I fell because of my own physical carelessness.

Lol.

If you need help escaping the arms of religion, I recommend you read the book God Delusion. It uses logic, facts and reasoning to convince one that God is not real.

No need to peddle atheist books here, I'm well informed. I'm not convinced at all given what I've encountered in my life from observation and weighing the facts. I use logic, facts and reasoning to know better again....you're not the superior thinker here, you've assumed yourself to be.

Juice
Juice's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 63
0
0
5
Juice's avatar
Juice
0
0
5
-->
@EtrnlVw

To start with, my position is well thought out, carefully weighed and un-biased. I use the whole picture of what is available (religion as a whole, as well as what we know through science) to make the best conclusions. But thanks for asking.
Oh yes of course. Yes yes, except for when you ignore archaeologists fossil discoveries which disapprove of the history of animals displayed by the bible. And of course you shut your eyes and cover your eyes when confronted with scientific papers stating the earth is older than ten thousand years old. What about lights detected from millions of years away? Of course, they don't count. Darwinism? Arguably one of the most important discoveries in the history of human evolution?

Just ignore that as well to protect your little slave encouraging,  jealous and proud of it; petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak who is a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. 

Science is not atheism, never was. It is a neutral study, did your boy Dawkins tell you that in his book lol? Theism and science are perfectly compatible. We can get to that, but you're going to have to start asking questions instead of making assumptions. Thanks.
Science is not atheism, but atheism uses science. Theism and science are perfectly compatible!? Hahaha, unless you count it when you back bending folks use ad hoc after ad hoc to defend your precious delusion. Fossil's show that man did not walk with dinosaurs? No problem, just say that dinosaurs were slow and stupid. What's that? That's not enough? Sure thing, we'll just say that God clicked his fingers and killed every single organism. Ad hoc after ad hoc after ad hoc. It is quite the circus show. 

Have I told you anything yet?
Besides a bunch of BS? Nope. Is this a good way of escaping a question? Yup. 

You haven't shown anything at all yet, you're just patting yourself on the back, have made immature assumptions. Nothing new here, this is how you guys tout yourselves, whatever makes you feel special I suppose but let me know at any point if you're interested in a mature conversation with zero assumptions about my character.
This is not a debate so I did not provide any sources, but very well, if you want to humiliate yourself...


I'm not going to link anything else here as I can already predict what you will do. Ignore, deflect and lie. 

Scientists are not on your side, you've placed them on your side.
Except for Richard Dawkins. Except for Charles Darwins. Except for Christopher Hitchens. Except for Sam Harris. Except for Stephen Hawking. Except for Michel Houellebecq. Except for Peter Singer. 

Evolution and the processes of our universe are intelligently produced and accomplished. Processes are associated with intelligence, intelligence with agency therefore the processes that take place within the universe are compatible with a Creator, creation is a process. Inanimate forces cannot generate processes and know how something should unfold to work, that requires thought and mind.
Clearly you are not well acquainted with science to say that essentially say something can come from nothing. Your thinking is very limited. You act like nature cares about you. Yes creation is a process, but it isn't the process which created the universe. Your whole theory hypocritical and contradictory. When scientists say the universe came from nothing, you say that isn't possible. When atheist asks who created God, you say "don't worry about man, God is different". It is quite embarrassing that you use the logic that you deny to support you theory. 


you've decided for whatever reason you are the arbiter of truth and I'm here to correct that.
I am not the arbiter of truth. I do not emit truth. I am simply attracted to truth and therefore stand by truth where ever it may be. 

I've always been drawn to truth, that's why I engage in all of this.
Cap. 

When you decide you want to know about my beliefs, how they were formed or what I feel just ask.
Personally, I'm not one who's interested in fiction, but no matters. Tell me why you believe in your delusions despite all the evidence I have listed. Tell me why you ignore archaeologists, astronomers, geologists, biologists and politicians who string it all together. 

You talk big about me making assumptions, but really, am I wrong? You believe in a man who was born of a virgin mother, stabbed to death, buried and then bought back to life by his father who is also himself. Sounds like a joke. 

No need to peddle atheist books here, I'm well informed.
Cap. 

you're not the superior thinker here, you've assumed yourself to be.
I am. I am the superior thinker. That is exactly what I am. You know why? Because I don't ignore millions of years worth of evolutionary science. Because I am not blind to facts. Because I believe scientific papers which have been examined endlessly. Because I believe astronomers with their billion dollar telescopes. Because I believe things which can and have been testified. While you believe in a musty old book written by peasants. Here are some versus for you to mutter in your morning pray. 

Judges 19:23-24

23 The owner of the house went outside and said to them, “No, my friends, don’t be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don’t do this outrageous thing. 

24 Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But as for this man, don’t do such an outrageous thing.”

25 But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine (wife, women who lives with a male) and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. 

26 At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight.

27 When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. 

28 He said to her, “Get up; let’s go.” But there was no answer (dead). Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.

I particularly likes this one as God comes in and saves the poor girl from what would be an unimaginably horrific experience. I love how God loves this girl. I love how God taught these men a lesson. I love how God protected this girl at a time of darkness. 

Please, just please. Stop. Stop this. Put the bible down. 


Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Juice


Scientists are not on your side, you've placed them on your side.
Except for Richard Dawkins. Except for Charles Darwins. Except for Christopher Hitchens. Except for Sam Harris. Except for Stephen Hawking. Except for Michel Houellebecq. Except for Peter Singer. 

 I think the late and great  American astronomer, planetary scientist, cosmologist, astrophysicist, astrobiologist, author, poet and science communicator, Carl Sagan more than deserves a place in your hall of  fame, to be honest, Juice.


You [Christians] believe in a man who was born of a virgin mother, stabbed to death, buried and then bought back to life by his father who is also himself. Sounds like a joke. 
Or a  trick? 
"This myth of Christ has served us well" were the words said to have been uttered by Pope Leo X.  But no matter who said them they were on the money as far as the New Testaments version of the life of Christ was concerned. 




you're not the superior thinker here, you've assumed yourself to be.
I am. I am the superior thinker. That is exactly what I am. You know why? Because I don't ignore millions of years worth of evolutionary science. Because I am not blind to facts. Because I believe scientific papers which have been examined endlessly. Because I believe astronomers with their billion dollar telescopes. Because I believe things which can and have been testified. While you believe in a musty old book written by peasants. Here are some versus for you to mutter in your morning pray. 

Judges 19:23-24

23 The owner of the house went outside and said to them, “No, my friends, don’t be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don’t do this outrageous thing. 

24 Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But as for this man, don’t do such an outrageous thing.”

25 But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine (wife, women who lives with a male) and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. 

26 At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight.

27 When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. 

28 He said to her, “Get up; let’s go.” But there was no answer (dead). Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.

I particularly likes this one as God comes in and saves the poor girl from what would be an unimaginably horrific experience. I love how God loves this girl. I love how God taught these men a lesson. I love how God protected this girl at a time of darkness. 

Please, just please. Stop. Stop this. Put the bible down. 



Now here I would suggest completely the opposite. People  that are interested in  Christian  "religion" should pick up these scriptures and discover themselves the - 

"little slave encouraging,  jealous and proud of it; petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak who is a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully".  That you have discovered.


Judges 19:23-24

24 Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish.

 And what a bloody nice  god fearing loyal family man, the father was , eh?  I have to wonder what the likes of  EtrnlVw would have to say to defend the actions of this fkn vile bstrd of a father? I am sure it will start with something to do with your not understanding the "context". Lets see. 

Juice
Juice's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 63
0
0
5
Juice's avatar
Juice
0
0
5
-->
@Stephen
As I stated before, expect nothing less than ad hoc manoeuvres or straight up lies. 

EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Juice
Oh yes of course. Yes yes, except for when you ignore archaeologists fossil discoveries which disapprove of the history of animals displayed by the bible. And of course you shut your eyes and cover your eyes when confronted with scientific papers stating the earth is older than ten thousand years old. What about lights detected from millions of years away? Of course, they don't count. Darwinism? Arguably one of the most important discoveries in the history of human evolution?

Again you never asked you just assumed. Looks like this will be all about what you assume and not what I told you.

Just ignore that as well to protect your little slave encouraging,  jealous and proud of it; petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak who is a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

Not useful content. No argument here.

Science is not atheism,

Bingo, now we are getting at the truth.

but atheism uses science.

You mean interprets science. 

Theism and science are perfectly compatible!? Hahaha, unless you count it when you back bending folks use ad hoc after ad hoc to defend your precious delusion. Fossil's show that man did not walk with dinosaurs? No problem, just say that dinosaurs were slow and stupid. What's that? That's not enough? Sure thing, we'll just say that God clicked his fingers and killed every single organism. Ad hoc after ad hoc after ad hoc. It is quite the circus show.

No argument here either, more assumptions about MY beliefs lol.

Besides a bunch of BS? Nope. Is this a good way of escaping a question? Yup.

Perhaps you could quote that BS I told you.

This is not a debate so I did not provide any sources, but very well, if you want to humiliate yourself...

The only battle between science, the theory of evolution is the assumption that God is omitted from the processes of the universe not that they never happened. This goes back to what I'm saying about atheism, atheists have their interpretations but they are only opinions. It's not a battle between science and theism, it's an argument between theism and materialism/atheism. 

I'm not going to link anything else here as I can already predict what you will do. Ignore, deflect and lie.

Sounds like you're paranoid. Once you stop assuming things we can make some headway.

Except for Richard Dawkins. Except for Charles Darwins. Except for Christopher Hitchens. Except for Sam Harris. Except for Stephen Hawking. Except for Michel Houellebecq. Except for Peter Singer.

Those men stand for their own beliefs not science and they don't represent science they represent atheism, they are philosophers not scientists lol. More over they are atheists who decided to hijack the researches of scientific works twisting them into works of materialism. Read below again....

Evolution and the processes of our universe are intelligently produced and accomplished. Processes are associated with intelligence, intelligence with agency therefore the processes that take place within the universe are compatible with a Creator, creation is a process. Inanimate forces cannot generate processes and know how something should unfold to work, that requires thought and mind.

Now, it's funny how you mock religious thinkers because they gain insights from "books" and follow other religious thinkers yet here you are pandering to works of atheists and gullibly following them like a lost little sheep lol.

Clearly you are not well acquainted with science to say that essentially say something can come from nothing.

Never said that.

Your thinking is very limited.

That would be the poster who keeps making wild assumptions before asking his opponent about his beliefs and what they are, how they came about. Also the guy that learns to think from extreme atheist writers.

You act like nature cares about you. Yes creation is a process,

Sounds like we have one good starting point here, lets see where you go with it.

but it isn't the process which created the universe. Your whole theory hypocritical and contradictory.

What? seems like you are capable of writing and making clear of your assumptions but when trying to make a counter point that is relevant you fail miserably. Try that again.

When scientists say the universe came from nothing, you say that isn't possible. When atheist asks who created God, you say "don't worry about man, God is different". It is quite embarrassing that you use the logic that you deny to support you theory.

You never asked me anything, lets try that first but you actually have to ask lol. Do you know what the term assumption means, you are fluent in the art of assumptions son.

I am not the arbiter of truth.

Agreed, now remember that as we continue.

I do not emit truth. I am simply attracted to truth and therefore stand by truth where ever it may be.

You say you do not claim God does not exist, or at least don't know. If you do not know for a fact your whole foundation could be false if God does exist. Therefore you have no reason to claim you stand for truth wherever it may be. You have accepted atheism, not knowing whether of not God exists, then you make the claim you stand for truth. Now that is a contradiction.

Personally, I'm not one who's interested in fiction, but no matters. Tell me why you believe in your delusions despite all the evidence I have listed. Tell me why you ignore archaeologists, astronomers, geologists, biologists and politicians who string it all together.

You can ask me a question without being rude and insulting. And without making assumptions. This is what that would look like below....

Question number one.....Tell me why you believe what you do?

Question number two....Do you ignore archaeologists, astronomers, geologists, biologists and politicians who string it all together?

Are those your questions?

You talk big about me making assumptions, but really, am I wrong?

100%

You believe in a man who was born of a virgin mother, stabbed to death, buried and then bought back to life by his father who is also himself. Sounds like a joke.

No

I am. I am the superior thinker. That is exactly what I am. You know why?

LOL, yes I know why you've assumed that. 

Because I don't ignore millions of years worth of evolutionary science. Because I am not blind to facts. Because I believe scientific papers which have been examined endlessly. Because I believe astronomers with their billion dollar telescopes. Because I believe things which can and have been testified. While you believe in a musty old book written by peasants. Here are some versus for you to mutter in your morning pray.

No content here, just more silly assumptions.

I particularly likes this one as God comes in and saves the poor girl from what would be an unimaginably horrific experience. I love how God loves this girl. I love how God taught these men a lesson. I love how God protected this girl at a time of darkness.

Please, just please. Stop. Stop this. Put the bible down.

Yet you're the one who quoted it, wow.


Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Juice


The Truth is God. The Ultimate Reality.

This simple understanding here renders atheism an untenable position. Nihilism is a self defeating worldview.

Richard Dawkins has no understanding whatsoever of God. His fame is the direct result of a society dissatisfied with the vapidities of protestantism and other heterodox forms of Christianity. His field is pseudoscience. He does not actually perform any science. His field amounts to little more than drinking wine by a fire place while masturbating intellectually. His genes are so selfish, he has only one child to show for his 3 failed marriages.

Really, if I was an atheist, I would not want Dawkins as my represenative. He is not even a clever person, and is obnoxiously boorish.


You say that Christianity is the easy way out, but at least in the case of Orthodox Christianity, that is, true Christianity, there is nothing easy about it. Rather, it is an embrace of struggle and suffering for the sake of Truth and charity towards one's fellows in Truth.



Juice
Juice's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 63
0
0
5
Juice's avatar
Juice
0
0
5
An embarrassingly poor response strung together by ignorance,self-importance and denial. Upon being confronted with my facts, I am notconfronted for being wrong, EtrnlVw simply says I assumed.
 
Upon being confronted with the true characteristics of God,I am again, not confronted for being wrong, but simply side swept with the waveof a hand. (like how God waved his hand and caused a flood to kill every livingorganism because he felt like it.)


but athiesm uses science
you mean interprest science 

This is where EtrnlVw’s intelligence is truly reflected. Theonly chaps who interpret things are you religious folks and your book. Sciencecannot be interpreted. Science is science. You cannot bend the facts. Eitheryou are with science or you are not.
 
When confronted with facts regarding geology and archaeology,my opponent simply says “but you assumed this”. Damn right I did. I am usingwhat you religious folks say. I don’t need to personalise a set of question foryou.
 
You know EtrnlVw’s a terrible debater when they have to usethe “you assumed” card 3 times in the space of 3 paragraphs. Remember! When facedwith facts, just ignore, deny and side sweep.

Now, it's funny how you mock religious thinkers because they gain insights from "books" and follow other religious thinkers yet here you are pandering to works of atheists and gullibly following them like a lost little sheep lol.
You've made a fatal error. You are assuming that I think like you. You are assuming that I have faith in books. Haha, sorry, I'm not like you. I don't blindly believe. Do you know why I believe Dawkins? Because he uses logic, facts, statistics and science. I do not blindly follow Dawkins. I do not blindly follow Darwins. They have provided testable facts and observations which I, after a thorough examination, have accepted. I do not blindly believe Dawkins. If one day he stated the earth was flat, I would hear him out, see if he has any valid facts and then accept or reject his theory. On the other hand, if God commanded you to kill, you would do just that. (Before you say that's an assumption, you get your morality from the book, so whatever it says you will do. Just like a lost little sheep lol.)

You say you do not claim God does not exist, or at least don't know. If you do not know for a fact your whole foundation could be false if God does exist. Therefore you have no reason to claim you stand for truth wherever it may be. You have accepted atheism, not knowing whether of not God exists, then you make the claim you stand for truth. Now that is a contradiction.
Returning to my point about the garden fairies (Swifty dismissed), I do not need to give evidence as to why something doesn't exist. If I claimed there were garden fairies in my flower bed which couldn't be observed or detected in anyways, how would you disapprove me? What if I then said that these fairies were the creator of the universe? What if I told you to bend your back and pray to these fairies? Yes technically, I do not know that these fairies do not exist, but the lack of evidence gives me a good cause not to believe. 

It's not a battle between science and theism, it's an argument between theism and materialism/atheism. 
Credit where due, this is a good point. However, between theism and atheism, atheism is the more accurate standpoint. Here is atheism in a nutshell. You say God is real. I say where's the proof. You say you don't have any. I say I don't believe you. The difference between theism and atheism is that theists add their own interpretations and atheists don't. When an atheist sees archaeologist proving man did not walk with dinosaurs, they see it as is. When theists see it, they add the on the bit about the flood to use science, yes, but with their own untestable modifications.  
 
When questioned about the evil bible verse, EtrnlVw responded with what seems to be an attempt to be funny. No proper answer no sir, just a deflection of blame. I will once again quote it here for all to see. 

Judges 19:23-24

23 The owner of the house went outside and said to them, “No, my friends, don’t be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don’t do this outrageous thing. 

24 Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But as for this man, don’t do such an outrageous thing.”

25 But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine (wife, women who lives with a male) and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. 

26 At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight.

27 When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. 

28 He said to her, “Get up; let’s go.” But there was no answer (dead). Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.

This comes from your book of goodness and truth. 

You can ask me a question without being rude and insulting.
Listen here big man, I'll talk to you however I want, chump.  You can either answer the questions in hopes of humiliating me or you can slither away as you have done and admit to defeat. Here are the questions, answer them if you are capable. 

Why do you ignore millions of years worth of evolutionary science which states all that every living thing has commen ancestor. (Contradictory to the bible which states that God created humans instantly)

Why do you ignore geological evidence which confirms the world is older than 10 000 years old?

Why do you ignore astromnemers who have observed light from distant starts, confirming the universe is billions of years old?

Why do you ignore Steven Hawkings' discovery (testable) that something did come from nothing?

Why do you ignore Richard Dawkins testable findings that the case for God is weak? 

Why do you love a God who is inactive when Jews are being gassed?

Why do you love a God who created bugs which bit into children's eyes, causing them to go blind?

Why do you love a God who doesn't care that children are being raped?

Why do natural disasters occur, killing millions annually?
Juice
Juice's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 63
0
0
5
Juice's avatar
Juice
0
0
5
-->
@EtrnlVw
Refer to above. 
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Juice
There is nothing scientific about denying ultimate reality.
Juice
Juice's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 63
0
0
5
Juice's avatar
Juice
0
0
5
-->
@Mopac
There's nothing scientific about invisible floating sky man. 
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Juice
Nobody believes in an invisble floaty sky man.

RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@Mopac
True!

The closest thing I know of to a floaty sky man would be during the Macy's Thanksgiving parade.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@RoderickSpode
NOT INVISIBLE

Chicago?
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@Juice
Listen here big man, I'll talk to you however I want, chump.
While you can talk however you want, that doesn't mean you should. You aren't going to change people's minds by talking down to them. In fact, that will simply put them on the defensive and further entrench them in their positions. If you're interested in changing minds, then it is better to be polite and seek to understand what the other person is saying, even if you disagree with it. Real life is not a Ben Shapiro video.
Juice
Juice's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 63
0
0
5
Juice's avatar
Juice
0
0
5
-->
@Mopac
Ok, I'll reword it. There is nothing scientific about a God of which no evidence can confirm.