Why do Atheists Hate Religion?

[BADecker]

You know, maybe you're an atheist, but you're truly devoted to your fight against religion, no doubt about that. Cause spending so much energy on a debate with someone obviously disagreeing fundamentally with you is close to faith you know?

What I care about is wooly thinking and people who try to deceive others by presenting logical fallacies as a real argument. Whether that's by someone who is religious or atheist or a sheep shagger, I care not.

If spending energy on a discussion is a religion, then logic is my religion and my God is maths, and people who make illogical or purposely misleading arguments are sinners who offend my religious sensibilities.

Lol.
I didn't want to talk about religion but more about the fact that you truly have faith in your opponents to maybe one day change their opinion.  Which they won't obviously.

I continue the discussion for readers who might be mislead by people who have an agenda. I have no hope whatsoever of changing BADecker mind, or whatever BitNow uses to do his thinking, but I do hope that I can reveal their arguments to be the unsupportable opinions they are.

Oh, this is so rare.  

Not really rare, no.

"I continue the discussion for readers who might be mislead by people who have an agenda." Translation. "I continue the discussion for readers who might be mislead by myself and my agenda."

I've made my agenda clear. I'm not pro anything other than truth and logic, and I'll always own up to it. I have made no misleading posts.

"I have no hope whatsoever of changing BADecker mind, or whatever BitNow uses to do his thinking..." Translation. "Badecker and BitNow are two people I won't be able to mislead by my agenda."

No, you're two people who have such ossified thinking that I won't be able to change your mind.

"...but I do hope that I can reveal their arguments to be the unsupportable opinions they are." Translation. "But I hope that I can change the focus of other people by calling their facts opinions."

Again, no. Your statements are unsupported, and many unsupportable. They are opinions until you can prove them to be otherwise.

But I don't think they're are any logical fallacies in BADecker words. It's just that there is no logic at all that's all. Everything is fine until you corner him somewhere and he just ignores parts of your arguments that he can't deal with  

When he is trying to argue, the arguments regularly contain excluded middles, ad-hominem attacks and strawman arguments. Logic goes out the window only when that is pointed out to him.

Well, thank you again for showing us that the only thing you express about science proving the existence of God, is ad-hominem attacks in subtle form.

Subtle ad hominem attacks? If they're subtle, they can't be very attacky, can they?

Seriously though, if you take the piss -- which you regularly do -- I may respond in kind, if I can be bothered. But that's not an "ad hominem attack" -- I'm not trying to prove a point or make an agument if I call you a callous dolt.

OTOH your posts recently always do make ad hominem attacks, and not very subtly either.

If you really believed that science didn't prove the existence of God in the ways that I have said, you would have provided some kind of scientific explanation or evidence backing beliefs up.

I have tried to have that discussion with you, but every time I ask you to prove an assertion you fail to do so, and get all cranky and eventually just call your assertion a fact.

Rather, you continually focus on me, and attempt to turn the science I use into, simply, my opinions.

I'm not focussing on you and it's egotistical to think so. You post here a lot. I'm responding to your posts. If you want to start another discussion about the proof of god, go ahead.

Thank you for helping to confirm the science I express, by showing over and over again that you are unable to refute it. And thank you for making the confirmation even stronger,

You don't express science, and you have made no arguments. You just make statements and fail to prove them. That's not an argument, it's lecturing. If you can handle someone questioning your ideas, don't post.

by using subtle ad-hominem attacks on me, thereby proving that you have no other capability.

I've made no ad hominem attacks, subtle or otherwise. I've called you names, sure ( egotistical, callous, unfeeling, incompetent, illogical, easily upset, childish,  are just a few that I've either used or consider using) but I haven't done so in the hopes of using that to win an argument. You do.

Thank you, again, for more confirmation of the scientifically proven fact that God exists. Rather than focus on disproving it, you focus on me, and maybe yourself. Why do you do this? Simply because you don't have any real evidence that the science I have expressed DOESN'T prove that God exists.

Thanks again.

[1714253891]

1714253891

[1714253891]

1714253891

[BADecker]

You asked if I would start a war against religion because you mentioned faith.  I wrote I have no problem with faith, only with your characterisation of science. Now you write "Of course you have a problem: you have no Faith!". This is meaningless, unless you think that science == faith, which as I explained to you before is a contradiction in terms.

Now it is you who is talking without thinking. Science DOES equal faith in all sorts of ways. What scientist would look for some aspect of science if he didn't have faith that it could be found? Who would ever formulate scientific theories if he didn't have faith that they might be able to be proven? or if he didn't have faith that his theories would help him prove other things in science? or if he didn't have faith that his peer review would earn him status or money somehow? Most of science absolutely does equal faith.

No. I've never met a scientist arrogant enough to *have faith* they're right. There will be undoubtedly be some, but the ones i know *hope* they're right. If they had faith they were right, they wouldn't bother with experiments since that would be a waste of time.

Replace "faith" with "hope" in your statement above and you'll be nearer the mark.

I Corinthians 13:13:

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love.
But the greatest of these is love.

[BADecker]

You asked if I would start a war against religion because you mentioned faith.  I wrote I have no problem with faith, only with your characterisation of science. Now you write "Of course you have a problem: you have no Faith!". This is meaningless, unless you think that science == faith, which as I explained to you before is a contradiction in terms.

Now it is you who is talking without thinking. Science DOES equal faith in all sorts of ways. What scientist would look for some aspect of science if he didn't have faith that it could be found? Who would ever formulate scientific theories if he didn't have faith that they might be able to be proven? or if he didn't have faith that his theories would help him prove other things in science? or if he didn't have faith that his peer review would earn him status or money somehow? Most of science absolutely does equal faith.

No. I've never met a scientist arrogant enough to *have faith* they're right. There will be undoubtedly be some, but the ones i know *hope* they're right. If they had faith they were right, they wouldn't bother with experiments since that would be a waste of time.

Replace "faith" with "hope" in your statement above and you'll be nearer the mark.

Faith is when your mind doesn't know but your heart tells you so.
Scientists don't hink with their heart but with their brain. So they can't have faith. That would be a nonsense.

Of course they sometimes have faith in their theories and that's why they do test it. But they just have faith in their vision of the world, then they test, and they know if they're wrong or right.

But we don't have faith in gravity BADecker xD

Scientists are not robots. They have lots of faith. Ask their husbands and wives. Many of them will tell you truthfully that their spouse is faithful - full of faith.

Faith in gravity is built-in. It is beyond hope. Why do we have faith in gravity? Because we don't really know for a fact that it will keep on working for us. The example and experience is that it has in the past. But we still don't know about the future, even though we are comfortable in thinking we do.

[organofcorti]

Well, I should probably be thanking you for focusing on me rather than how science proves God exits. But what else can you do? since you can't refute the science. So, thanks for helping to validate the science by showing folks how you can't refute it.

What else can I do? I can try to keep your wandering mind on topic. What proof is there that Atheists hate Religion?

That is part of the point. Many atheists don't hate religion. These are the ones who barely consider their atheism.

So you don't think that atheists in general hate religious people in general? Finally, something we can agree on. I might not agree with your method of discussion, but I agree with the characterisation you give here - most atheists I've met don't even think about gods.

The atheists who hate religion are far more atheistic than the ones who barely consider atheism. Both of them have their religion.

I don't agree with your definition of religion (ie that having a religion just means spending time arguing about something -- which means, by the way, that  for example that all lawyers follow law as a religion, all politicians have political action as a religion) but even by your definition if many atheists "barely consider their atheism" then how can it be a religion to them?

Those of them who hate religion, are far more into the religion of atheism than those who don't. They are also far more into hating themselves.

I'm not sure how you could know that -- unless you have been an atheist?

"Leave me alone," they say. "Let me squander the little bit of life I have, before I wind up destroying myself completely, just to get away from the religion that I am."

Has anyone actually said that? I'm fairly certain that you just made that up, and that no atheist ever said that to you.

[organofcorti]

I've made no ad hominem attacks, subtle or otherwise. I've called you names, sure ( egotistical, callous, unfeeling, incompetent, illogical, easily upset, childish,  are just a few that I've either used or consider using) but I haven't done so in the hopes of using that to win an argument. You do.

Thank you, again, for more confirmation of the scientifically proven fact that God exists.

I've made no proof that god exists. You're lying -- unless you'd like to quote the section where I did that?

Rather than focus on disproving it, you focus on me, and maybe yourself. Why do you do this? Simply because you don't have any real evidence that the science I have expressed DOESN'T prove that God exists.

Thanks again.

I don't just "focus on you". I also respond to BitNow, and anyone who posts unsupportable and made up "facts".

Why do you do this? Simply because you don't have any real evidence that the science I have expressed DOESN'T prove that God exists.

Thanks again.

I don't need or even want to prove god doesn't exist. Who knows, a universe creating god that meddles in human affairs might really exist, and it would be *very* interesting times if that was the case! No, I just need to show that a given "proof" that god does exist is in some way logically or scientifically incorrect.

[BADecker]

Well, I should probably be thanking you for focusing on me rather than how science proves God exits. But what else can you do? since you can't refute the science. So, thanks for helping to validate the science by showing folks how you can't refute it.

What else can I do? I can try to keep your wandering mind on topic. What proof is there that Atheists hate Religion?

That is part of the point. Many atheists don't hate religion. These are the ones who barely consider their atheism.

So you don't think that atheists in general hate religious people in general? Finally, something we can agree on. I might not agree with your method of discussion, but I agree with the characterisation you give here - most atheists I've met don't even think about gods.

The atheists who hate religion are far more atheistic than the ones who barely consider atheism. Both of them have their religion.

I don't agree with your definition of religion (ie that having a religion just means spending time arguing about something -- which means, by the way, that  for example that all lawyers follow law as a religion, all politicians have political action as a religion) but even by your definition if many atheists "barely consider their atheism" then how can it be a religion to them?

Those of them who hate religion, are far more into the religion of atheism than those who don't. They are also far more into hating themselves.

I'm not sure how you could know that -- unless you have been an atheist?

"Leave me alone," they say. "Let me squander the little bit of life I have, before I wind up destroying myself completely, just to get away from the religion that I am."

Has anyone actually said that? I'm fairly certain that you just made that up, and that no atheist ever said that to you.

Well, thank you again, for helping to prove that God exists, by attempting to take the focus off the science that proves it. Hopefully more and more people will wake up to the fact that God does exist. God even appreciates you for the help you are giving in this area.

[organofcorti]

You asked if I would start a war against religion because you mentioned faith.  I wrote I have no problem with faith, only with your characterisation of science. Now you write "Of course you have a problem: you have no Faith!". This is meaningless, unless you think that science == faith, which as I explained to you before is a contradiction in terms.

Now it is you who is talking without thinking. Science DOES equal faith in all sorts of ways. What scientist would look for some aspect of science if he didn't have faith that it could be found? Who would ever formulate scientific theories if he didn't have faith that they might be able to be proven? or if he didn't have faith that his theories would help him prove other things in science? or if he didn't have faith that his peer review would earn him status or money somehow? Most of science absolutely does equal faith.

No. I've never met a scientist arrogant enough to *have faith* they're right. There will be undoubtedly be some, but the ones i know *hope* they're right. If they had faith they were right, they wouldn't bother with experiments since that would be a waste of time.

Replace "faith" with "hope" in your statement above and you'll be nearer the mark.

Faith is when your mind doesn't know but your heart tells you so.
Scientists don't hink with their heart but with their brain. So they can't have faith. That would be a nonsense.

Of course they sometimes have faith in their theories and that's why they do test it. But they just have faith in their vision of the world, then they test, and they know if they're wrong or right.

But we don't have faith in gravity BADecker xD

Scientists are not robots. They have lots of faith. Ask their husbands and wives. Many of them will tell you truthfully that their spouse is faithful - full of faith.

Scientists who investigate human relations don't have faith that a given husband will be faithful to a given wife. Having faith that your *own* wife is faithful is outside of science.

Faith in gravity is built-in. It is beyond hope. Why do we have faith in gravity? Because we don't really know for a fact that it will keep on working for us. The example and experience is that it has in the past. But we still don't know about the future, even though we are comfortable in thinking we do.

Bullshit. Investigations into the nature of gravity are still on going. If scientists had faith that they knew all about gravity, they wouldn't bother investigating it.

[organofcorti]

Well, I should probably be thanking you for focusing on me rather than how science proves God exits. But what else can you do? since you can't refute the science. So, thanks for helping to validate the science by showing folks how you can't refute it.

What else can I do? I can try to keep your wandering mind on topic. What proof is there that Atheists hate Religion?

That is part of the point. Many atheists don't hate religion. These are the ones who barely consider their atheism.

So you don't think that atheists in general hate religious people in general? Finally, something we can agree on. I might not agree with your method of discussion, but I agree with the characterisation you give here - most atheists I've met don't even think about gods.

The atheists who hate religion are far more atheistic than the ones who barely consider atheism. Both of them have their religion.

I don't agree with your definition of religion (ie that having a religion just means spending time arguing about something -- which means, by the way, that  for example that all lawyers follow law as a religion, all politicians have political action as a religion) but even by your definition if many atheists "barely consider their atheism" then how can it be a religion to them?

Those of them who hate religion, are far more into the religion of atheism than those who don't. They are also far more into hating themselves.

I'm not sure how you could know that -- unless you have been an atheist?

"Leave me alone," they say. "Let me squander the little bit of life I have, before I wind up destroying myself completely, just to get away from the religion that I am."

Has anyone actually said that? I'm fairly certain that you just made that up, and that no atheist ever said that to you.

Well, thank you again, for helping to prove that God exists, by attempting to take the focus off the science that proves it. Hopefully more and more people will wake up to the fact that God does exist. God even appreciates you for the help you are giving in this area.

Any chance you'll respond to any of my questions any time soon? Do you have no answer for logical objections?

[BADecker]

I've made no ad hominem attacks, subtle or otherwise. I've called you names, sure ( egotistical, callous, unfeeling, incompetent, illogical, easily upset, childish,  are just a few that I've either used or consider using) but I haven't done so in the hopes of using that to win an argument. You do.

Thank you, again, for more confirmation of the scientifically proven fact that God exists.

I've made no proof that god exists. You're lying -- unless you'd like to quote the section where I did that?

Rather than focus on disproving it, you focus on me, and maybe yourself. Why do you do this? Simply because you don't have any real evidence that the science I have expressed DOESN'T prove that God exists.

Thanks again.

I don't just "focus on you". I also respond to BitNow, and anyone who posts unsupportable and made up "facts".

Why do you do this? Simply because you don't have any real evidence that the science I have expressed DOESN'T prove that God exists.

Thanks again.

I don't need or even want to prove god doesn't exist. Who knows, a universe creating god that meddles in human affairs might really exist, and it would be *very* interesting times if that was the case! No, I just need to show that a given "proof" that god does exist is in some way logically or scientifically incorrect.

If I happen to miss responding to one of your posts that helps to prove that God exists, please don't take it personally. The thanks is meant to cover even those posts.

So, thank you, again, for not refuting the fact that science has proven that God exists... since your continual attempts to circumvent any refuting that you might do are essentially, strengthening of the proofs.

[organofcorti]

I've made no ad hominem attacks, subtle or otherwise. I've called you names, sure ( egotistical, callous, unfeeling, incompetent, illogical, easily upset, childish,  are just a few that I've either used or consider using) but I haven't done so in the hopes of using that to win an argument. You do.

Thank you, again, for more confirmation of the scientifically proven fact that God exists.

I've made no proof that god exists. You're lying -- unless you'd like to quote the section where I did that?

Rather than focus on disproving it, you focus on me, and maybe yourself. Why do you do this? Simply because you don't have any real evidence that the science I have expressed DOESN'T prove that God exists.

Thanks again.

I don't just "focus on you". I also respond to BitNow, and anyone who posts unsupportable and made up "facts".

Why do you do this? Simply because you don't have any real evidence that the science I have expressed DOESN'T prove that God exists.

Thanks again.

I don't need or even want to prove god doesn't exist. Who knows, a universe creating god that meddles in human affairs might really exist, and it would be *very* interesting times if that was the case! No, I just need to show that a given "proof" that god does exist is in some way logically or scientifically incorrect.

If I happen to miss responding to one of your posts that helps to prove that God exists, please don't take it personally. The thanks is meant to cover even those posts.

No one here has proven god exists.

So, thank you, again, for not refuting the fact that science has proven that God exists... since your continual attempts to circumvent any refuting that you might do are essentially, strengthening of the proofs.

I don't need or even want to prove god doesn't exist. Who knows, a universe creating god that meddles in human affairs might really exist, and it would be *very* interesting times if that was the case! No, I just need to show that a given "proof" that god does exist is in some way logically or scientifically incorrect.

[BADecker]

Well, I should probably be thanking you for focusing on me rather than how science proves God exits. But what else can you do? since you can't refute the science. So, thanks for helping to validate the science by showing folks how you can't refute it.

What else can I do? I can try to keep your wandering mind on topic. What proof is there that Atheists hate Religion?

That is part of the point. Many atheists don't hate religion. These are the ones who barely consider their atheism.

So you don't think that atheists in general hate religious people in general? Finally, something we can agree on. I might not agree with your method of discussion, but I agree with the characterisation you give here - most atheists I've met don't even think about gods.

The atheists who hate religion are far more atheistic than the ones who barely consider atheism. Both of them have their religion.

I don't agree with your definition of religion (ie that having a religion just means spending time arguing about something -- which means, by the way, that  for example that all lawyers follow law as a religion, all politicians have political action as a religion) but even by your definition if many atheists "barely consider their atheism" then how can it be a religion to them?

Those of them who hate religion, are far more into the religion of atheism than those who don't. They are also far more into hating themselves.

I'm not sure how you could know that -- unless you have been an atheist?

"Leave me alone," they say. "Let me squander the little bit of life I have, before I wind up destroying myself completely, just to get away from the religion that I am."

Has anyone actually said that? I'm fairly certain that you just made that up, and that no atheist ever said that to you.

Well, thank you again, for helping to prove that God exists, by attempting to take the focus off the science that proves it. Hopefully more and more people will wake up to the fact that God does exist. God even appreciates you for the help you are giving in this area.

Any chance you'll respond to any of my questions any time soon? Do you have no answer for logical objections?

I'm sure I have responded one way or another to any question you might be asking.

This being said, thanks again for showing that you don't have any science that refutes the scientifically proven fact that God exists... AND for helping me to expand the knowledge of this by not expressing any refutation that you might have.

[BADecker]

I've made no ad hominem attacks, subtle or otherwise. I've called you names, sure ( egotistical, callous, unfeeling, incompetent, illogical, easily upset, childish,  are just a few that I've either used or consider using) but I haven't done so in the hopes of using that to win an argument. You do.

Thank you, again, for more confirmation of the scientifically proven fact that God exists.

I've made no proof that god exists. You're lying -- unless you'd like to quote the section where I did that?

Rather than focus on disproving it, you focus on me, and maybe yourself. Why do you do this? Simply because you don't have any real evidence that the science I have expressed DOESN'T prove that God exists.

Thanks again.

I don't just "focus on you". I also respond to BitNow, and anyone who posts unsupportable and made up "facts".

Why do you do this? Simply because you don't have any real evidence that the science I have expressed DOESN'T prove that God exists.

Thanks again.

I don't need or even want to prove god doesn't exist. Who knows, a universe creating god that meddles in human affairs might really exist, and it would be *very* interesting times if that was the case! No, I just need to show that a given "proof" that god does exist is in some way logically or scientifically incorrect.

If I happen to miss responding to one of your posts that helps to prove that God exists, please don't take it personally. The thanks is meant to cover even those posts.

No one here has proven god exists.

So, thank you, again, for not refuting the fact that science has proven that God exists... since your continual attempts to circumvent any refuting that you might do are essentially, strengthening of the proofs.

I don't need or even want to prove god doesn't exist. Who knows, a universe creating god that meddles in human affairs might really exist, and it would be *very* interesting times if that was the case! No, I just need to show that a given "proof" that god does exist is in some way logically or scientifically incorrect.

Thanks again for showing that you don't have any science that refutes the scientifically proven fact that God exists... AND for helping me to expand the knowledge of this by not expressing any refutation that you might have.

NOTE: I am sure glad we have copy and paste. It makes it so much easier to thank you.

[valta4065]

I've made no ad hominem attacks, subtle or otherwise. I've called you names, sure ( egotistical, callous, unfeeling, incompetent, illogical, easily upset, childish,  are just a few that I've either used or consider using) but I haven't done so in the hopes of using that to win an argument. You do.

Thank you, again, for more confirmation of the scientifically proven fact that God exists.

I've made no proof that god exists. You're lying -- unless you'd like to quote the section where I did that?

Rather than focus on disproving it, you focus on me, and maybe yourself. Why do you do this? Simply because you don't have any real evidence that the science I have expressed DOESN'T prove that God exists.

Thanks again.

I don't just "focus on you". I also respond to BitNow, and anyone who posts unsupportable and made up "facts".

Why do you do this? Simply because you don't have any real evidence that the science I have expressed DOESN'T prove that God exists.

Thanks again.

I don't need or even want to prove god doesn't exist. Who knows, a universe creating god that meddles in human affairs might really exist, and it would be *very* interesting times if that was the case! No, I just need to show that a given "proof" that god does exist is in some way logically or scientifically incorrect.

If I happen to miss responding to one of your posts that helps to prove that God exists, please don't take it personally. The thanks is meant to cover even those posts.

No one here has proven god exists.

So, thank you, again, for not refuting the fact that science has proven that God exists... since your continual attempts to circumvent any refuting that you might do are essentially, strengthening of the proofs.

I don't need or even want to prove god doesn't exist. Who knows, a universe creating god that meddles in human affairs might really exist, and it would be *very* interesting times if that was the case! No, I just need to show that a given "proof" that god does exist is in some way logically or scientifically incorrect.

Thanks again for showing that you don't have any science that refutes the scientifically proven fact that God exists... AND for helping me to expand the knowledge of this by not expressing any refutation that you might have.

NOTE: I am sure glad we have copy and paste. It makes it so much easier to thank you.

That's a stupid remark, you can't prove that something doesn't exist. That's the whole point of proving something, it has to be there...

We don't have proofs to refute God existence but we don't have proofs of his existence either. Science will never answer this question that seems rather obvious.

[eon89]

Jesus is the rock.
I am founded on Jesus.
Of course talking to me is like talking to a rock...
You can't move the foundation of the universe, the Rock, Jesus Christ.

Humm... Jesus is different from the Bible. The biggest part of the Bible has nothing to do with Jesus, you know that no?

Now what started this line of thinking?

Actually, you are wrong. The whole theme of the Bible is to show the salvation that Jesus provides. In fact, the beginning of the Gospel of John in the New Testament says:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.

In the quote, the word "Word" is used to refer to both Jesus and the Bible.

In addition, Jesus, Himself, said, referring to the Scriptures (Bible):

These are they which testify about me.

The Bible is essentially, at least in theme, Jesus.

What about the Leviticus for example? Which is the part where homosexuality or the worship of other gods is heavily punished, most of the time by death (and a painful one). What's the link with Jesus here?

First let me go back to the beginning. After Adam and Eve sinned, God came to them walking in the Garden. They hid themselves because they were naked. You can read about it in Genesis chapter 3. Specifically for our purposes, verse 8:

Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden.

God is a Spirit. Spirits don't walk in gardens in the cool of the day. The one aspect of God Who is not only a Spirit only, but is also a man so that He can walk, is Jesus. Jesus was there right in the beginning, already helping people through their sins and mistakes. Read how He helped Adam and Eve, it's in the Bible, in Genesis 3.

Regarding Leviticus, the whole period of the Israel people from the time even before they left Egypt, and throughout the early years in Canaan, Jesus is there... in the form that He has in the beginning chapter(s) of the Revelation. Whenever you see the words "the Angel of the Lord" in the Old Testament, this is talking about Jesus, before He came in His humility - as a child born of Mary. If you see the words, "an angel," or "an angel of the Lord," it probably is not talking about Jesus.

The whole Bible is about Jesus and the things He did to save mankind. In addition, it is written in ways that the reader will get the best advantage out of it... by listening to the stories of real people who lived real lives of trouble, just like all of us.

Stories don't mean anything. Even if they are told by "real" people doesn't mean they are real.
Just once I'd like to see you say something concrete: God exists, and the proof is "X".
Something scientifically proven. Until now you haven't said a thing.

If you really feel like this, there is no way that you can accept anything as scientific fact without doing the experiments yourself.

Do you really speak in this forum because you like to watch how people articulate the "stories" they talk about? Is it simply an exercise of semantics for you?

That's a good point, but still, there's a difference between things told by a priest that talks about air and a scientist that even I haven't repeated its experiment I can go see it.

I can go and see the CERN supercollider - it's real, right?
In a church there are only paintings and statues. But on the other hand there are statues and paintings also in museums and they don't mean anything, just art, no one's implying that they're supernatural, so... you know. There's that.

[valta4065]

For how long have you been discussing this subject? I don't have the impression that any of use moved from one foot of his position xD

[eon89]

I also studied physics but I'm not a physician. If a study a certain field makes me only an informed person concerning that field. That's all.

You need to be a priest to study Theology: you cannot study by yourself.

I accept that answer in the "violent discussion" we are having.


Best regards.


EDIT: if Theology can be studied without being a priest give proofs.

It's called theology school. Jeez kid!
It's a serious profession - you can't be doing it without a diploma.
Aren't things like that in Italy as well?

[eon89]

If we had the proof of His existence then how us, mortals, could oppose His will?

God has left a tiny area of free will open in us. It has to do with aspects of faith that we have in Him. It doesn't have anything to so with any of our standard understanding of free will, like choosing which side of the bed to get out of in the morning.

Our free will has to do with limited aspects of our faith in God. That's it. God judges us according to our faith in Him.

Then how could He test us?

God tests us based on the freewill portion of our faith in Him.

...the area of free will...

Free will?  That is something I can prove false...

If you believe these 3 common Christian beliefs:
1) God created the universe exactly as it is
2) God could have created the universe differently if he wanted to (billions of possibilities)
3) God is Omniscient (knows the future)

Then free will cannot exist

God created this specific universe, knowing exactly what would happen, including your personal choices (free will)...  he could have created a universe where I was a Christian instead of an Atheist, but God created this universe, knowing that I would be an Atheist... It's God's fault I'm an Atheist, not mine!



A point about free will and prayer...

When you pray for God to change his divine plan to benefit yourself... You claim that you know better than God does?  You ask him to change his perfect/divine plan because your kid has cancer?  Who are you to question God's divine/perfect plan?!?  God gave your kid cancer because that is His plan, and you think you know better than God? The lolz

Logic - can't fight it. Not in this universe. Which, I for one, believe drives this current version of the universe we're living in.

Since God asks us to pray, does Moloch think that God doesn't have the ability to answer prayer according to our way and His at the same time?

Of course GOd answers prayers, it's just that He answers with NO 99,99% of the time.

[eon89]

Free will?  That is something I can prove false...

If you believe these 3 common Christian beliefs:
1) God created the universe exactly as it is
2) God could have created the universe differently if he wanted to (billions of possibilities)
3) God is Omniscient (knows the future)

Then free will cannot exist

God created this specific universe, knowing exactly what would happen, including your personal choices (free will)...  he could have created a universe where I was a Christian instead of an Atheist, but God created this universe, knowing that I would be an Atheist... It's God's fault I'm an Atheist, not mine!

You have free will in deciding to have faith in him or not.



Best regards.

No. You only have free will to decide not to believe in Him. However, if your free will is weak enough, the Holy spirit can work faith in your heart.

So the Holy Spirit works better on the weak minded/spirited? That's really funny.
That would mean that the ones that are atheists have strong mindsets.
Thank you for the compliment. It's very welcome.

Unfortunately for them, if their spiritual strength is strong enough to resist God, they are resisting their own salvation, and plunging themselves into Hell.

Oh well. They asked for it. Even god gave them this ability. Jesus said, "Shake the dust off your feet."

So being strong is bad and being weak is good? Yeah - church has put all of its money on this premise since the beginning.
That's a new one. Well if that's the case I prefer being strong minded. I'll deal with the other problems when they'll occur.
Better to be a Jedi than a sheep.
Also - you wrote "god" instead of "God". Really, man! Don't you have any respect?!

[eon89]

I'm sure Jesus is alive in heaven but He's not here on earth. And we, here, on earth, deal in real, objective, palpable things.

Can we at least agree on the God of the Old Testament before coming to the one in the New Testament?


Best regards.

So there are two different Gods? Well well - things get interesting.

And to top it off, you throw in silliness?   

Silliness? I'm just answering to what you started. If you say silly things, unfortunately that's what I'm answering to.

[eon89]

The validity comes about because of the fact that it exists as it does??
What does that even mean?
Something is because something is? The fact that the Harry Potter exists (it is written) doesn't mean the accounts in it are true.
And tradition and word of mouth are not proof.

I quote that.

Can we agree on the God of the Old Testament: is the God of the Old Testament the same of all 3 monotheistic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam)?


Best regards.

As a philosophical experiment I will agree that theoretically all religions worship the same God using different names for it.

That's true deep down inside themselves. That's why Jesus says wording to the effect of, "Unless you repent and become like little children, you will not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven."

After people become adults, and start formulating what they think God is like, if their formulation doesn't match the truth, they have formed a false god for themselves.

This is why the Bible says, "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God." Fill yourself on the Bible, so that you have an accurate picture of God in your mind, so that you are worshiping the true God.

Become naive like children and stupid and obedient like sheep? No thanks! I'll keep my mind to myself.