Richard of Chelmsfor

Of course, chaps, what Neorask is showing us here is a clear example of theist logic and of how theists think on all matters.

Oh well, back to the drawing board. :huh:

Richard of Chelmsfor

By the way, when the fanatics get to heaven they don't get 70 odd virgins. That was based on a mis-translation.

What they get is 70 odd grapes.

Plognark

I think it was actully white raisins, some kind of delicacy, or something, but there's still a gross misconception that it's virgins across the world.

I've also heard someone on this board (a muslim too) insist they were some sort of androgynous gender neutral creatures. :huh:

lpetrich

Whether that is the case is debatable, and even if that was the case, then so what?

There can always be an amoral afterlife. Or we could get reincarnated in amoral fashion (no karma).

Which makes god seem like a weenie; an omnipotent being would have no trouble putting its foot down or reprogramming such people. And neorask, I don't care about free will; how many times should I ever have to repeat that?

Easy to do if it's all made-up.

Vorkosigan

Off to GRD; not on topic for this forum.

Vorkosigan

Wiploc

Does it affect the conclusion if we mention that people often disregard authorities because they often are illigitimate and unworthy?

crc

Columbus

Parents do not get authority over children by right of possession. They get it from honoring the commitment they made to care for the child when they conceived him. They owe the child the education required for civilized life. They also owe society their best effort to civilize their own progeny, so society grants them the authority necessary for the job.

The Bible presents a completely different rationale for authority. God creates humans ignorant and imbued with self-destructive tendencies. At birth our nature is virtually indistinguishable from that of chimpanzees.(Proof to me that the Bible is wrong about evolution) The human race is not "stubborn and rebellious". It is just born ignorant, and don't always run into the lessons that make the needed improvements. If the Bible is anywhere close to true, God is squarely responsible for this state of affairs. Blaming Eve or Adam for ignorance, much less earthquakes or mental illness, is ridiculous.

You have hardly offended me. These arguments are old, I've heard them many times. Consider this: If bringing even one skeptic to your version of Truth is such a great thing, what about the opposite? Suppose another weak version of the same old arguments convinces one skeptic that Christianity is consistently based on weak arguments? Will you take ownership of that as well?

The reason I don't believe in any of the images of God presented to me is simple. I would be very easy to convince! Yet it hasn't happened. The Bible is full of stories about events that if they, or anything like them, occurred to me I would believe. God Knows I would prefer to believe in your version of Truth! Life would be so much simpler. I could look up the Answers to the Test, and guarantee myself Eternal Bliss! You're right, who wouldn't want that? However, when I look at the Bible what I see is ignorant (but well intentionned mostly)people making up answers that look a lot like themselves, when they have absolutely no way of having answers that are true.

Tom

TomboyMom

neorask: Not only are you not in the ballpark, so far you haven't even gotten in your car to drive to the stadium.
(1) We should not believe things because we would like for them to be true, but because it appears that they are true. I would like to believe that I have Bill Gates' money and Serena Williams' body. Sadly, that doesn't make either of these things true.
(2) Disbelief can not be a form of rebellion, because to rebel against something I would have to believe it exists. You have assumed what you are trying to prove. Unless you are going to connect these disparate failures in some kind of interesting way on day 7, so far you have gotten absolutely nowhere. In fact, you haven't even gotten out of bed to make breakfast before driving to the stadium.

Rene

Hubble head

Neorask, please, despite some poking fun at your first two posts, finish all seven. I'm following #1 as Pascal's Wager and #2 is not concluding much other then yes, we are humans capable of contemplative thought. I'm hoping #3 gets better.

I honestly believe the entire book was written by men to control other people (especially women) and is still used for that exact purpose, and only that purpose today. You're either trying to walk their way, letting other people control your life and thoughts in a way that works best for them, or your not.

jayG60

:thumbs:

A beautiful statement, neorask. I agree. And this outstanding characteristic of ours is what has led to many of the great inventions, art, etc. in the history of the human race, not to mention the founding of the USA.

Of course, we've fallen a long way down since then....