missus_gumby

Proc', I see you are a new member, so I'm going to give you the chance to accept something new on faith alone: the tired old argument you present (above) has been thorughly debunked in many, many threads on these (and other) forums and media over several years now.

You are only another apologist who is parroting those who came before -- and lost. However, should you require some of those iconvenient things called facts and evidence that will set you straight, without having to rely on faith alone, please be our guest. You might care to examine the library here, or even go through the copious threads that have already dealt with this issue. It's all here, you only have to look.

I always find it odd that those christians who did come before, never actually pass on the message of their defeat. Seems quite dishonest to me, but that's religious belief for you isn't it?

Missus Gumby

Xrikcus

Clearly I don't believe in God, this is as a result of the amount of evidence that demonstrates to me that a God is not necessary. However, on top of that, I have a strong objection to the idea of believing in a God who refuses to allow me to question him, or who insists on sycophanism. While God could prove himself to me if he so wanted, I could not be happy if he was as the Christian God is implied to be, so I don't see a problem therefore with questioning "the Almighty", as that is what I believe he would want, if he existed.

inquisitive01

Okay, so you're saying that since it is your opinion that God is unnecessary, then He cannot exist. Is that correct?

Try putting yourself in those "shoes" while you're at it. You make, say, 50 decisions which you feel are the best POSSIBLE decisions for each of 50 individual situations. However, out of, say, 6 million people, only 2,000 (LESS than 1%, or 0.033%) agree with your decisions, while the others disagree with ALL 50 of them (the decisions) completely and seriously question your ability to make ANY good decisions. They come to an almost unanimous (99.97%) conclusion that YOUR leadership, decisions, and guidance are no longer necessary (you are no longer believed to be able to make such decisions, so you are simply relieved of duty). How would you feel about that?

Edited Addition: Don't forget, you feel that there can be no (or, are no) better possible solutions to the 50 decisions you've made.

Also, perhaps the fact that YOU don't see a problem with questioning the Almighty, is a problem itself (some would see a problem with such arrogance, in other words).

Toto

<mod hat on>

Questions and arguments about the existence of God are off topic in this forum (especially arguments that compare God to some military commander with a bunch of ungrateful insubordinates, which could become a major derailment). Please take them to the EOG forum.

Thank you.

Toto

inquisitive01

I was thinking this entire site, including this forum, was based on existence, or lack of existence, of God. Aren't those who disagree with God's word, should He exist (for the Atheists that may be reading this), basically ungrateful insubordinates?

Toto

The entire site is run by people who do not believe that there is any evidence for one or more gods. People who do not believe in the existence of god(s) cannot be said to disagree with God's word, since there is no way of deciding what God's word is, and cannot be said to be ungrateful or subordinate.

In order to run an orderly discussion board and to keep every subject from repeating the same old arguments, we agree to confine our discussions to the announced topics. The BCH forum discusses the Bible as text or a history, not the existence of god or why people do or do not believe.

Discussions about moderation or the philosophy of this board should be taken to one of the feedback forums at the top of the forum home page. ( www.iidb.org )

Thank you for your consideration. Any further discussion of this off-topic material will be removed from this thread.

Sven

This was simply a play of words. Perhaps I should have added a smilie, sorry.
[snipped part addressed by Angrillori]

Procurator

Naked Ape,

Unfortunately for me, the Bible alone doesn't qualify as historical evidence for the existence of a miracle-worker. To evidence something that is documented in the Bible requires the additional support of unbiased extra-biblical literature, of which there is plenty. I maintain that Jesus' miracles may very well be absent from these and other historical documents, but that doesn't disprove them.

With regard to Vespasian's miracles:

I do not accept his accounts of Vespasian's miracles.

I would consider Tacitus' testimony of Jesus' miracles (if it existed) reliable only because it matches what is said in the Bible. It's too bad for Tacitus that his account of Vespasian's miracle is not corroborated by scritpure.

Procurator

Sven

You mean like staying up all night waiting for Santa Claus at christmas and not meeting him doesn't disprove his existance? :Cheeky:

Procurator

Hi Missus Gumby. Thanks for pointing this out. :thumbs: After all, I did just come down in the last shower.

Defeat, huh? I'd call it fun, but hey -- you're entitled to your opinion.

Nice to meet you, Missus Gumby. :wave:

Procurator