Freethought & Rationalism Archive

RJS · 10-04-2002, 10:25 AM

Quote:

why would a theoretical benevolent god choose to condemn (or allow them to condemn themselves, if you like that better) many billions to hell (or separation, or annihilation, if you like one of those better) merely because they, using the faculties god supposedly gave them to examine the evidence god supposedly provided, in all honesty cannot believe in god?

There is no indisputable answer to this question.

xeren · 10-04-2002, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth:
 Why would a theoretical benevolent god choose to condemn (or allow them to condemn themselves, if you like that better) many billions to hell (or separation, or annihilation, if you like one of those better) merely because they, using the faculties god supposedly gave them to examine the evidence god supposedly provided, in all honesty cannot believe in god?

How about we all wait until Vander actually answers my original question, so eloquently restated by Mageth?

Answer the question Vander.

Here's a key to help you along:

Answer = Answer
Replying with a question != Answer

Thank you
-xeren

K · 10-04-2002, 10:29 AM

RJS:

If the paper had only a YES or NO, I would definitely want it so say NO. If the paper cleared up the inconsistencies associated with every version of God we've been introduced to so far and it showed Him not to be the tyrannical versions of the Christian God, I'd be happy with either answer - probably more happy with YES if it somehow showed God was truly just.

K · 10-04-2002, 10:31 AM

ManM:

Would you agree that Humanism is probably the most direct route to your version of Heaven?

Mageth · 10-04-2002, 10:32 AM

There is no indisputable answer to this question.

I appreciate your honest answer. As a reward, I'll answer your hypothetical:

Yes. I'd be a fool if I didn't admit I would like to have eternal, blissful life. But like I said, I've used my faculties to examine the "evidence", and there ain't nothin' there. I can't believe the myth. Tinkerbell died for me a long time ago.

[ October 04, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]

Vanderzyden · 10-04-2002, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrDarwin:

Vanderzyden, do you understand that you only succeed in making yourself (and by extension, Christianity) look foolish, if you make such statements and then refuse to follow up on them?

M,

Do you think I care about reputation? It would seem that you think I am biting my nails in anticipation of how I am perceived by you fine people. Well, let me dispel that myth: I don't.

Anyway, you contradict yourself. If you really thought I was "foolish", then why do you continue to pursue me to address the Judas contradiction?

Well, I won't fragment this thread. I will start another.

(Do you really think you have me stumped?)

Vanderzyden

MrDarwin · 10-04-2002, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:
Well, I won't fragment this thread. I will start another.

I have already done so <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000640" target="_blank">here</a>.

Mageth · 10-04-2002, 11:05 AM

Do you think I care about reputation?

Hmm, Van. What did Jesus mean when he said in Matthew 5, "Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven"?

GeoTheo · 10-04-2002, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MBR:
Hmmm, If I was god this would make sense to me...

Because in the afterlife, being gullable is a virtue. God doesn't want to surround himself with a bunch of maverick thinkers that always question stuff. Imagine if you were god, would you want a bunch of people that are always questioning your authority and challenging you, hell no, you'd want a bunch of pawns that do your bidding without question. This test for heaven is a filter for people that lack the ability of blind faith.

But of course apologists wouldn't accept such a logical answer because it labels them as gullable.

Don't break your arm patting your self on the back. If that's where one pats oneself while engaging in intellectual masturbation.

MadMordigan · 10-04-2002, 11:16 AM

I guess I'm just the type who wants both the cake and the ability to eat the aforementioned cake.

The word for this is intellectual dishonesty.

10-04-2002, 10:32 AM	#225
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	There is no indisputable answer to this question. I appreciate your honest answer. As a reward, I'll answer your hypothetical: Yes. I'd be a fool if I didn't admit I would like to have eternal, blissful life. But like I said, I've used my faculties to examine the "evidence", and there ain't nothin' there. I can't believe the myth. Tinkerbell died for me a long time ago. [ October 04, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-04-2002, 10:29 AM	#223
K Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,485	RJS: If the paper had only a YES or NO, I would definitely want it so say NO. If the paper cleared up the inconsistencies associated with every version of God we've been introduced to so far and it showed Him not to be the tyrannical versions of the Christian God, I'd be happy with either answer - probably more happy with YES if it somehow showed God was truly just.

10-04-2002, 10:31 AM	#224
K Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,485	ManM: Would you agree that Humanism is probably the most direct route to your version of Heaven?

10-04-2002, 11:05 AM	#228
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Do you think I care about reputation? Hmm, Van. What did Jesus mean when he said in Matthew 5, "Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven"?

10-04-2002, 11:16 AM	#230
MadMordigan Beloved Deceased Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 2,704	I guess I'm just the type who wants both the cake and the ability to eat the aforementioned cake. The word for this is intellectual dishonesty.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.