Radorth

Huh? You mean if God exists you can make bad choices, hurt people, cover up lies, make up rules you seldom or never follow, waste your life, etc. But if he doesn't exist, you can't?

I haven't got this "rational thinking" business down. When I do, I hope to lose my faith and become sinless at the same time.

Rad

Daggah

Magus, agnosticism is a state of knowledge. Atheism is a state of [lack of] belief. Most agnostics don't possess a belief in god; therefore, most are agnostic atheists. Some agnostics DO possess a belief in god; those are agnostic theists.

The statement you responded to was directed at Radorth, whose points regarding sin require the existence of a god. I was merely pointing out that that is not an assumption we're going to grant him here.

Daggah

How do you know that the giant invisible cat flying around Jupiter doesn't exist?

Simple: you know it doesn't exist because the concept doesn't make any sense. It's absurd.

So, too, for the Christian god. The Christian god is a specifically defined god; if that definition doesn't make sense, then one doesn't NEED infinite knowledge to know he doesn't exist.

Daggah

You obviously don't. Let's go over it slowly, since apparently you're having trouble understanding it:

-SIN- is a religious concept. It requires the existence of a god to be a meaningful one. A sin is not just an "immoral act." No one here is saying that atheists can't perform immoral acts. What we're saying is that, if there is no god, we can't SIN.

I dunno. It seems a simple concept to me. Maybe you need to go back and take one of those Zen courses to understand?

Magus55

The existence of God is by far less absurd than claims that life formed by chance and the perfect combination of non living molecules forming in 15 billions years.

Daggah

Theological definition of 'sin'

"Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God."

No god, no sin.

Simple concept.

Daggah

Am I supposed to be impressed by this? Sure, I agree. The existence of god is definitely less absurd than your strawman caricature of origins science. What, exactly, is that supposed to prove?

Now. Let's get real. The existence of the Christian god, star of mythologies that have numerous elements that have essentially been shown to be utterly ridiculous [case in point: global flood] is MUCH more absurd than what modern science has revealed about the origins of the universe and life.

Also, there are billions upon billions upon billions upon billions of systems out there. Chances are pretty good that the conditions required for the first chemical reactions would be found SOMEWHERE in the vastness of the universe.

And by the way, chemical reactions are NOT random. And neither is evolution - selection is the very OPPOSITE of chance.

So what we have here is another Christian who is devastatingly ignorant of science, and thinks that proves something about it.

Yellum Notnef

No thats not what I mean. People will do all that regardless of if your god exists or not.
The only difference between the real world and the world you live in is the reasoning for why people do those things and the terminology used.

You finally got something right. Kudos!


If you lose your faith you`ll still be a dickhead,you just won`t use religious terminology to describe your percieved flaws.

Magus55

Feel free to dispute these probability studies done by doctors and nobel prize winners. If you say they are wrong - then we can just throw out all Math in the world, and i can call you completely ignorant.

http://www.evolutionisfalse.org/Probability.html

Life coming about without a divine creator is 100% non disputably impossible by Math. Considering after 10 to the 50th power, Mathemeticians stop arguing as something being in possible, however studies into life forming on its own get as high as 10 to the 3,000,000th power. Even if it was a possibility, it would take infinite years to do, not the 15 billion evolutionists claim the universe was around.

You can dispute the Bible all you want - you can't dispute Math.

Radorth

OK, so atheists do all the same stuff but technically it isn't sin because that is not a term atheists use. I think I'm catching on to the meaning of "rational" now. You basically take a pedantic, legalistic, very technical view of things.

I guess this thread isn't moderated for even the most gratuitous insults. Too bad.

I daren't complain either. Right Fenton?

Rad