God does NOT exist!

[Bloomdido]

Bizzare that there is this google ad on this page. Do you want to be born again?

[f0rd]

Wow Grahame, sure looks like you have a lot on your hands. But with all this going on please don't forget we are still waiting for you to provide any evidence that it was "atheists argued for keeping slavery".

 

I mean can you even name two of these atheists that formed the opposition in government, which you seem to think consisted entirely of atheists. Please have the common courtesy to name at least two of these people of voted against it. I have a distinct feeling you can't even name one, and thats the point, if you can't even name one then how do you know the whole body comprised of atheists.

[EbonyBranch]

What i find strange is, why are these texts still in the bible, why did the church fathers not edit accordingly to sanitize the testaments in such a way that God appears more loving and peaceful?

Because a jealous, violent, tyrannical god is a useful tool for controlling the masses. And perhaps because most of them thought it was all true!

[plekhanov]

The thing is - that I'm not pretending, or thinking about how easy things are to rebut, I'm just attempting to have a straight forward interaction with you, which is obviously quite difficult as you seem to be in debate-attack mode all of the time. Fair enough if this is the way you like to converse on a forum, but I don't really. It just means that you interpret any error, misunderstanding, mis quoting or attempt to understand, as an attack, proof of dishonesty or of being disingenuous. You probably have had good reason not to trust some theists in your

life - but it is a bit tough on the rest of us if we have to be a target for your accusations on their behalf.

I have no reason to trust you as every time I have attempted to discuss anything with you I have been confronted by continual dishonesty. In contrast I know numerous other theists who are scrupulously honest who I can easily have a discussion with out having to be on my guard at every moment. My distrust of you is entirely down to your past and ongoing behaviour.

 

My only point is that you are defining reality as not including god. I define god as part of reality - so reality is not being over ruled.

And your evidence that your particular god is part of reality is what exactly?

 

What are you grounds for claiming there is any god/s. What are your grounds for claiming that your particular interpretation of the god described in the bible is part of reality and not any of thousands of rival gods others have and do believe in?

 

I appreciate that you don't understand why people should have conviction about the existence of god in the face of this "overwhelming evidence". Only , I'm not overwhelmed by it.

You'd have to acknowledge it's existence first, something like many theists you seem determined to try and avoid doing, hence amongst other things your reflexive dishonesty when presented with such evidence.

 

I was reading recently about the time when quarks were discovered by particle physicists. Despite the fact that a quark has never been seen or actually identified, scientists believed in them because their effects seemed to explain a lot of things quite neatly. There is some faith in that - and there is evidence. But the evidence doesn't appear in a clearly identifiable way. I think that's

similar to the way god is.

That's not the same thing at all, scientists didn't have 'faith' in quarks, they were faced with a great deal of evidence from a whole series of studies and developed mathematical models based upon that evidence which predicted (accurately as it turned out) the existence of subatomic particles with certain properties which were dubbed quarks. The evidence for quarks is 'clearly identifiable' and repeatable and there for anyone to see, no faith is required.

 

In contrast you have belief not only in the absence of evidence but inspite of a great deal of evidence that the god described in your holy book does not exist. Your faith in the god of the bible is nothing like scientists belief in the existence of quarks.

 

I appreciate the content of your post - there's alot in there and you obviously believe in it passionately. I'm not out to get you,and I'm not setting traps for you, so there's no need to keep looking for these strawmen and red herrings. I've not got an agenda against athiests, but i believe in god passionately, and want to talk about it (almost) as much as you do

This might be a little more believable if you hadn't gone right out and strawmanned pininsho in your very next post. So long as you consistently do so there is every need to "to keep looking for these strawmen and red herrings" in your posts.

[Rich Siddall]

Because a jealous, violent, tyrannical god is a useful tool for controlling the masses. And perhaps because most of them thought it was all true!

 

Thats two good reasons but ....Its crazy. I fully understand the church wanting the power to control the masses and indeed the royalty, hell they even forged documents to show that popes had authority over kings,

but it is such a massive contradiction.

 

I can't help thinking that the compilation of the bible as we know it was one of the biggest mistakes the church made.

 

Sorry people I'm going nowhere with this. every question i ask myself seems to open up two more within my mind.

[flamingjimmy]

Sorry people I'm going nowhere with this. every question i ask myself seems to open up two more within my mind.

 

sounds healthy:thumbsup:

[redrobbo]

Which then leads to a more interesting point, is any believer who disagrees with Grahame's interpretation of the bible not a Christian...

 

Hmmm.... if so, could be another example of the No True Scotsman fallacy being adopted by Grahame!

 

I was going to point out that Grahame was resorting to the No True Scotsman fallacy (again!), but I think you've trumped that one, plekhanov!

[Rich Siddall]

sounds healthy:thumbsup:

 

I tell you jimmy that bloody woman listening to that bloody snake started all this, it was paradise I tell you paradise!

Next time round I'm gonna try it with dolphins, or dogs, yeah dogs! more obedient!

[EbonyBranch]

Thats two good reasons but ....Its crazy. I fully understand the church wanting the power to control the masses and indeed the royalty, hell they even forged documents to show that popes had authority over kings,

but it is such a massive contradiction.

 

I can't help thinking that the compilation of the bible as we know it was one of the biggest mistakes the church made.

 

Sorry people I'm going nowher

 

e with this. every question i ask myself seems to open up two more within my mind.

Bear wiith me, i'll try to post a link to a fascinating debate between american philosopher dan dennett and british asshat theologian alastair mcgrath. i think it'll interest you.

[devil6]

plekhanov is telling lies.1) Slaves or more properly servants in the Bible were free to go after six years; they were cared for and given shelter and food in return for work. They became part of the family and often chose to stay with the family even when they were free to go.

2)Compare that to Roman and Egyptian slaves and it is a different story altogether. Remember when the Egyptians held the Israelites they would not let them go, giving rise to the well known song, "Let My People Go." Not only that but if someone in the Bible ill-treated a slave it was the master who was punished. Bible slaves were well looked after and protected and their lifestyle can in no way be compared to modern slavery which Christians stopped while it was the non-Christian atheists who argued to keep people in enslavement.

 

3)I am disgusted by the constant perverting of the truth, the insults to the Bible and Christianity and their defence of a drug taking promiscuous lifestyle and that is why I am out of here.

 

.

 

 

1)-How do you know that the people in your stories of the bible were happy? The people who had slaves were hardly likely to write that they treated their slaves like, well slaves, and the slaves in question were hardly likely to even write! The point about slaves wanting to stay with the family in question is not an unusual scenario. It still happens in Africa to this very day. But don't be so niave to think it's because they want too, it's because they have no alternative.

 

2)-The Romans were very religious, and infact probably followed some version of your faith, the Egyptians were also very religious people, so i don't really see any sort of defence in using those as examples. The other point about none christian atheists wanting to keep slaves is utter nonsense, i'll bet you can't name a single organisation that you talk of, and i would have thought that most people of that age had some form of faith. But the main point here is the fact your god created people and cultures which used slaves for thousands of years, what sort of god is he?

 

3)-What a sweeping statement! All atheists are raving nut jobs on drugs?! If i were to say to you; you are insulting my opinion in order to defend your deluded drug taking promiscuous lifestyle, i think you would take offence. It's one thing to argue about the likelihood of each others opinions, and sometimes get heated, it's another thing the make ridiculous generalisations about people who question religion.