God does NOT exist!

[plekhanov]

After Darwin came Hitler who killed thousands of people in order to prove Darwin's theory on the survival of the fittest was true by becoming the Master race.

 

"I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews and Socialists, I am fighting for the Lord's work."

 

Adolph Hitler 1936 in a speech in the Reichstag. Source

 

And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the will

of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I am

defending the handiwork of the Lord.

 

Adolph Hitler Mein Kampf Chapter 2

 

But if for reasons of indolence or cowardice this fight is not fought to

a finish we may imagine what conditions will be like 500 years hence.

Little of God's image will be left in human nature, except to mock the

Creator.

 

Adolph Hitler Mein Kampf Chapter 2

 

In short, the results of miscegenation are always the following: (a) The level of the superior race becomes lowered; (b) physical and mental degeneration sets in, thus leading slowly but steadily towards a progressive drying up of the vital sap. The act which brings about such a development is a sin against the will of the Eternal Creator. And as a sin this act will be avenged.

 

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 11

 

Hitler was a Christian and a Creationist. His bizarre views on what he considered to be the human races make no scientific sense and are utterly incompatible with the theory of evolution through natural selection.

[Rich Siddall]

This pain has been gradually building up for a week now, and I really should have made an appointment with the doc. It will take either the doc or maybe a miracle to get me sorted out now though.

 

Oops! Just look at what I've written on the 'God does NOT exist thread'.

 

Praise be, he's seen the light

[plekhanov]

In numerous posts in this thread Grahame such as this one you have defended the genocidal campaigns which your holy book describes your god as advocating and assisting in.

 

In this post you defended the following passage from the bible:

 

Deuteronomy 20:10-18 10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

 

16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy [a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God.

 

What you have defended is actually worse in some ways than what Hitler managed or tried to do. He didn't kill every single Polish, Greek, Yugoslav... male when they refused to surrender nor did he take the entire surviving population as slaves (though he did enslave many). You defended conduct worse than that Hitler inflicted upon many of the groups he conquered.

 

The bible describes your god as demanding a campaign of genocide against the "the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites" Hitler obviously tried to do the same to the European Jews. Again you defended the advocated and attempted genocide against the 'Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites...'

 

Do you really not see the hypocrisy of you attempting to dishonestly link Darwin to the creationist Hitler in a pathetic attempt to smear atheists in a thread in which you have defended genocidal wars of aggression of the kind Hitler waged?

[Grahame]

Ok then, try it this way:

 

Imagine Grahame, a xtian, sitting down at his computer and seeing a post about how Baal personally murdered, or endorsed the murder of, thousands of men, women, children and cattle. Grahame is shocked and declares that "No just god would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to his computer again and this time finds a post about Yhvh, whose brutal actions make Baal seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Grahame was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says:..........................?

 

I gave the answer 4 hours earlier. Now I know I am talking to a brick wall. If everyone took proper notice and lived according to the Word of God we would have a world full of love and peace. As it is people like Bush and Blair take the law into their own hands and act as Judge, Jury and Executioner by invading Iraq killing thousands of people, yet people defend them. You are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites.

 

"The message of the Bible is that if people gave up their wicked ways there would be "Peace on Earth." We are told to love our neighbour and to turn the other cheek and if everyone were to follow the Ten Commandments from the Old Testament through into the New Testament and the teaching of Jesus, there would indeed be peace on earth. Unfortunately people have turned "everyone to their own way" and they choose darkness rather than light.

 

God did not say what the Reverend Richard Fuller says he said, and as I have just explained we are to live peacefully with our neighbour. If we do anything else we have sinned in the sight of God. What we need to remember is that God is the judge and if we take vengeance then it is us who are acting as Judge, jury and Executioner and that puts us in the wrong. What God sanctioned in the Old Testament, and continued through into the New Testament is this....

 

"It is mine to avenge; I will repay. In due time their foot will slip; their day of disaster is near and their doom rushes upon them. The LORD will judge his people and have compassion on his servants" [Deuteronomy 32:35]

 

"Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." [Romans 12:19

 

"For we know him that has said, Vengeance belongs to me, I will recompense, said the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people." [Heb 10:30]

 

.

[flamingjimmy]

I was wrong.

Very hard to admit by anyone.

What will be the outcome of someone saying those three words, ridicule, contempt or acceptance.

You were wrong about what?

[Circa]

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..

 

Right. Perhaps you should have a link to your terms and conditions then - including a definition of honesty, dishonesty and pretending, because your take on this is nothing I've met before. Sure - you have no reason to trust me, but I sure as heck have no reason to to lie or pretend about anything.

 

 

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?

 

 

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 don't have evidence that will satisfy your need for visible proof. In my few interactions with you this has already been covered. But this isn't dishonesty.

I find this definition of dishonesty to be strange and wrong. Because i can't explain something in a way that allows you to understand, or see visible proof, does not make me dishonest. It may make me a poor communicator, or not intellectual or scrupulous in the ways of debating, but why would it mean i am dishonest?

 

 

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....

 

sure - but they couldn't see them, they could only see the effects of them. in a similar way i know the effects of god but can't show you him. i'm sure you'll put that down to the placebo effect, or some power of the mind, and i'll have no way of disproving that.

 

 

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.

 

Right, so, because i didn't further the discussion about quarks with pininsho, but let him have the last word, and instead picked up on the fact that he seemed to be stating that all theists believe in god because they feel loved and wanted (not quoting him exactly, but something aloing those lines), and asked for some evidence - that's a strawman? So the rule here seems to be that if i raise a point, that i have to have to follow that through indefinitely (or as long as anyone wants to pull it apart), and not pick up on any other subject along the way. Couldn't i equally have said that pinicho's point was a straw man? I am interested to know - but realise too that this form of discusion is a rather alien to me, so may be better of sacking it rather than driving us all crackers.

[EbonyBranch]

I gave the answer 4 hours earlier. Now I know I am talking to a brick wall. If everyone took proper notice and lived according to the Word of God we would have a world full of love and peace. As it is people like Bush and Blair take the law into their own hands and act as Judge, Jury and Executioner by invading Iraq killing thousands of people, yet people defend them. You are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites.

 

"The message of the Bible is that if people gave up their wicked ways there would be "Peace on Earth." We are told to love our neighbour and to turn the other cheek and if everyone were to follow the Ten Commandments from the Old Testament through into the New Testament and the teaching of Jesus, there would indeed be peace on earth. Unfortunately people have turned "everyone to their own way" and they choose darkness rather than light.

 

God did not say what the Reverend Richard Fuller says he said, and as I have just explained we are to live peacefully with our neighbour. If we do anything else we have sinned in the sight of God. What we need to remember is that God is the judge and if we take vengeance then it is us who are acting as Judge, jury and Executioner and that puts us in the wrong. What God sanctioned in the Old Testament, and continued through into the New Testament is this....

 

"It is mine to avenge; I will repay. In due time their foot will slip; their day of disaster is near and their doom rushes upon them. The LORD will judge his people and have compassion on his servants" [Deuteronomy 32:35]

 

"Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." [Romans 12:19

 

"For we know him that has said, Vengeance belongs to me, I will recompense, said the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people." [Heb 10:30]

 

.

 

 

 

No, you evaded a different question, so i rephrased it.

 

You have repeatedly been caught out 'lying for jesus' on this forum.

You defend genocide, yet have the cheek to trundle out the old lies about Darwinism leading to Naziism.

You throw insults around in lieu of making actual arguments.

Your posts are peppered with logical fallacies.

When caught out in an apparent lie, you ignore all requests for clarification.

You appear to think that xtians you disagree with are not xtians.

Now you're spouting scripture (again) as though it somehow wins the argument, knowing full well that it means nothing to most of those reading.

Given the lies, evasions, fallaciousness and ignorance you displayed here, why should we believe anything you say? Hearing scripture coming from someone so dishonest just undermines scripture.

[kenny.gray]

whoever created life suggest both sides on here just get on with it,in due time we will all have lived and died none of us will rise again.and my e-mail system will return to items of interest.thanks in the hope of a solution for you all.

[Circa]

I think you should either admit you were wrong, or tell me why you think I'm wrong. Just saying 'I have nothing to add' and 'my mind is made up' is intellectually bankrupt.

 

I will skip the bit about quarks without rising to the bait, so i am by admission, ignoring the main point of your post. If we can try and get over that, I'll pick up on something else at the risk of manufacturing more strawmen (i have quite a collection now) and loosing more red herrings into the river Fallacy (and if i must choose one of the above, i'll go for intellectual bankrupcy..)

 

Even if i dedicated some serious time to understanding the tight, factual, intellectually bloated modes of communication that are deemed acceptible and models of honesty by debators on threads like this, there would still be no place for the...heart of what I live and believe, because the... heart of what i believe rests in a god whos existence is not provable. So it's game over for me really.

 

But I am interested in how you guys have come to think they way you do. I find it quite extreem, and spiritually stifling, but it brings you satisfaction somehow. I do understand that radically living out what you see to be true is satisfying, and congruent, but it can mean that you become

blind to life and truth that exists outside it, this as always is totally fine unless it harms some one else. What is your take on that? Do you think that your view on reality is a healthy one, for example, to bring up children in?

[quisquose]

But I am interested in how you guys have come to think they way you do. I find it quite extreem, and spiritually stifling, but it brings you satisfaction somehow. I do understand that radically living out what you see to be true is satisfying, and congruent, but it can mean that you become blind to life and truth that exists outside it, this as always is totally fine unless it harms some one else. What is your take on that? Do you think that your view on reality is a healthy one, for example, to bring up children in?

 

This statement just shows that some of us must be wired differently.

 

I find the sheer pleasure in learning and the potential to learn to be 'spiritually' uplifting enough. From the moment I watched Neil Armstrong step on the moon with my parents, to the moment I discussed the Herschel and Planck space telescopes and the possibilities that lie ahead with my children yesterday. Isn't this 'healthy' enough?

 

Far better than claiming 'truths', or seeking for 'truths' that exist outside life and are unattainable.

 

Your statement reminds me of a beat poem by the comedian Tim Minchin:

 

 

Look it up.