/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>562732

Well what was your point? Did you post a specific topic you wanted to discuss? Non-christians are allowed to post but it should be productive, not just a vague debate about the entire faith.

>>562732

If that's the same pic I saw that thread. I can't speak for the admin but you shoulda given it more substance. Looked like a cheap bait thread. If you give thought out arguments you'll be OK, but remember we don't like your kind round here.

Yup that was me. Well i guess i got half what i was looking for. I was expecting someone to express general hate towards atheists and i did but i was actually expecting questions or assertions that i would respond on. I really have no specific part of the faith i want to debate on. The whole thing is what i wanna argue about for fun really.

ID: 4c5493

Nice one. I like sam harris's work on free-will the most since it was my introduction to him :)

ID : 1e1187

Well let's start by talking about faith.

i didn't chose to be an atheist it happened because i say no sufficient evidence behind the religious claims, if there was evidence i would believe and of course faith is not a reliable pathway to truth since it can lead you to true and wrong conclusions with incredible inaccuracy so using it is useless.

ID : 929b9a

what are some true beliefs you hold?

Sorry. So many grammatical errors.

I don't know how to edit my previous comment but here is the fixed version of it

"i didn't chose to be an atheist, it happened because i saw no sufficient evidence behind religious claims, if there was evidence i would believe and of course faith is not a reliable pathway to truth since it can lead you to true and wrong conclusions with incredible inaccuracy so using it is useless."

>>562732

How is the atheism board doing these days?

What do you mean by "what are some true beliefs you hold"? I believe in millions of things i.e. non of them on faith

"How is the atheism board doing these days?" I don't know of such board. This is my first time on 8chan

>>562755

>This is my first time on 8chan

It shows.

I think your posts were removed because they're very vague and come off as cheap bait. We get a lot of that around here so your standards need to be high.

My standards for what. Do you mean that the posts i make have to be good enough that they aren't deleted? Who decides if they are or not?

>>562749

You should learn how to post brother before you make a thread. It's pretty confusing how you are currently doing it.

Re faith: even if we ignore Christian truth, theism has been the dominant philosophy since philosophy existed. You should read Plato\Aristotle if you find the Bible unpalatable. Both believed in a prime unmoved mover, a conclusion they arrived at through reason, not scripture. The fact that you are ignoring the entire corpus of human metaphysics in favor of Sam Harris speaks volumes

>when you are so enlightened you can't even a make a proper thread or read the board rules beforehand

>>562758

You do realize all of us have read at least a gazillion threads posted by "I'm an atheist, debate me" folks, right?

And those generalized discussions: 1) never get anywhere, 2) always revolve around ideas we've refuted to -our- (maybe not your) satisfaction.

You'll find we have a generally agreed-upon answer to must silly atheist questions like:

>Why do bad things happen to good people?

Ans: None is righteous, not one

>Can God make a rock so heavy he can't lift it.

Ans: Paradoxes are a silly waste of time since, by their own nature, they cannot exist. Go learn what the church fathers actually mean by omnipowerful.

>Why does God do evil things (genociding the Caananites, etc.)

Ans: God cannot do evil. God is good by nature. Your assumption that the genocide was bad is based on your incomplete knowledge. If you grant God is real for the sake of argument, acknowledge how silly you are trying to say you know better than an all-knowing being. As God said to Job: "Where were you when I made the heavens and the Earth?"

So, yeah. The assumption is that you're going to be completely unoriginal and waste all our time.

"4. Non-Christians are welcome to post here, and are encouraged to ask questions in good faith. But they cannot proselytize non-Christian beliefs or post antagonistic or otherwise scandalous material.

What is your goal for this thread? :)"

Oh sorry. Maybe i should have made it clearer that i wanted to debate. You still should've waited a bit until someone responded to me so you can see what I'm about. I just wanna debate. I love debating any subject :). Right now I'm gonna start debating with people who responded to my post. I did not read the rules thanks for informing me about them :)

>>562764

If you want to debate, make an argument. No one is arguing that you aren't an atheist.

>>562764

according to your worldview, is it wrong to eat babies?

if so, why?

Yay. 1st counter argument

"even if we ignore Christian truth"

Hold up. Just say Christianity. There is no way to distinguish if Christianity or any other religions are true since all have 0 evidence to back up their claims. I'm saying that there is no good reason to believe in Christianity, I'm not ignoring anything you have provided, if you actually provided evidence and i had ignored it then you would be ok in saying such an obnoxious phrase but for now you aren't

"theism has been the dominant philosophy since philosophy existed. You should read Plato\Aristotle if you find the Bible unpalatable. Both believed in a prime unmoved mover, a conclusion they arrived at through reason, not scripture."

This is not only an ad-populum fallacy but also is hilariously useless as a counter argument

1st incase you don't remember what an ad-populum fallacy is. "The ad populum fallacy is the appeal to the popularity of a claim as a reason for accepting it. The number of people who believe a claim is irrelevant to its truth." But not only that, epicurus was an atheist from ancient BCE philosopher who was an anti-theist, that's irrelevant to the topic in hand

2nd they still believed what they did on faith and it's useless for you to say this because you haven't demonstrated why faith is useful

"The fact that you are ignoring the entire corpus of human metaphysics in favor of Sam Harris speaks volumes"

I was an atheist for 2 years before i even heard of the neo-atheism movement and i have learned about a lot of philosophers not just him. But even if what you're saying is true it would just be another way too similar ad-hominim fallacy

Way too familiar*

>>562770

Thanks. Sorry this is my first time here and this is my first time posting anything

>>562761

"when you are so enlightened you can't even a make a proper thread or read the board rules beforehand"

Have mercy. This is my first time on the site

>>562776

Also if you want to quote someone it helps to put a > or < before each line containing a quote:

>like this

<or this

Now repent.

>>562777

I will only give you another (you) because of those trips.

You didn't come here interested in answers, you came here to "debate" because you want to prove to yourself that you are smart and right, and wallow in your misplaced sense of intellectual superiority. The others may see it and act differently, but I am not going to "give pearls to a swine" and enable you in your arrogance and self-delusion.

>>562746

I'm an atheist but this take on Sam really does crack me up so much.

>>562774

I wasn't making an argument because you had no initial argument. I was pointing out your illiteracy. And yes it was ad hominem.

>they still believed what they did on faith and it's useless for you to say this because you haven't demonstrated why faith is useful

They didn't though. They demonstrated it.

>>562763

"You do realize all of us have read at least a gazillion threads posted by "I'm an atheist, debate me" folks, right?"

No i don't but thanks for pointing it out

"And those generalized discussions: 1) never get anywhere, 2) always revolve around ideas we've refuted to -our- (maybe not your) satisfaction."

I highly doubt it

"You'll find we have a generally agreed-upon answer to must silly atheist questions like:"

Most*

">Why do bad things happen to good people?

Ans: None is righteous, not one"

Dumb question and dumb answer

A better question and a question an actual atheist would ask is "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" Which is quoted from epicurus

">Can God make a rock so heavy he can't lift it.

Ans: Paradoxes are a silly waste of time since, by their own nature, they cannot exist. Go learn what the church fathers actually mean by omnipowerful."

Dumb answer. The proposal that god is omnipotent is directly contradicted by the idea that he can or can't make a log so heavy that he can't lift it. That is as much as a question which has ONLY 2 answers and both prove that god can not be fully omnipotent and the only way you can ignore such claim is if you somehow find a 3rd answer and saying "paradox's can't exist" isn't an answer because of course they can but at the moment they do exist they stop being paradox's because your god is no longer considered as omnipotent

">Why does God do evil things (genociding the Caananites, etc.)"

A god that is omnipotent and omniscient is evil by nature if you remember the epicurus quote

"Ans: God cannot do evil. God is good by nature."

Right off the bat you are playing with the definition of bad and good.

"Your assumption that the genocide was bad is based on your incomplete knowledge."

So you are suggesting that the genocide was good since god did it. That means that good is defined by what god wants.

As Aristote put it "Is an action morally good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good?"

Both choices are bad for your position. The 1st implies that if god commanded eternal suffering on everything then that is good and the 2nd one says that what is "good" is independent from what god wants or not

"If you grant God is real for the sake of argument"

I don't but k

"acknowledge how silly you are trying to say you know better than an all-knowing being. As God said to Job: "Where were you when I made the heavens and the Earth?"

I already explained why this is BS but I'll point out an extra thing

"The man who prays is the one who thinks that god has arranged matters all wrong, but who also thinks that he can instruct god how to put them right."

"So, yeah. The assumption is that you're going to be completely unoriginal and waste all our time." If you think so you're welcome to leave

"according to your worldview, is it wrong to eat babies?

if so, why?"

Yes because morality should be subjectively based as what a system that promotes well being and discourages suffering. Both well being and suffering czn be defined scientifically

>>562779

>Also if you want to quote someone it helps to put a > or < before each line containing a quote:

>like this

<or this

Now repent.<

Thanks

>>562781

"I will only give you another of those trips."

Thanks

You didn't come here interested in answers"

I never claimed that i am

" you came here to "debate" because you want to prove to yourself that you are smart and right"

Not true. I debate only for the fun of it and to become more experienced whilst doing it. I already know I'm smart and right about ME not having seen a good reason to believe in god

"and wallow in your misplaced sense of intellectual superiority. The others may see it and act differently, but I am not going to "give pearls to a swine" and enable you in your arrogance and self-delusion.""

Thanks for the useless ad-hominims pall. Atheism by definition can't be a delusion because it is NOT seeing good reasons to believe in god. Until you give good reasons the atheist is right. How can a non-belief be a delusion. I don't get it

>>562785

It is funny. I saved the pic thanks

>>562787

"OP, go back to reddit or whatever cesspit you came from"

I don't use it

>>562788

">they still believed what they did on faith and it's useless for you to say this because you haven't demonstrated why faith is useful

They didn't though. They demonstrated it."

Lol. What do you mean. You do realise that 1st they didn't provide any evidence therefore it is faith. If they gave ontological arguments for the existence of god the arguments had holes inthem and still needed evidence therefore since its belief without evidence it's still faith 2nd you're defending the beliefs that you do not believe in and that contradict your own beliefs

>>562790

>Dumb question and dumb answer

>A better question and a question an actual atheist would ask is…

>A god that is omnipotent and omniscient is evil by nature if you remember the epicurus quote

God may have overriding concerns which are not evident to us. As long as it is possible that He does then there is no contradiction. One possible answer scenario would be that God allows free creatures to commit evil of their own volition because He wishes for freely chosen good to exist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKx7l7NhHww

>The proposal that god is omnipotent is directly contradicted by the idea that he can or can't make a log so heavy that he can't lift it. That is as much as a question which has ONLY 2 answers and both prove that god can not be fully omnipotent

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69dbNQ7QVJw

>…That means that good is defined by what god wants.

That is close to the Christian claim which is that God's nature is 'the Good,' and so anything God commands is good.

How do you ground the ontology of moral claims?

>>562799

>>scientifically

>suffering can be quantified

by what metric? pain is a subjective qualia based on the individual's tolerance and it's not inherently evil."

Pain isn't subjective. Both tolerance to pain and pain are neurological and what i wanted to say is that UNNECISSARY pain is evil. Nothing is inherently(which means objectively) evil by the way.

>suffering can help an individual grow and mature, <depending on the <circumstances.

SURE it can but that's necessary neurological pain that happens and is heald to the benefit of the person so it doesn't fit the criteria.

Sorry dude this is complicated stuff I'd like to respond fully now but I'm going to sleep since its 2 AM here in france.

>>562801

Do you not understand what philosophy is? There are proofs in logic similar in kind to geometry.

>you're defending the beliefs that you do not believe in and that contradict your own beliefs

I believe in God so there is no contradiction. Scholasticism is heavily influenced by the Greeks.

>For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse

Rom 1:20

>>562805

Goodnight. Talk to you all fine gentilman(excluding the clearly hateful ones of you) later

It's 2AM. Sorry

>>562806

you say that nothing is evil, yet disbelieve god for causing evil

you have a low iq, thats all

>>562790

> Re: Epicurus

>Dumb question and dumb answer

Poisoning the well I see. I assumed you wanted logical debate, not rhetoric. I'll still answer but check yourself or I'll ignore you in future.

Although more poetic, in actual discussion, the exact same issue. But, I'll explain it in the terms posed:

Epicurus's position assumes that there is a potential existence / universe superior to our own. If this potential existence / universe is impossible, then God is already ultimately minimizing evil. Epicurus's base assumption is false (stems from the pride of assuming certain changes would make the universe better when, in fact, God knows the changes would make things worse)

Omnipotent does not able to do impossible, rather, able to do anything possible. Thus, God is omnipotent and, yet, cannot remove anymore evil as evil has already been minimized to the greatest extent possible in which the universe can still function as intended.

>umb answer. The proposal that god is omnipotent is directly contradicted by the idea that he can or can't make a log so heavy that he can't lift it. That is as much as a question which has ONLY 2 answers and both prove that god can not be fully omnipotent and the only way you can ignore such claim is if you somehow find a 3rd answer and saying "paradox's can't exist" isn't an answer because of course they can but at the moment they do exist they stop being paradox's because your god is no longer considered as omnipotent

Your definition of omnipotent is incorrect. Go read what Christian theologians mean by omnipotence. Plenty of free books online, I'm not your theology professor. You want to take up an argument, learn the terminology.

>Right off the bat you are playing with the definition of bad and good.

No. Defining terms is the basis of any good discussion. I defined the terms. You've tautologically lost before the get go.

Now, if when you use the terms "good" and "bad" you really have another meaning in mind which I can empiracally observe, please tell me the act of God you're complaining about.

Your counter-point to the 1st was illusory - as if flowery words change the argument

Your counter-point to the 2nd ignored my argument that you don't understand what we mean by omnipotence. That argument still stands. If what you're arguing is:

"Your God can't do this thing that no one can, by its own logical definition do"

Then my answer is, sure, so what?

If you think by corollary that proves anything else, you're joking.

Your counter-point to the 3rd easy:

>The 1st implies that if god commanded eternal suffering on everything then that is good

Yes, that's exactly what we're saying. It would be good if God ordered that because God is the source of all goodness.

However, this is an entirely moot point because God does not change and has not ordered that.

Your new point?

"The man who prays is the one who thinks that god has arranged matters all wrong, but who also thinks that he can instruct god how to put them right."

This is not at all a Christian perspective nor the way anyone on here that I've spoken with thinks of prayer. It's a strawman.

>>562805

>>562790 (You)

">Dumb question and dumb answer

>A better question and a question an actual atheist would ask is…

>A god that is omnipotent and omniscient is evil by nature if you remember the epicurus quote

God may have overriding concerns which are not evident to us. As long as it is possible that He does then there is no contradiction. One possible answer scenario would be that God allows free creatures to commit evil of their own volition because He wishes for freely chosen good to exist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKx7l7NhHww"

I'm sorry dude but no sending of videos here *I WILL NOT WATCH ANY VIDEOS OR READ ANY ARTICLES THAT ANYBODY SENDS*. For the sake of the inhansment of the debating experience you will have to summarise what the vids say IN TEXT so i can respond IN TEXT so other people can read what we're saying and join in

>The proposal that god is omnipotent is directly contradicted by the idea that he can or can't make a log so heavy that he can't lift it. That is as much as a question which has ONLY 2 answers and both prove that god can not be fully omnipotent

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69dbNQ7QVJw

Same here. No videos.

>…That means that good is defined by what god wants.

That is close to the Christian claim which is that God's nature is 'the Good,' and so anything God commands is good.

How do you ground the ontology of moral claims?

That is a retarded way to define morality. This type of morality literally makes slavery, genocides, violence, sexism, sadomasochism(loving someone you fear) which are all commanded by god in the bible moral. That's not only an evil idea but the type of idea that causes some muslims (I'm an ex-muslim) to join ISIS and think that what they do is moral since it's also commanded in their holy book which is the quran….. which might i add says that Allah is the same as your God just thar jesus was only a prophet. A better way to base morality is on the preservation of people's well being and the prevention of unnecessary suffering. Suffering is neurological and can be quantified using neurology.

>>562807

"Do you not understand what philosophy is? There are proofs in logic similar in kind to geometry."

I'm a philosophy geek so do not expect that i have no understanding of philosophy

>you're defending the beliefs that you do not believe in and that contradict your own beliefs

I believe in God so there is no contradiction. Scholasticism is heavily influenced by the Greeks.

That's true but my point is that they believed in a different afterlife(the afterlife where you go and inhanse learning and learn and debate with great minds forever) and in many ways yours and theirs have the same amount of evidence behind them which is 0 and the same applies for thousands of religions

>For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse

Rom 1:20"

Captain Curk said "What does god need with a spaceship"

I need to clarify this. Quoting the bible will not get you anywhere because you haven't demonstrated why any body should consider the bible true or authoritative

>>562854

"you say that nothing is evil, yet disbelieve god for causing evil

you have a low iq, thats all"

You are wrong on so many levels

1st i do believe that evil exists

What i said that 'objective' evil can't exist nomatter how you look at it.

You first have to understand my views on morality

base morality on the preservation of people's well being and the prevention of unnecessary suffering. Suffering is neurological and can be quantified using neurology. As you can see i define evil as anything that ruins/worsens human well being. Now you have to understand thatfor a person to use such a morality he first has to SUBJECTIVELY(not objectively) care about well being and the same goes for Christians because to base morality on the bible you have to subjectively care about what the bible says

2nd i don't disbelief in god because if he existed he would be evil by nature but i disbelief in god because of lack of evidence that he exists

3rd I'll add that scientific research hzs shown that atheists have on average an IQ higher than theists by 7 points

"> Re: Epicurus

>Dumb question and dumb answer

Poisoning the well I see. I assumed you wanted logical debate, not rhetoric. I'll still answer but check yourself or I'll ignore you in future."

Excuse me. I do not think an atheist would ever ask such a question and i find that presuming that an atheist would shows no experience with talking with atheists, that wasn't retoric. It was a claim that could or couldn't be true in a debate so not rhetoric and I'll add that you aren't obliged to stay here you are welcome to ignore me

"Although more poetic, in actual discussion, the exact same issue. But, I'll explain it in the terms posed:

"Epicurus's position assumes that there is a potential existence / universe superior to our own. If this potential existence / universe is impossible, then God is already ultimately minimizing evil. Epicurus's base assumption is false (stems from the pride of assuming certain changes would make the universe better when, in fact, God knows the changes would make things worse) Omnipotent does not able to do impossible, rather, able to do anything possible. Thus, God is omnipotent and, yet, cannot remove anymore evil as evil has already been minimized to the greatest extent possible in which the universe can still function as intended."

No no no

The existence of an afterlife which means thatgod is redeeming pain and therefore epicurus's quote is false is a very irrational claim. There are about 9 million children under 5 that die every year. Picture an asian tsunami of the sort we saw in 2004 killing a quarter of a million every 10 days, all of them under 5. About 24 thousand children a day, about a thousand an hour and 17 or so a minute. These children were generally only born to suffer and die since they hadn't had much time as conscious beings before they suffered horrible deaths and died. Picture the parents of these children and that means that before you can get to the end of this comment a which will take about 2 min 34 children would have died in horrible terror and agony, think of the parents of these children which most likely believe in god and are praying this second for their children to be saved, their prayers will not be answered. Any god who would allow children by the millions to die and saffer this way, for their parents to grieve this way either can do nothing to help them or doesn't care to, he is therefore either impotent or evil and the existence of an afterlife does not excuse the needless suffering of these millions of children on earth and the idea that god is not preventing this because he knows that preventing this kind of suffering would make things worse need i say is a silly idea. It is possible to save children. I could save one and it is objectively possible to do so on a mass scale. An omnipotent being can do so on a mass scale.

">dumb answer. The proposal that god is omnipotent is directly contradicted by the idea that he can or can't make a log so heavy that he can't lift it. That is as much as a question which has ONLY 2 answers and both prove that god can not be fully omnipotent and the only way you can ignore such claim is if you somehow find a 3rd answer and saying "paradox's can't exist" isn't an answer because of course they can but at the moment they do exist they stop being paradox's because your god is no longer considered as omnipotent

Your definition of omnipotent is incorrect. Go read what Christian theologians mean by omnipotence."

There is only 1 definition of the word and I'd like to clarify that i know religious people like to play around with definitions which of course is overlooking what a "definition" actually is. You don't get to do that with me. Omnipotent by definition means "that which can do all"

"Plenty of free books online, I'm not your theology professor. You want to take up an argument, learn the terminology."

You being a theology professor does not lower/higher the validity of your arguments. I know you know this but I'd like to point it out

>Right off the bat you are playing with the definition of bad and good.

"No. Defining terms is the basis of any good discussion. I defined the terms. You've tautologically lost before the get go."

I base what's good and bad on how things affect well being. I already explained why base good and bad on the bible is bad but I'll elaborate on that later. What i meant is that you started throwing around the words good and bad without explaining what you base them on therefore you were playing around with the meanings but i guess you'll explain now

"Now, if when you use the terms "good" and "bad" you really have another meaning in mind which I can empiracally observe, please tell me the act of God you're complaining about."

I'm not the one that asked the questions. The questions were asked and answered by the same person to show me what are common answers to 'common'(no atheist would ever ask some of these questions) asked by atheists here

I'll elaborate on why basing good and bad on the bible and saying that god is perfectly good is a bad thing.

morality based on the bible literally makes slavery, genocides, violence, sexism, sadomasochism(loving someone you fear) which are all commanded by god in the bible moral. That's not only an evil idea but the type of idea that causes some muslims (I'm an ex-muslim) to join ISIS and think that what they do is moral since it's also commanded in their holy book which is the quran….. which might i add says that Allah is the same as your God just thar jesus was only a prophet. A better way to base morality is on the preservation of people's well being and the prevention of unnecessary suffering. Suffering is neurological and can be quantified using neurology.

"Your counter-point to the 1st was illusory - as if flowery words change the argument"

I don't remember which argument or counter argument you are talking about. Generally speaking shortening what was said to 2 lines gets a lot of info lost. If you aren't going to elaborate I'm gonna presume that you have no counter arguments to what i said

"Your counter-point to the 2nd ignored my argument that you don't understand what we mean by omnipotence."

I already explained this. What you mean by the word should be clarified if you're not using it in the conventional sense but the word is defined as "having unlimited power." Which means "that which can do all"

That argument still stands. If what you're arguing is:

"Your God can't do this thing that no one can, by its own logical definition do"

Then my answer is, sure, so what?"

1st by definition the things are possible. I can build something so heavy that i can't lift it and some people can't because they don't have materials

2nd So what? That means god can't do anything and therefore isn't omnipotent

"If you think by corollary that proves anything else, you're joking."

Ad-hominim

"Your counter-point to the 3rd easy:

>The 1st implies that if god commanded eternal suffering on everything then that is good

Yes, that's exactly what we're saying. It would be good if God ordered that because God is the source of all goodness. "

So by your logic suffering is moral if god commands it. Yay no difference between your thinking and isis i rest my case

"However, this is an entirely moot point because God does not change and has not ordered that."

1st didn't god change from the old to the new testament

2nd he has supported violence and murder in the bible many times. For example the death penalty for homosexual behaviour

"Your new point?

"The man who prays is the one who thinks that god has arranged matters all wrong, but who also thinks that he can instruct god how to put them right."

This is not at all a Christian perspective nor the way anyone on here that I've spoken with thinks of prayer.

But it's logical. You can't pray without realising that it means that.

I don't care if you don't think that it's this case you still have to explain why you disagree.

" It's a strawman."

Don't through around words like "strawman" if you don't understand them. A strawman means "an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument." And it is clear that what i said was a factual claim that you didn't disprove or counter

***GUYS I'M LEAVING TO DO WORK

I RESPONDED TO ALL OF YOUR COMMENTS ONE BY ONE BUT FORGOT TO TAG SOME OF YOU TO THE REPLIES SO SORRY YOU'LL JUST HAVE TO FIND THEM.*** I'LL BE GOING NOW. BYE BYE

"There are about 9 million children under 5 that die every year. Picture an asian tsunami of the sort we saw in 2004 killing a quarter of a million every 10 days, all of them under 5. About 24 thousand children a day, about a thousand an hour and 17 or so a minute. These children were generally only born to suffer and die since they hadn't had much time as conscious beings before they suffered horrible deaths and died. Picture the parents of these children and that means that before you can get to the end of this comment a which will take about 2 min 34 children would have died in horrible terror and agony, think of the parents of these children which most likely believe in god and are praying this second for their children to be saved, their prayers will not be answered. Any god who would allow children by the millions to die and saffer this way, for their parents to grieve this way either can do nothing to help them or doesn't care to, he is therefore either impotent" I'm just gonna add something to this. Worse than that most of these parents, many of these parents will be going to hell because they're praying to the wrong god. Just think about that. Through no fault of their own they were born in the wrong culture, where they got the wrong theology and they missed the revelation.ok there are 1.2 billion people in india at this moment, most of them are hindus, most of them therefore polytheists. No matter how good these people are, they are doomed. If you were praying to the monkey god hanoman you are doomed. You'll be tortured in hell for eternity. Now is there the slightest evidence for this? NO, it just says so in Mark 9, Matthew 13 and revelation 14. Perhaps you'll remember from the lord of the rings ot says that when the elves die they go to valanore so that they can be reborn in middle earth, i say that as a point of comparison. So god created the world knowing everything, he created the cultural isolation of the hibdus, he engineered the circumstances of their deaths in ignorance of revelation and then he created the penalty for this ignorance which is an eternity of consciousness torment in fire. On the other hand your run if the mill serial killer in America who spent his life raping and torturing children need only come to jesus on death row and after a final meal of fried chicken he's going to spend an eternity in heaven.

Talk to you all fine gentlemen(including shrek but excluding the clearly hateful of you) bye bye

>>563036

>No sending videos

Are you really too lazy to watch a 5min video? Then don't expect anyone to take the time to read your post.

>>563100

"Are you really too lazy to watch a 5min video? Then don't expect anyone to take the time to read your post." That's not it. In fact i already watched the vids but the point is that i am not gonna respond to a vid. You have to summarise or express naturally what's in the vid so i can respond to it. The reason is that 1st people can read what the person said and when i respond understand what i am rebuking and talking about 2nd sometimes people send videos when they themselves don't understand what's in the video so it helps if they skip a step and just write their interpretation 3rd I'll allow sending of videos if the person who is sending them is also summarising what's in the vids by text and rendering the videos optional 😊

Anyways. I'm getting back to work

>>563051

>The existence of an afterlife which means thatgod is redeeming pain and therefore epicurus's quote is false is a very irrational claim. There are about 9 million children under 5 that die every year. Picture an asian tsunami of the sort we saw in 2004 killing a quarter of a million every 10 days, all of them under 5. About 24 thousand children a day, about a thousand an hour and 17 or so a minute. These children were generally only born to suffer and die since they hadn't had much time as conscious beings before they suffered horrible deaths and died. Picture the parents of these children and that means that before you can get to the end of this comment a which will take about 2 min 34 children would have died in horrible terror and agony, think of the parents of these children which most likely believe in god and are praying this second for their children to be saved, their prayers will not be answered. Any god who would allow children by the millions to die and saffer this way, for their parents to grieve this way either can do nothing to help them or doesn't care to, he is therefore either impotent or evil and the existence of an afterlife does not excuse the needless suffering of these millions of children on earth and the idea that god is not preventing this because he knows that preventing this kind of suffering would make things worse need i say is a silly idea. It is possible to save children. I could save one and it is objectively possible to do so on a mass scale. An omnipotent being can do so on a mass scale.

This is completely beside the point and fails to refute my point. Do you just derail any conversation you cannot win? My point >>562894 can be summed up thusly:

You believe the universe should be organized for suffering minimalization. God has organized the universe to goodness maximalization.

Analogy: Whiny protestor stands outside food factory saying they hate smog. There is absolutely nothing (for the sake of argument) that can be done to minimize smog output but, if factory closes, millions will starve.

This is like you- you want God to end suffering but that is only possible by ending the universe.

This time try arguing to my points:

-You've improperly defined omnipotence

-You're assuming the point of this universe is to minimize suffering as you define it.

Your argument falls apart if we disagree with either of these two points and we do, in fact, disagree with them.

>There is only 1 definition of the word and I'd like to clarify that i know religious people like to play around with definitions which of course is overlooking what a "definition" actually is. You don't get to do that with me. Omnipotent by definition means "that which can do all"

This is not true. You are wrong. Go read a book about what Christians mean when they say "omnipotent." If you want to come to a Christian board and argue with us using our terms, learn they first. You're being willfully ignorant.

>

morality based on the bible literally makes slavery, genocides, violence, sexism, sadomasochism(loving someone you fear) which are all commanded by god in the bible moral. That's not only an evil idea but the type of idea that causes some muslims (I'm an ex-muslim) to join ISIS and think that what they do is moral since it's also commanded in their holy book which is the quran….. which might i add says that Allah is the same as your God just thar jesus was only a prophet. A better way to base morality is on the preservation of people's well being and the prevention of unnecessary suffering. Suffering is neurological and can be quantified using neurology.

You actually came close to a counter-argument on this one. Are you saying your definition of "bad" is subjective suffering? What's your definition of "good?" Please take this position, I'm going to enjoy it.

>>563125

>ad-hominem accusation

Please go look up what this fallacy means.

>So by your logic suffering is moral if god commands it. Yay no difference between your thinking and isis i rest my case

LOL. Yes, in this we are the same. It is not the way we view God as the source of morality that differentiates us but, rather, who we believe God is- the nature of God.

You argument is just as easily:

>So by your logic God is real, just the same as Isis and I rest my case.

Really? Seriously? You cannot see how silly you sound? I can't wait for you to compare us to Nazis next since we wear clothes, just like they do.

>But it's logical. You can't pray without realising that it means that.

This is basically your problem. Every single thing you think about us is a strawman you've been taught. It woefully sad. You don't understand any of what we think. You're constantly saying "you must think this way" but we don't think that way. You're not going to convince anyone when you can't even grasp what we're -actually- thinking. You understand at least that much, right? First, stop assuming you know our arguments- you've either taken all this drivel from Atheist sites or debated Christians who have no work in apologetics.

>Don't through around words like "strawman" if you don't understand them. A strawman means "an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument." And it is clear that what i said was a factual claim that you didn't disprove or counter

You're constantly telling me what I believe and then shooting it down. That's strawman fallacy. To truly make a point, you need to address what I've actually written, not a paragraph you've tried to falsely attribute to me. You can ask "would you agree with this?" but you'll find I say no.

>>562732

Into the fiery lake

>>563125

"

>The existence of an afterlife which means thatgod is redeeming pain and therefore epicurus's quote is false is a very irrational claim. There are about 9 million children under 5 that die every year. Picture an asian tsunami of the sort we saw in 2004 killing a quarter of a million every 10 days, all of them under 5. About 24 thousand children a day, about a thousand an hour and 17 or so a minute. These children were generally only born to suffer and die since they hadn't had much time as conscious beings before they suffered horrible deaths and died. Picture the parents of these children and that means that before you can get to the end of this comment a which will take about 2 min 34 children would have died in horrible terror and agony, think of the parents of these children which most likely believe in god and are praying this second for their children to be saved, their prayers will not be answered. Any god who would allow children by the millions to die and saffer this way, for their parents to grieve this way either can do nothing to help them or doesn't care to, he is therefore either impotent or evil and the existence of an afterlife does not excuse the needless suffering of these millions of children on earth and the idea that god is not preventing this because he knows that preventing this kind of suffering would make things worse need i say is a silly idea. It is possible to save children. I could save one and it is objectively possible to do so on a mass scale. An omnipotent being can do so on a mass scale.

This is completely beside the point and fails to refute my point."

Sorry dude i might have totally missed your point. To be frank what you said wasn't vary clear to me

"Do you just derail any conversation you cannot win?"

Sorry dude i just didn't really understand what you said. I'm sure you'll elaborate now

"My point >>562894 can be summed up thusly:

You believe the universe should be organized for suffering minimalization."

That's the moral thing, anything else would be immoral and evil.

"God has organized the universe to goodness maximalization."

😑 the evil still exists. No matter how much salt you add in a bowl full of salt that'll do nothing if you don't remove the salt if the enishial goal is to remove the site

"Analogy: Whiny protestor stands outside food factory saying they hate smog. There is absolutely nothing (for the sake of argument) that can be done to minimize smog output but, if factory closes, millions will starve."

Wel this Analogy isn't a good apology since of course an omnipotent god can find a way to create a factory that doesn't produce dangerous fog that causes cancer in children and still have it produce food. Infact scientists are as i once read are designing a type of foam that absorbes 99,9% of gases produced from factories and can be replaced. There's always a way if you want to be moral and remove evil if you are omnipotent so the only reason evil would exist is that you aren't omnipotent or are not wanting to be moral but let evil things happen therefore be evil

This as I'm sorry does a bad Analogy

"This is like you- you want God to end suffering but that is only possible by ending the universe."

😑 if humans had enough power they could minimize suffering toalmost nothing without destroying the universe so all powerful god surely could remove all unneeded suffering without destroying the universe

"This time try arguing to my points:

-You've improperly defined omnipotence

-You're assuming the point of this universe is to minimize suffering as you define it."

There is no point for the universe. I said that if the universe was to be run morally you'd have to remove unnecessary suffering

"Your argument falls apart if we disagree with either of these two points and we do, in fact, disagree with them."

Unless you demonstrate why they're wrong as I'm sure you will ATTEMPT. Your disagreeing with me is useless in the debate

>There is only 1 definition of the word and I'd like to clarify that i know religious people like to play around with definitions which of course is overlooking what a "definition" actually is. You don't get to do that with me. Omnipotent by definition means "that which can do all"

This is not true.

Oh great

"You are wrong."

Wtf. It doesn't matter who said it. It's true if it's true

"Go read a book about what Christians mean when they say "omnipotent." If you want to come to a Christian board and argue with us using our terms, learn they first."

There is only 1 definition. Unless you wanna summarise what said books would teach me then stop telling me that i need to read which is only an ad-hominim

"You're being willfully ignorant."

Bitch please. Ad-hominims left and right up in this bitch.

>

morality based on the bible literally makes slavery, genocides, violence, sexism, sadomasochism(loving someone you fear) which are all commanded by god in the bible moral. That's not only an evil idea but the type of idea that causes some muslims (I'm an ex-muslim) to join ISIS and think that what they do is moral since it's also commanded in their holy book which is the quran….. which might i add says that Allah is the same as your God just thar jesus was only a prophet. A better way to base morality is on the preservation of people's well being and the prevention of unnecessary suffering. Suffering is neurological and can be quantified using neurology.

You actually came close to a counter-argument on this one. Are you saying your definition of "bad" is subjective suffering?

No. Suffering is objective. It can be measured and quantified using neurology. Nothing can possibly be objectively bad or good ever no matter how you think about it. The morality is based on the subjective care about the preservation of objectivre well-being and the prevention of objective suffering

What's your definition of "good?" Please take this position, I'm going to enjoy it.

The preservation and improvement of well-being

>>563126

">ad-hominem accusation

Please go look up what this fallacy means."

I'm the 1st one to mention it here. It generally means to attack a persons character as a response to their points WITHOUT addressing the ponits correctly first but only using the attack on character as an attempt to downplay their arguments validity

"

>So by your logic suffering is moral if god commands it. Yay no difference between your thinking and isis i rest my case"

LOL. Yes, in this we are the same."

Thanks for the acceptancebut of course you are gonna follow this up with a straw-man

" It is not the way we view God as the source of morality that differentiates us but, rather, who we believe God is- the nature of God. "

See i knew it. If you actually could read proper English you could see that the nature of the god you believe in doesn't matter in my argument. What i said is that you and isis both think as you admitted that if you were convinced that your god commanded you to kill someone abd cause needless suffering you would do it. Now weather or not you think your god is a sweatgeart who would never ask such things the point still stands because the proper thing to respond to a god who asks you to do such things is… well the example of Abraham but towards you and your potential son, the proper respond to god asking you to gut your son is "FUCK YOU, i ain't doing that to my son" not "yes i will cause any needless suffering if you ask me to". And let's not forget that the bible advocates slavery and the death punishment for things as simple as working on sunday, not obeying your parents or being gay.

You argument is just as easily:

>So by your logic God is real, just the same as Isis and I rest my case.

Perfect example of a straw-man in use. I couldn't wish for a better example

"Really? Seriously? You cannot see how silly you sound? I can't wait for you to compare us to Nazis next since we wear clothes, just like they do." Funny, Nazis and Hitler were majorly Catholic/believers. I'm not comparing you but pointing out that yoy should remember that all the major WW2 dictators popped out in God-fearing places which goes to partially show that religiosity rarely causes an increase in morality.

">But it's logical. You can't pray without realising that it means that.

This is basically your problem. Every single thing you think about us is a strawman you've been taught. )"

Wow. For a person who uses strawmans a lot you sure know what they are huh

"It woefully sad. You don't understand any of what we think."

Nigga. Ad-hominims all around

"You're constantly saying "you must think this way" but we don't think that way."

Niggaaaaaaa. How about you realise that i was quoting somebody and that you should refute what they saidand not get mad about me using that quote. The quote merely points out the logical dilemma of praying. You can't justify praying in any eational way and the more you try the more you sound worse and worse therefore you're attacking me instead of my argument

"You're not going to convince anyone when  you

 can't even grasp what we're -actually- thinking."

Good job diconstructing my argument, you sure are very witty(I'm being sarcastic)

"You understand at least that much, right? First, stop assuming you know our arguments- you've either taken all this drivel from Atheist sites or debated Christians who have no work in apologetics." I have to clarify that there is no big change between debating you and debating other religious ignoramuses

"

>Don't through around words like "strawman" if you don't understand them. A strawman means "an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument." And it is clear that what i said was a factual claim that you didn't disprove or counter"

I still stand with what i said

"You're constantly telling me what I believe and then shooting it down."

Never once did such thing. It would be a strawman if i did but it isn't.

"That's strawman fallacy."

Dude the quote was explaining the logical implications of what praying means. You don't have to think that praying means that and i never claimed that you should(it's actually getting annoying about now how much you seem to be using misdirection) but…….. it logically does so either refute the quote and explain why it's lofic is

"To truly make a point, you need to address what I've actually written, not a paragraph you've tried to falsely attribute to me."

Ugh. You're reasoning skills are disgusting. I didn't attribute anything to you. It's a quote about prayer and how it's irrational. Just change the vocab to "if you pray then you have to understand that it means… the prayer is usef as…" to make the quote less direct and help your busy mind understand

" You can ask "would you agree with this?" but you'll find I say no."

I never asked if you would agree. I asked of you would disagree and that if you do that still leaves my argument as the one on top until you express with logical arguments why you disagree and have good reasons which you have up until now failed at attempting

Dude the quote was explaining the logical implications of what praying means. You don't have to think that praying means that and i never claimed that you should(it's actually getting annoying about now how much you seem to be using misdirection) but…….. it logically does, so either refute the quote and explain why it's logic is flawed or don't talk about it and talk on and on for no reason*

>>563790

>>563792

Re: universe organized for suffering minimalization

>That's the moral thing, anything else would be immoral.

I will return to the rest of are argument once you support this argument. You have made a clear statement: that nothing is more important than minimalizing suffering. If there was no life, there would be no suffering. Thus, it appears your argument is the moral solution would be to end the universe.

If I am wrong about your solution, please propose the way you think God should have made the universe so that there would be no suffering, bearing in mind the effect such changes would have had on evolution, physics, etc. and whether life could even function in such a universe because, as far as science has taught me, life expands and grows on the basis of reaction to its own suffering.

>>563978

"I will return to the rest of are argument once you support this argument. You have made a clear statement: that nothing is more important than minimalizing suffering. If there was no life, there would be no suffering. Thus, it appears your argument is the moral solution would be to end the universe." I usually use this as a joke. I am not capable to tell if you are joking or not. Let me fucking word what i said like a lawyer so you can't play around what i said "the universe should be set so that NO unnecessary suffering exists for LIVING creatures"

"If I am wrong about your solution, please propose the way you think God should have made the universe so that there would be no suffering"

Unnecessary suffering*

"bearing in mind the effect such changes would have had on evolution, physics, etc. and whether life could even function in such a universe because, as far as science has taught me, life expands and grows on the basis of reaction to its own suffering."

Well here's the thing. Yes the theory of evolution says that suffering exists in the nature of beings going through natural selection but who said that we need to base what we do on what's natural or not! Clothes, cars, GMO's, Vaccines, Buildings, Medicine…. are all unnatural so we shouldn't base morality on what's natural. The weak should be taken care of, the disabled should get help…. that's technically against what the picture of what natural selection says but we are at a point where we can take things into our own hands that lowering suffering goes against nature who cares, it's the same as cars, medicine, clothes… a universe where no unnecessary suffering existed wouldn't make things unbalanced just like clothes. Just imagine a universe with better médecin and where humans almost can not hurt each other or be hurt by nature for example having those 9 million children under the age of 5 that die every year do live longer healthier, fuller lives and die painless deaths for example

>>563978

And don't you disbelieve in evolution even though it is the equivalent to believing the holocaust never existed

>>564157

The holocaust never happened though.

>>564207

"The holocaust never happened though."

And you are out of the discourse for being XXL(extra-extra-lunatic)

>>564156

Your argument is not quite on point. I am not arguing against the minimization of suffering, after doing what is good.

You are arguing that the minimalization of suffering -is- the good. That nothing is more important than minimalizing suffering. Or, at least, I took that to be your argument.

If I am wrong, please state what is more important than minimalizing suffering.

If nothing is more important than minimalizing suffering, please explain why sterlization all life in reverse order of food-chain (ending all life in the least painful way) is not the most efficient answer? Because, as far as I can see, no life, no suffering.

>>564337

Dude it's simple. Yes i am saying that minimising suffering is the most important thing. That's a subjective basis for morality but on objective measurable things. There is nothing that stops you from arguing that it should be the opposite, that causing as much suffering as possible is the most important thing, the reason why minimising suffering is important is to improve quality of LIFE (if your dead there is no life) and well being(if you are dead then there is no being to be well) and i already said this but as you admitted you don't understand.

You're *

Is anyone there

>>564429

Well, you've just admitted that minimizing suffering isn't the end, but rather the means to improve "quality of life."

Thus, you're saying God should maximize quality of life.

How do you calculate quality? How do you know the universe isn't already maximalized to quality of life?

"Well, you've just admitted that minimizing suffering isn't the end, but rather the means to improve "quality of life.""

Bitch you stupid. Its a line where the middle is nothing, no emotions, no pain or plesure. Abd the left is a grid of suffering abd the right is a grid is plesure or a normal average life with no suffering but just doing things and enjoying them

"Thus, you're saying God should maximize quality of life."

No nigga. You cant have 2 points on the line. The point is either on the left side or the right side. God should minimise unnecissary suffering to 0 and then leave eberything be.

"How do you calculate quality? How do you know the universe isn't already maximalized to quality of life?"

Because 9 million children under the age of 5 are dying every year. Are you even comprehending anything i say>>566078

>>566078

DO NONE OF YOU PEOPLE HAVE ANYTHING LEFT TO DO. Have i destroyed all of your arguments

>>566436

Actually, rereading this statement:

> God should minimise unnecissary suffering to 0 and then leave eberything be.

How do you know God hasn't already removed all -unnecessary- suffering? (Protip: you don't)

>>566436

"This shows your failure to understand everything said in this thread so far."

Not everyone who disagrees with you has misunderstood your point. Im explaining to you why you are wrong so expect indifférence

"-I- do not believe God could eliminate suffering without changing the fundamental nature of the universe."

Therefore you are saying that god is not omnipotent

"So, making zero suffering and leaving everything else the same is not possible."

Unnecissary suffering*

Im pretty sure that with enough energy we humans can do that ourselves so saying that your god can't doesn't help your case that he's omnipotent

"You will say this means God is not all-powerful. Under your definition, this is true,"

Oh great you realised this but i guess youre gonna give some BS reason for why it isnt true

"however, I don't think of omnipotence the way you do…"

Here we fucking go

" and don't give a flying crap that my God isn't all-powerful under your flawed and paradoxical definition."

Hahahaha. My deffinition isnt flawed. How can a deffinition be flawed. You just don't want to admit that you lost this one. There is only 1 deffinition of what "ALL-powerful" means. Please fucking excuse me for not give you the freedom to change the fucking deffinition of "ALL-knowing" for the sake of your argument because thats not how deffinitions work

"This whole thread TL;DR - You're angry that God hasn't made a universe that literally couldn't exist because you assume you're smarter than God despite being a tiny primate on a single world in all of creation."

This is wrong on so many levels

1st i dont believe that any god or gods exist. Thereis no proof for such things and until i see proof i naturally by default will not believe.

2nd I am trying to explain to you that by default a guy who creates this type of world is naturally evil.

3rd Intelligence doesn't matter to come to that conclusion. Any person with any IQ will take no more than 5 min of reading the bible/Quran/Torah to realise that god is by far the most evil and sadistic being that was ever put into fiction books

4th God did not creat the universe. Until you provide of such claims you have no right to use them

" Your hubris knows no bounds- or you just be trolling."

Lol. Trolling? Youre the guy who believes that the earth is under 10000 years old which is the équivalent of believing that the distence from san Francisco to new york is 28 feet. Youre the one who fucking believes that the whole human race came from guy made from dirt and a woman made from his ribs and humans have original sin because an invisible man in the sky created these 2, told them not to eat a fruit whilst knowing they were gonna eat it because a FUCKING TALKING SNAKE convinced them to eat it. Am i fucking trolling here. I think the suggestion of such a claim is do be viewed as hilarious.

>>566583

"How do you know God hasn't already removed all -unnecessary- suffering? (Protip: you don't)"

Oh excuse me. How is the death of 9 million kids under the age of 5 annually necessary suffering. What i mean by necessary suffering isthe kind of pain you feel when you work out or something. I'm modtly focusing on extremely bad cases here to prove the point so don't waste my time with questions about what would/wouldn't count as unnecessary or necessary suffering

>>566436

Not giving you*

>>567329

>Hahahaha. My deffinition isnt flawed. How can a deffinition be flawed. You just don't want to admit that you lost this one. There is only 1 deffinition of what "ALL-powerful" means.

Untrue. Most words have multiple definitions- go read a dictionary. Omnipotence has been defined many different ways by many different philosophers.

>Please fucking excuse me for not give you the freedom to change the fucking deffinition of "ALL-knowing" for the sake of your argument because thats not how deffinitions work.

Just blew your rhetoric TFO with my previous statement.

>i dont believe that any god or gods exist. Thereis no proof for such things and until i see proof i naturally by default will not believe.

There's no proof of anything. See related pic.

>I am trying to explain to you that by default a guy who creates this type of world is naturally evil.

You posit many premises toward this conclusion but I disagree with them for reasons stated and you've failed to rebut them.

> Intelligence doesn't matter to come to that conclusion. Any person with any IQ will take no more than 5 min of reading the bible/Quran/Torah to realise that god is by far the most evil and sadistic being that was ever put into fiction books

Fallacy, argument from incredulity.

>God did not creat the universe. Until you provide of such claims you have no right to use them.

You posit 1) Any creator would have to be evil, and 2) there is no creator. This are contradictory propositions.

If the idea of a creator was impossible, there would be no evidence that the creator was evil. By admitting there is evidence of an evil creator, you've admitted there is evidence of a creator.

You may claim this evidence of a creator is insufficient, and that's fine, but you've tacitly admitted evidence of a creator by insisting

that, if a creator did exist, said creator is evil. Thus, with evidence of a creator existing, you have also admitted it is possible to believe in said creator based on whatever evidence you acknowledge.

Again, no one can prove anything, but we both acknowledge some evidence of a creator's existence and, that evidence is enough for me. As to the nature of our creator, that's a different argument.

>Oh excuse me. How is the death of 9 million kids under the age of 5 annually necessary suffering. What i mean by necessary suffering isthe kind of pain you feel when you work out or something. I'm modtly focusing on extremely bad cases here to prove the point so don't waste my time with questions about what would/wouldn't count as unnecessary or necessary suffering

The fact that you don't understand God or the way the universe doesn't work isn't a rebuttal. At best it's a fallacy of argument from ignorance.

You've lost this point and denying it only makes you look foolish. Your knowledge of the universe is nothing compared to God's.

Putting aside whether or not God exists, once you assume God for the sake of argument it's obvious that we would have no way of proving God is evil. All evidence that God allows suffering could be for a greater good you cannot fathom. Certainly, you can choose to believe God is evil but it is just as logical (more so, since deciding to believe you live in a universe created by an evil entity would definitely cause psychological harm) to believe God is good.

"Untrue. Most words have multiple definitions- go read a dictionary. Omnipotence has been defined many different ways by many different philosophers."

Of course. But every définition has it's own use. I was saying that from those definitions you can not add or remove any and that every definition of the word can only be used in certain context. In this case the word omnipotent only has 1 meaning. It comes from "omnis" which means "all" in latin and "potentia" which means power in latin so it means ALL-powerful.

">Please fucking excuse me for not give you the freedom to change the fucking deffinition of "ALL-knowing" for the sake of your argument because thats not how deffinitions work.

Just blew your rhetoric TFO with my previous statement."

You really didn't. You might have misunderstlod what i said in a way that makes you think that you did but in reality you did not.

">i dont believe that any god or gods exist. Thereis no proof for such things and until i see proof i naturally by default will not believe.

There's no proof of anything. See related pic."

Sorry but that pic is just a skeptic Statement which has nothing to do with the topic. It doesn't prove or provide any evidence for the existence of a god

>>567361

">I am trying to explain to you that by default a guy who creates this type of world is naturally evil

You posit many premises toward this conclusion but I disagree with them for reasons stated and you've failed to rebut them."

Oh im sorry but no such thing exists. No Statement you made has not been rebutted. You might need to tell me exactly which Statement you are talking about

"> Intelligence doesn't matter to come to that conclusion. Any person with any IQ will take no more than 5 min of reading the bible/Quran/Torah to realise that god is by far the most evil and sadistic being that was ever put into fiction books

Fallacy, argument from incredulity."

You said that intelligence has to do with wether or not your criticism of the concept of a gid is right. That's a textbook deffinition of an ad-hominim and when i remind you that you're using an ad-hominim by telling you that the characteristics of the person making such a claim do not matter you comeback with "Fallacy, argument from incredulity.". Get the fuck out of here

>God did not creat the universe. Until you provide of such claims you have no right to use them.

You posit 1) Any creator would have to be evil, and 2) there is no creator.

This are contradictory propositions."

BITCH WHAT THE FUCK. I'm saying that i do not believe in your concept of god because there is no proof for it's existence but if it did exist it by definition is evil. How the fuck is that contradictory. If i dont believe in voldimort and cretique his evil is that a contradiction? GTFO here

"If the idea of a creator was impossible"

I never claimed that it was. I said that with no evidence it is as likely to be true as unicorns, elfes…

", there would be no evidence that the creator was evil. "

The creator doesn't have to exist for me to point out that if he exists he is evil by nature because in Christian theology the nature of god is more or less defined with a lot of words and charactaristics i can use as the model for what the god you say exists would be like if he existed and from there I can explain why if such creator existed he would be evil by nature

"By admitting there is evidence of an evil creator, you've admitted there is evidence of a creator."

I asserted that if a creator like that existed then he is responsable for evil we know exists. Does that mean i admitted thart there is a creator. How many drugs are you on right now? 1drug … belief without evidence.

"You may claim this evidence of a creator is insufficient"

I claim that there is 0 evidence. ZERO evidence. Just like unicorns.

" and that's fine"

Thanks but there is no evidence. None whatsoever.

"but you've tacitly admitted evidence of a creator by insisting

that, if a creator did exist, said creator is evil."

😑😑😑😑😑😑😑 you trollin'

No. 1st it's "technically" 2nd no. If i criticise something harry potter did in the harry potter books does not mean that i admitted evidence of harry potter exists. Now replace "harry potter" with "god"

" Thus, with evidence of a creator existing"

There is no such evidence

"you have also admitted it is possible to believe in said creator based on whatever evidence you acknowledge."

Which is 0 evidence. 0 evidence means that you should not believe in such a creator until there is sufficient evidence. 0 is an amount but don't get it twisted. If 0 is the amount of evidence for god that does not mean it is sufficient for belief in a god"

"Again, no one can prove anything"

We can prove a lot of things. You mean "no one can know if god exists or not" which i agree with but "belief" and "knowledge" are totally different things. We are talking about beliefs and not knowledge

"but we both acknowledge some evidence of a creator's existence and"

No. 0 os the amount of evidence that i acknowledge exists for the existence of a god

"that evidence is enough for me."

So 0 evidence is enough for you? Great but that doesn't work for me

" As to the nature of our creator, that's a different argument.

>Oh excuse me. How is the death of 9 million kids under the age of 5 annually necessary suffering. What i mean by necessary suffering isthe kind of pain you feel when you work out or something. I'm mostly focusing on extremely bad cases here to prove the point so don't waste my time with questions about what would/wouldn't count as unnecessary or necessary suffering"

"The fact that you don't understand God or the way the universe doesn't work isn't a rebuttal."

UNNECESSARY SUFFERING EXISTS;is something i understand.

AN OMNIPOTENT GOD WHO LETS THE SIFFERING EXIST IS EVIL BY NATURE;is something i understand.

Wherr is the part i dont understand. The parts i need to understand for the rebuttal are perfectly understood.

>>567361

>>567400

"At best it's a fallacy of argument from ignorance."

Good try mate but that doesn't work i. This case. There is nothing in my case which is an argument from ignorence. You made the suggestion that the things i proposed with perfectly valid arguments are false since the annual suffering of the 9 million kids is somehow necessary and i asked you to justify what you said or it will hold no value as a counter argument

"You've lost this point and denying it only makes you look foolish. Your knowledge of the universe is nothing compared to God's."

Replace the word god with "Harry potter" and it will still have the same level of validity.

"Putting aside whether or not God exists, once you assume God for the sake of argument"

Which i dont but k

" it's obvious that we would have no way of proving God is evil."

Wrong. The nature of such a god if he exists is described to a well enough extent in christian theology to come up with the conclusion

"All evidence that God allows suffering could be for a greater good you cannot fathom."

OH WOW. KILLING 9 MILLION KIDS UNDER THE AGE OF 5 CAN BE FOR A GREATER GOOD. This type of talk makes me sick. How can you type that and feel ok with yourself when you go to sleep.

"Certainly, you can choose to believe God is evil but it is just as logical (more so, since deciding to believe you live in a universe created by an evil entity would definitely cause psychological harm) to believe God is good."

Again. I do not believe in any god because i see lack of evidence and by the definition of god proposed in christian theology he is by his own nature discribed in the definition an evil fictional character. I do not choose to believe that because i did not choose to make that definition. Now please spare me from your horribke reasoning skills which make me want to pull my hear out and for the 3rd time get the fuck off my topic or atleast think of better arguments and use less misdirection

Horrible*

In this case*

no. If i criticise something harry potter did in the harry potter books it does not mean that i admitted evidence of harry potter's existence. Now replace "harry potter" with "god"*

You said that intelligence has to do with wether or not your criticism of the concept of a god is right.*

>>567402

>>567403

You need to learn to greentext because your posts are incredibly disorganized and hard to follow.

All your arguments are angry rhetoric. Your ALL CAPS, quotes like:

>How can you type that and feel ok with yourself when you go to sleep.

>This type of talk makes me sick

and such make reading it not worth my time. You clearly don't understand fallacy when you engage in it so frequently.

Your morals are apparently based on what you "feel" as in, "makes you feel sick" which shows your no better than an animal. Reason doesn't rule you and that lack of reason is obvious in your rhetoric. No one else is engaging with you because there's no point. I thought that, perhaps, you might have attempted some of actual logical rebuttal to my points but you have failed.

Anyway, go take some logic classes, read some actual theology so you know what we actually think and try again. I doubt anyone here is going to want to engage you on the level your at- this is better suited for reddit-level conversations.

"You need to learn to greentext because your posts are incredibly disorganized and hard to follow. "

True

>>All your arguments are angry rhetoric. Your ALL CAPS, quotes like:

>How can you type that and feel ok with yourself when you go to sleep.

>This type of talk makes me sick

and such make reading it not worth my time.

Then dont read it. Since when is saying "the horrible tragic annual deaths of 9 million kids happen for the greater good and are ok" not a supposed to turn anyones stumic. I'm not using retoric, my factual Statement is that your faith isn't only making you immoral but making you blindly and happily justify horrible suffering. That is a factual statement.

"You clearly don't understand fallacy when you engage in it so frequently."

Oh excuse me mr.YOUCAN'TCRITICISEGODBECAUSEYOUARETINYCOMPAREDTOHIM. Nigga that's a textbook ad-hominim

"Your morals are apparently based on what you "feel" as in, "makes you feel sick" which shows your no better than an animal."

1st fuck you just for calling me an animal in a drogatory way even though we 2 by deffinition are animals

2nd that's not what my morality is based upon. My morality is based upon a subjective care for the preservation of objective well-being and the minimisation of objectively(neurologically) quantifiable suffering.

"Reason doesn't rule you and that lack of reason is obvious in your rhetoric."

You failed to demonstrate that

" No one else is engaging with you because there's no point."

Sure. Leave if you want. I would have had posted a topic on a Christian forrum with irréfutable arguments and seen everyone fail at rebuking them which is fun

"I thought that, perhaps, you might have attempted some of actual logical rebuttal to my points"

You made no good points that were not rebuked. You arr saying this like some sort of assertion even though i told you that it isn't true in your previous post and that if there is a point i didn't rebuke you should please remind me of it

> but you have failed.

Says who? You? Boo hoo

>Anyway, go take some logic classes

Sure. Coming from a guy who believes in talking snakes i find this advice dry. If anything it's another ad-hominim

> read some actual theology so you know what we actually think and try again.

Why don't you stop using ad-hominims. This is just a sneeky way to say that i don't know what i'm talking about

" I doubt anyone here is going to want to engage you on the level your at- this is better suited for reddit-level conversations."

I just started using Reddit yesterday. Whats the difference between 8ch and reddit threads. What? Are people here smarter? Are you Websist? Lol, like 'racist' but with websites? Lol anyways. If you have anything left then leave

>>567427

If you don't have anything left then leave*

Is anybody still there?

>>567427

>>567400

>>567362

>>567361

>>566583

>>566436

>>565433

>>566078

>>564337

>>564207

>>563978

>>563786

>>563785

>>563495

>>563126

>>563125

>>563100

>>563060

>>563057

>>562894

>>562854

>>562807

>>562805

>>562799

>>562790

>>562788

>>562787

>>562785

>>562781

>>562779

>>562777

>>562776

>>562775

>>562774

>>562770

>>562767

>>562766

>>562765

>>562764

>>562763

>>562761

>>562760

>>562758

>>562757

>>562755

>>562754

>>562753

>>562752

>>562751

>>562749

>>562748

>>562747

>>562746

>>562744

>>562741

Is anybody still there?