(May 2, 2016 at 3:33 pm)drfuzzy Wrote:

(May 2, 2016 at 12:55 pm)Godschild Wrote:  It would be simple for Him to show up as show himself to you, but you would fall over dead at seeing His glory, what good would that do. God has said everyone will understand that I exist by looking at nature, that no one will be without excuse. So making up excuses is a exercise in futility. Actually I don't believe you have an answer to my questions, do you.

GC

In other words, "My imaginary friend is so big and scawwy you wouldn't even be able to look at any incarnation he would present, so your request for proof and data is stupid, you little poopy head. Never mind that he only talks to a few of us, and that nobody has been able to present any proof that he exists for over 2000 years.  And - nature is all the proof we need.  Someone had to create it, therefore, god."  (The classic tired old argument from ignorance.)  -- My answer: If your god was able to create the universe, than he can manage to provide some proof of his existence. He doesn't need YOU to make excuses for why there is no real proof that he exists.  If he does need a human mouthpiece, then he's pretty incompetent and weak.

I'm not here to answer your questions. Ask your imaginary friend that talks to you inside your head.

 You don't have to answer my questions, but when you don't I will know the depth of your biblical ignorance. God revealed Himself through Jesus two thousand years ago and most that met Him didn't believe, especially the religious leadership, so what does that say about you. A man walks up to you on the street and says I'm God, you wanted to meet Me here I Am. He does a miracle and then leaves. Your thought, a crazed magician, right, so what's the use. God said nature will be the answer for those that want proof, you deny His proof you suffer the consequences.
You call it an "argument from ignorance" yet science hasn't explained, let lone give proof of where the material came from for the big bang. If science can't explain this with certainty then everything after it fails. Let's take new stars forming, no one has ever seen it happen because of the years science says it takes for this to happen, and the necessary things for them to develop are not present in the birth factories science claims to be their origin.

GC

You see, even the people who met him in person didn't buy it, that's how convincing Jesus was.

Yeah, it was actually started by some professor about 10-15 years ago. The idea was to create a 'positive' term for rational thinkers that was co-opted from another, existing word, much like how the word 'gay' is used to mean homosexual. Dawkins, for whatever reason, got on board the idea. Most other atheists, free-thinkers, and the like did not for many reasons, including the term having an innate derogatory connotation.

So, GC is trying to smear all atheists based on a really flawed idea some of them had. It's idiotic.

(May 2, 2016 at 3:50 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(April 27, 2016 at 1:52 pm)Godschild Wrote:  Sonny I'm not a Catholic and if I were I would condemn those priest as I do now, it's my moral position. You have no proof how the universe started and Christians have as much right to be in the political arena as atheist do. My dignity belongs to God to judge not you.

GC

You stupidly think Catholic Priests are the only holy people who molest kids? You might argue for a long time they were more organized at hiding it.

But see, that is what religion teaches, every religion, not just Catholics. Humans mainly get indoctrinated at birth to the religion of the societies they are born in. That social structure provides the family a community, and for the most part humans are not bad, but when someone in their ranks does do something bad, the rest will blindly protect that leader because "nobody in my label can do bad".

Baptists have been caught too. Imams and Buddhist Monks have too. But even outside the issue of religion, a child molester or rapist, is does not look like a monster in a horror movie. Criminals like that rely on everyone thinking they are normal, and use positions of power and trust to get access to their victims, and the perps can be anyone, cops, firemen, lawyers, teachers. Criminals, even outside sexual assault, rely on stealth and looking normal.

Religions all do the same thing inside and outside the issue of rape, not just rape. When that person in power, or the group is called out on a bad act, the rest circle the wagons and assume there is no way it could happen because of the person's "faith".

Problem is, if labels had that magic power, or a book of any religion had that magic power, there would be no prisons in that nation, but every nation has prisons, friend and foe alike.

I agree with the above, no reason not to it's true. I've never denied any of it. The only thing I would say is that I personally do not know that the Southern Baptist have hidden this kind of behavior. 

Brian37 Wrote:Glad you would condemn them. But that isn't your "faith" doing it, or a bible doing it, that is YOU doing it. That morality is in your evolution.

 No, I totally disagree My faith in God has everything to do with it, morality didn't evolve because man didn't evolve.

GC

(May 3, 2016 at 4:22 pm)Godschild Wrote:  You don't have to answer my questions, but when you don't I will know the depth of your biblical ignorance. God revealed Himself through Jesus two thousand years ago and most that met Him didn't believe, especially the religious leadership, so what does that say about you. A man walks up to you on the street and says I'm God, you wanted to meet Me here I Am. He does a miracle and then leaves. Your thought, a crazed magician, right, so what's the use. God said nature will be the answer for those that want proof, you deny His proof you suffer the consequences.
You call it an "argument from ignorance" yet science hasn't explained, let lone give proof of where the material came from for the big bang. If science can't explain this with certainty then everything after it fails. Let's take new stars forming, no one has ever seen it happen because of the years science says it takes for this to happen, and the necessary things for them to develop are not present in the birth factories science claims to be their origin.

GC

"Everything after it fails" ... um, wut?

If we can't explain what happened before time began (as a dimension, part and parcel of the post-Bang expansion), then we can't explain what happened after time began??? That makes zero sense. We can't tell what happened "before" because the laws of physics which we use to investigate this question break down as the time scale gets asymptotically close to zero, and we need new discoveries in mathematics to even attempt it. But to suggest that we can't use the physics we do know to investigate the phenomena we see, and draw conclusions from those investigations, is ludicrous.

Even the Answers in Genesis articles which you are paraphrasing, here, admit that star formation from gravity affecting a gas cloud can happen. They simply spin the fact that stars are not forming nearly as often now as they did at the peak, 11 billion years ago, and few stars continue to form because most of the third-generation stars are both old and stable. But if you had bothered to look, you'd find that that we can see stars forming in the past (because light travels at a predictable speed, you can "look into the past" by looking at more distant light sources) far more often than we do nowadays.

Edit to Add: Before you say some stupid shit like, "Well how do we know those stars are forming", or whatever, I would point out to you that we have a really solid grasp on Atomic Theory, including why nuclear fusion occurs, and how. We can tell from the radio frequencies emitted by distant stars what elements they are reacting, how hot the reaction is burning, and many other points of information. From that, we can tell the age of the star, how long it will burn, and even calculate what percentages of heavy elements will form-- it takes a supernova, not just a regular nova, to produce some of the heavier elements like uranium (anything beyond iron, if I recall correctly). These are mathematically demonstrable by any third-year student studying nuclear or chemical engineering, physics, and/or astronomy.

(May 2, 2016 at 6:48 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(May 2, 2016 at 12:35 pm)Godschild Wrote:  What kind of guarantee comes with this and you know when I posted something like this in jest I was warned never to do it again, is that going to happen with you or does partiality take place because you're an atheist.

Reading the Bible without the Holy Spirit's guidance will leave you with as much understanding as you had before you picked up the book for the first time.

GC

Administrator Notice
If you think anyone is in breach of the Rules, report them. Whatever else, you will cease whining about preferential treatment and bias in open thread.

 Now, now Mr. Whinny.

(May 2, 2016 at 7:02 pm)IATIA Wrote:

(May 2, 2016 at 12:35 pm)Godschild Wrote: Reading the Bible without the Holy Spirit's guidance will leave you with as much understanding as you had before you picked up the book for the first time.

From what I understand, your god sent it's words to us that we would understand and no qualifications were made other than believe it or go to hell.

Good statement, you just proved the necessity of the Holy Spirit's guidance to understand scripture. Actually though this is a idea that can be understood through just reading, if you cared to ever do that, if not then you should refrain from making false statements about scripture.

GC

(May 2, 2016 at 7:49 pm)Losty Wrote: Hmm question for the OP, what is the Christian stance on turtle bum sex?

 They don't do it, they have better sense than that.

GC

(May 3, 2016 at 4:13 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Call ourselves Brights? Does anyone here know what the fuck he's talking about?

(I'm afraid to Google this idiocy. If it's really from atheists, then they're idiots for thinking it was a good idea.)

Glad I'm not the only one not being in the know. Kevin seems to know, according to his explanation. But, as I always say, I never was interested in atheism, atheist movements or atheist figureheads. Apart from some articles and documentariies featuring Dawkins, Harris or Hitchens, I didn't read a single line coming from them. And the documentaries with Dawkins were mainly about him being the presenter for a historical or scientific topic, not in any way related to atheism.

(May 3, 2016 at 3:21 pm)drfuzzy Wrote:

(May 3, 2016 at 3:18 pm)Godschild Wrote:  You were never Christians so you couldn't have had spiritual discernment,

---

 the Holy Spirit will only reveal the truth of scriptures to the saved. The only time the Holy Spirit will make a revelation to non-believers is witnessing for Jesus through the scriptures. You can't see the truth nor did you ever, if you had you would not have left the faith. I haven't ignored problematic parts of scripture because I've never seen one. As for cherry picking the atheist are kings at that because they know no other way to discredit the Bible except to be dishonest in their feeble attempts. God has the right to do with His creation as He wishes it belongs to Him, He owns it lock stock and barrel.

I've never heard a Hindu say their god said anything to them, I've heard people here say that and I do not remember any being Hindu. I believe they are mistaken in their beliefs and have no doubt they believe in their religion, if they didn't they wouldn't go through all the physical requirements their religions demand of them, they have to earn their way into their god's good, in Christianity it's a gift, we can't earn it, gifts come from love. But then you know this I'm sure your wife has told you this.

GC

---

           LOL!!!!!  Telling Rocket he was never xtian.  Next you'll be telling me I wasn't either!!!  Cue the "no true scotsman" fallacy and the "but you never read it right" whine.

 Correct you were never a Christian.

GC