(June 16, 2011 at 2:52 pm)Stue Denim Wrote: A respectful tone and logical arguments? Won't that come as a shock given: a) their perception of atheists and baby munching, bunny stomping satan worshipers? b) the fact that they have never encounter this (logical arguments) before?

You do that so when they're confused thinking, 'what's this atheist doing being civil?' you sneak behind they're back, stomp their bunnies, and eat their babies.

The sooner atheists drop the "Can God create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it?" argument, the better. It doesn't work as a paradox; never did. Paradoxes that are built off of logical fallacies are easily torn apart.

Arguing against omnipotence isn't a walk in the park; you first need to actually define what omnipotence is, and that itself is a hard thing given that different religions have different types. Full blown omnipotence (i.e. a being has the ability to do absolutely everything, even the impossible) does cause many paradoxes, but I don't know of any religions that actually have Gods which claim this kind.

What is more of a problem for some religions is the combination of certain "omni" properties, like the well-known Omnipotence / Omniscience paradoxes.

 

(June 16, 2011 at 2:44 pm)FaithNoMore Wrote: If you truly want rid the world of theism then a respectful tone and logical arguments are the only way to get that done.

Nope. Been there! done that! Got the T-shirt. Try if you want but save your breath, remember you'll be arguing with people who believe this kind of stuff:-

Quote:Revelation
9:15 Then the four angels who had been prepared for this hour, day, month, and year were set free to kill a third of humanity. 9:16 The number of soldiers on horseback was two hundred million; I heard their number. 9:17 Now this is what the horses and their riders looked like in my vision: The riders had breastplates that were fiery red, dark blue, and sulphurous yellow in colour. The heads of the horses looked like lions’ heads, and fire, smoke, and sulphur came out of their mouths. 9:18 A third of humanity was killed by these three plagues, that is, by the fire, the smoke, and the sulphur that came out of their mouths. 9:19 For the power of the horses resides in their mouths and in their tails, because their tails are like snakes, having heads that inflict injuries. 9:20 The rest of humanity, who had not been killed by these plagues, did not repent of the works of their hands, so that they did not stop worshiping demons and idols made of gold, silver, bronze, stone, and wood – idols that cannot see or hear or walk about. 9:21 Furthermore, they did not repent of their murders, of their magic spells, of their sexual immorality, or of their stealing.

Good luck

(June 16, 2011 at 8:30 am)colubridae Wrote:

---

tackattack Wrote:I entertain your question only because it's a question. You've obviously shown yourself to be very bigoted against Christianity, while at the same time condemning me for being impatient. I'm very patient, however I value my time and if you continue in that vein it's not worth the time to continue using it on you.

I apologise for calling you impatient. That was aimed at other people on the thread. Although the thread title was aimed at you, others joined in, who were definitely impatient and rude. You weren’t. If my accusation seemed to be aimed at you I offer my humble apology.

I reject the label of bigot. I despise religion including Christianity for perfectly valid reasons. In the same way that I despise Stalinism. (neatly avoiding godwin’s law).

You think I have prejudged you because you are a xtian. OK. I believe (as per R Dawkins) that teaching young children is plainly and simply child abuse. Would you, for example, consent to banning Christian teaching until age 18, or at least after sex ed. If you agree to this I will revise my ‘bigotted’ opinion of you.

tackattack Wrote:Omnipotent isn't found in the Bible, I wouldn't claim that as an attribute of God. You are claiming it is. The Bible lists specific things actually that God can't do. So by your definition and using your word, he's not omnipotent. He is however many other things. The common vernacular and understanding amongst Christians rather than listing all of his attributes has compressed simplified it to the omnimax principle, for brevity alone. Unfortunately they lost a lot of accuracy in the process as well. An all power or almight being or entity will always accomplish what he set out to do. I cannot see the reason for such a being to try and accomplish failure, as it's a contradiction, but I can't see anything prohibiting it.

I am fairly sure I never said that ‘omnipotent’ was in the bible. I did claim that very many attribute ‘omnipotence’ to their god. I also claim ‘almighty’ and ‘omnipotent’ are virtually interchangeable. And ‘almighty’ is in the bible. I stand by these claims.

As to the big book of multiple choice claiming there are things that god can’t do, I refer you to the following:-

I strongly recommend not using the babble to back up your assertions.
None of which is getting any closer to the juicy carrot of evidence

tackattack Wrote:The common vernacular and understanding amongst Christians rather than listing all of his attributes has compressed simplified it to the omnimax principle, for brevity alone. Unfortunately they lost a lot of accuracy in the process as well. An all power or almight being or entity will always accomplish what he set out to do.

This is a classic example of the kind of blather that I’m trying to help you avoid.
'Omnimax'

with best regards Lucifer.

---

1- I responded to your omnimax on page 2 which you said nothing about here .
2-Your reasons for your bigotry are irrelevant as

Quote:Bigotry
1. Obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one's own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions.
2. Expressing or characterized by prejudice and intolerance.

Which you very readily admitted to. As well as these lofty (and most likely daft) promises of physical proof for the immaterial that you try and dangle like a carrot. Frankly I don't think anyone is interested. Those there who do believe don't need physical evidence and those who don't believe, probably will just laugh at your evidence.
3- Your opinion of me matters even less than care about your "evidence" and I'll answer your question only because it was directed to me, not to pander to your ego. I do not believe religion or morality should be taught in public schools. It should be reserved for Churches and homes. Private schools can do what the parents pay them for.
4-Omnimax is in the urban dictionary and there is a wiki entry for it. It's quite common and not nearly as "made up" as you want to make it out to be. As far as tautology, I only use the term omnipotent in a circle of believers or theologans. None of them believe that one word or concept could ever encompass God and realize it's a loosely defined shorthand for what we understand of God's power.

You have not made a case that any Christian, much less anyone you can find here, believes that God has the power to anything even the logically impossible.
You've made claims full of hot air and posturing.. although your apology seemed sincere enough on paper

Now if that's it then I'm done. Now if anyone else would like to open up the discussion to the contradictory omnimax principles state your case.

Sure thing, but can you define your god first please? 'Christian' god tells us "its a he(Maybe), in 3 parts (Maybe)" and that's pretty much it. Omnipotent (without the logically impossible), ok.

But is your god omnibenevolent
omniscient
omnipresent

does hell exist, if so who is sent there, what are the conditions?
Do we have free will?
Is the bible innerant? Literally true? Are all parts still applicable? (unless stated otherwise, ie "For the next five years you must..." clearly that bit won't be)
If it's not innerant/still applicable, which bits are, and which bits aren't please.

and other things: modern day miracles... end times...

I don't know which god I'm arguing against yet

(If I missed anything guys feel free to add)

(June 17, 2011 at 2:41 am)Stue Denim Wrote: ...I don't know which god I'm arguing against yet

The problem is, neither do the majority of theists.

You know... why can't we have an explosive god? Much more interesting than a contradictory god.

I mean... look at it this way: I"m a hypocrite. And that's not even slightly interesting. But I'm not explosive. That would make me front page news.

So I wan't to see an explosive god. Would be all the rage in the papers.

If you count the big bang as an explosion, then the pandeistic god concepts count.

Or do you mean explosive as in smiting people left right and centre for the pettiest of reasons?

Stue - IF you understand my use of the vernacular uses of the onimax principles then that that will suffice. Standard Abrahamic God, Holy Trinity, Creator, etc.

As for the rest.. let's work on the attributes of God adn ask me about teh entirety of my belief about dogma, doctrine and world view later (and probably not in this thread).

tackattack Wrote:2-Your reasons for your bigotry are irrelevant as

Quote:Bigotry
1. Obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one's own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions.
2. Expressing or characterized by prejudice and intolerance.

I may not have been clear, sorry. I have perfectly good reasons for hating ‘religion’. True I didn’t give you them, you may actually argue with them. But in my book bigotry means not having valid reasons for one’s view. Hating something doesn’t make me a bigot, if my reasons are valid.

I am not ‘obstinately convinced’. I have perfectly sound reasons for my hatred. They are much the same as laid out by Dawkins and Hitchens. If you want to argue them that’s fine.
If you can convince me that god exists or that religion is benign, then I will readily change my mind.

My morals are far superior to your religion’s morals. Debate it if you wish. I am not intolerant of gays. I don’t demand kowtowing and knee-bending to my presence. I don’t demand worship. I don’t demand than you eschew other gods. I don’t pretend to eat someone’s flesh and drink their blood.

You however have no verifiable evidence for your belief other than your ‘feelings’. Nothing I say to you will convince you that you are wrong. Not now, not ever.

By your own definition then you are a bigot.


I apologised for a false accusation, can you?

tackattack Wrote:2-Your reasons for your bigotry are irrelevant as

So anything I hate, whether justified or not, is bigotry. Reasons are irrelevant?

So is it bigotry to hate stoning of adulterers? I have perfectly good reasons for hating muslim execution practices, but they are irrelevant? What piffle.
I assume you wrote this nonsense with reflex anger. I would be very interested to know if this was the case or not.

tackattack Wrote:3- Your opinion of me matters even less than care about your "evidence" and I'll answer your question only because it was directed to me, not to pander to your ego. I do not believe religion or morality should be taught in public schools. It should be reserved for Churches and homes. Private schools can do what the parents pay them for.

That’s not what I asked. Let me re-phrase it for you. Do you believe that Christian dogma/doctrine should be taught to children under the age of 18.
The point being that they will be unable to make a valid assessment during their formative years for such dogma. Much of which is based on fear and repression.

Churches should teach morality, are you serious?
If you analyse the bible and list the things that god does most frequently then:-
top of the list - He kills people
Second on the list - He tells people to kill other people.
Appearing to the faithful and conjuring universes come way down the list.
This is your basis for morality? And you call me a bigot?
Sheesh kebab

edit added 'most frequently' for sense