(March 22, 2019 at 9:00 am)Rogue Wrote:  Is God Altruistic?

God is either outright evil or impotent, or both, if it exists.

(March 22, 2019 at 9:00 am)Rogue Wrote: Is God Happy?

And on the first day man made god in his image.

It's no wonder that we attribute human characteristics to god, since - I think - god is merely a projection of our deepest wishes and desires. It's the anthropomorphic embodiment of humanity's fantasies. What would a creator of everything even think? And why would a human have the audacity to know the mind of the creator?

(April 5, 2019 at 4:05 pm)Drich Wrote:

(April 4, 2019 at 8:55 pm)Kit Wrote: You're just erroneously attributing good things happening in your life to a godly source with zero evidence to support the personal claim.

Have You Even Been Following This Thread? Or are you speaking in general?

Have you been following this thread? You have been defeated by me. I quoted you and everything. I prompted you and asked nicely for you to reply. You must not have a reply which means I beat you. I did not even have to try hard, it was easy.

(April 3, 2019 at 11:36 am)Acrobat Wrote:

(April 3, 2019 at 10:42 am)Kit Wrote: The burden of proof resides with the one making the positive claim of something existing when there is no evidence of its existence.

That is literally how burden of proof works in relation to religious subjects.

If I was to state that leprechauns do not exist, it would be absurd to claim that the burden of proof is to prove something doesn't exist.

If it doesn't exist, obviously it doesn't exist and the burden only resides on the one making the claim of existence.

Lol, that's not "literally" how the burden of proof works. 

" whoever makes a claim carries the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content in the claim."

"Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position."

"When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_...hilosophy)

You're the one making the claim that God isn't real. And you resorting to dishonesty in suggesting that you have no obligation or burden of proof to support this claim. That you can make it, and take refuge in suggesting you have no burden of proof. How much more dishonest could you get?

The only in which you wouldn't have a burden of proof, is by not making such a claim at all.

If I were to say there is a black cat in my garden now would you believe me if I were to provide no evidence?

Black cats are a thing so its not even unlikely.

If you do believe explain why.

If you don't believe provide evidence to support that belief.

I shall give no clues.

Off you go cat or no cat.

---

(April 4, 2019 at 11:20 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: Imagine having a conversation with someone who points at a cat while demanding that you explain how the thing he's pointing at isn't "seven", after having posted the definition of the word cat.  That probably has something to do with why everyone's giving up on you, don't you think?

We obviously both have cats on the brain today.

(April 6, 2019 at 6:21 am)Rogue Wrote:

(April 5, 2019 at 4:05 pm)Drich Wrote: Have You Even Been Following This Thread? Or are you speaking in general?

Have you been following this thread? You have been defeated by me. I quoted you and everything. I prompted you and asked nicely for you to reply. You must not have a reply which means I beat you. I did not even have to try hard, it was easy.

who are you? where did you quote me? and is Kit a sock of rogue? then why are you quoting kit's conversation?

why not just bump your post, what's with the drama?

(April 8, 2019 at 9:38 am)Drich Wrote:

(April 6, 2019 at 6:21 am)Rogue Wrote: Have you been following this thread? You have been defeated by me. I quoted you and everything. I prompted you and asked nicely for you to reply. You must not have a reply which means I beat you. I did not even have to try hard, it was easy.

who are you? where did you quote me? and is Kit a sock of rogue? then why are you quoting kit's conversation?

why not just bump your post, what's with the drama?

Kind of funny, you - of all people - questioning a sense of drama in others.

Boru

(April 8, 2019 at 9:38 am)Drich Wrote:

(April 6, 2019 at 6:21 am)Rogue Wrote: Have you been following this thread? You have been defeated by me. I quoted you and everything. I prompted you and asked nicely for you to reply. You must not have a reply which means I beat you. I did not even have to try hard, it was easy.

who are you? where did you quote me? and is Kit a sock of rogue? then why are you quoting kit's conversation?

why not just bump your post, what's with the drama?

This is my thread. You have just embarrassed yourself further by pretending you have not responded to my posts until I backed you into a corner you cannot get out of.

Mentioning Kit's quote tangled in with yours is nothing more than a red herring.

(April 12, 2019 at 7:36 am)Rogue Wrote:

(April 8, 2019 at 9:38 am)Drich Wrote: who are you? where did you quote me? and is Kit a sock of rogue? then why are you quoting kit's conversation?

why not just bump your post, what's with the drama?

This is my thread. You have just embarrassed yourself further by pretending you have not responded to my posts until I backed you into a corner you cannot get out of.

Mentioning Kit's quote tangled in with yours is nothing more than a red herring.

I have no idea what you are on about. I was talking to kit, my response and specific direction was towards and directed to kit. then you jump in from no where demanding answers to a discussion either i have long forgotten or must have missed. meaning my last message was not a red herring but a ask for you to provide a link or refresher on your question.

So either shut up or provide a link to what ever you want answered. cause truthfully i don't ever remember speaking to you out side of this last exchange.

(April 12, 2019 at 9:54 am)Drich Wrote:

(April 12, 2019 at 7:36 am)Rogue Wrote: This is my thread. You have just embarrassed yourself further by pretending you have not responded to my posts until I backed you into a corner you cannot get out of.

Mentioning Kit's quote tangled in with yours is nothing more than a red herring.

I have no idea what you are on about. I was talking to kit, my response and specific direction was towards and directed to kit. then you jump in from no where demanding answers to a discussion either i have long forgotten or must have missed. meaning my last message was not a red herring but a ask for you to provide a link or refresher on your question.

So either shut up or provide a link to what ever you want answered. cause truthfully i don't ever remember speaking to you out side of this last exchange.  

Your first response:

https://atheistforums.org/thread-58633-p...pid1895153

Then you asked me to define "care".

I replied: https://atheistforums.org/thread-58633-p...pid1895385

Your reply and my response is here: https://atheistforums.org/thread-58633-p...pid1897151

Your response is here: https://atheistforums.org/thread-58633-p...pid1897221

Then I accidentally put Acrobat's name when I quoted you. I am still learning this forum's quote functions and getting to know everybody. That is my bad. I linked you to that response above. Here it is: https://atheistforums.org/thread-58633-p...pid1897516

Then crickets...

(April 4, 2019 at 7:58 am)Rogue Wrote:

Quote:Rogue wrote:

You missed the point all together. It is not altruistic to care for things that belong to you. God is described as the owner of all things that exist. God cannot be altruistic because it belongs to Him if He exists, if He created it all.

Quote:Acrobat wrote:

And that's the thing we do not all belong to God. Or did you not know that? otherwise how is it not altruism for God to provide for those whodo not belong to him?

Have you not Heard Christ say "It rains on the just and unjust alike?" what do you think that means? It means that both God's children and the those who belong to satan both benefit from gift from God. gift not limited to rain, but again not all of us care to take advantage of God's open invatation or some may not even know those gifts are available.

That would make them potential children of God. Satan belongs to God too or you have two gods instead of One. Otherwise, where did Satan come from?

No I have never heard Christ speak. I have only read claims of claims of claims of claims of claims of claims of him making claims.

The best part of being an atheist is not believing in demons either.

Does God care for satan? In your understanding of the supposed bond between creating someone and loving them, is assigning someone to the biblically described Hell "caring or loving someone?" I and everyone else (besides you) on this planet and in heaven above, and in hell below would say no. Hell is not a place where God shows his love to those he casts into hell. Satan being chief among them..

Therefore there must be a disconnect between those in whom God loves, and in those in whom God hates. Altruism of God here is shown not in either of these two groups but for everyone else sitting on the fence in whom have not dedicated themselves to God. In that these people do not belong to God and yet God had extended the gift of salvation to them, and even before they become his, he promises to send the Holy Spirit to teach them. this gift of the SPirit is far better than any thing we have on this planet. it is the supreme gift. and it is accessed by you if you simply seek the truth. even if you don't the offer is there. Again altruism is not about you accepting the gift, but rather me offering it despite any connection to you. Again John 3:16 God so loved the world that to all he gives his only son. That is the gift given to all. now for those who take up this offer God gives more.. ever lasting life and direct relationship and communication through further spiritual fruits and gifts. However even if you do not accept, the offer remains. despite what you do with it.

Now, how does that hide of yours feel? firmly tanned? soundly trounced? well beaten? or do you want me togo further?

If you are feeling petulant or obtuse then know you have to first Show God loves all of his creation which according to your last argument includes satan, and everyone he places in Hell. I've shown a clear disconnect between the Hell bound an the followers of God, meaning even if technically God creates everyone it is clear he does not love everyone. (God created the devil, but did not create those in whom the devil spawns/ his seed his followers as pointed out by my last post) That is the hump you must over come if you want to try and stay on topic.

Or you could cop out and say I'm an atheist where your proof in all of this anyway..

It's a choose your own adventure thread which direction will you go?

---

and now....

No amount of handing out gifts and bribes will establish that god is an altruist.