Here is some interesting food for thought for our current influx of fundamentalists.

1 John 4:8

God is love

1 Corinthians 13:4

Love is not jealous

Exodus 20:4-5

I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God

Bible says there is no god, film at 11.

I feel like the atheist Ray Comfort so I will say checkmate Christians

Just to play devils advocate.

The full phrase is Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. (depending on the translation).

Indicating God is supposedly present in the concept of Love rather than God is loving himself.

Love is not Jealous, which means if you are Jealous you are not in Love, and God is therefore not present.

" for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,"

What we actually prove, is not so much the nonexistence of God, given the exemption of the first part of God is Love, but you do prove that God does NOT love anyone. He is the function of Love, but incapable of it himself.

(March 18, 2012 at 6:41 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote: Just to play devils advocate.

The full phrase is Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. (depending on the translation).

Indicating God is supposedly present in the concept of Love rather than God is loving himself.

Love is not Jealous, which means if you are Jealous you are not in Love, and God is therefore not present.

" for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,"

What we actually prove, is not so much the nonexistence of God, given the exemption of the first part of God is Love, but you do prove that God does NOT love you.

Then I will tell you as I will tell them, stop making the asinine claim that god is love. In any event, if they can't deal with their own book being used against them, fuck em.

(March 18, 2012 at 6:42 am)Phil Wrote: Then I will tell you as I will tell them, stop making the asinine claim that god is love. In any even, if they can't deal with their own book being used against them, fuck em.

At least, stop making the asinine claim that God loves you and gives a shit.

Interestingly enough, I've always considered that Atheists would probably be BETTER at arguing for the existence of God than theists... the irony is never lost on me.

(March 18, 2012 at 6:44 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote:

(March 18, 2012 at 6:42 am)Phil Wrote: Then I will tell you as I will tell them, stop making the asinine claim that god is love. In any even, if they can't deal with their own book being used against them, fuck em.

At least, stop making the asinine claim that God loves you and gives a shit.

Interestingly enough, I've always considered that Atheists would probably be BETTER at arguing for the existence of God than theists... the irony is never lost on me.

Why would an atheist that has any respect for himself resort to arguing an absurdity? I never understood that. It's like playing the Christians game and giving them some tacit approval.

(March 18, 2012 at 6:49 am)Phil Wrote: Why would an atheist that has any respect for himself resort to arguing an absurdity? I never understood that. It's like playing the Christians game and giving them some tacit approval.

If you are going to give the platform to debate, its worth understanding what they are likely to pull out of their ass.

If you construct an argument in a debate, you should be looking ahead at what their response is likely to be. Often, you may be constructing your argument to lead your debate opponent into a line of reasoning which you know can be obliterated easily.

As a good example, debating creationists on the fossil record is a pointless exercise since the idea of transitionary forms can have near infinite regress, so by understanding what argument is likely to be posited versus your position can lead them to having to defend their position instead of attacking yours.
For instance, leading them through your responses to having to defend the flood theory.

In this, Debating is a tactical game, it rarely has any useful merit. With creationists, we all know its a pointless exercise because of the fundamental retardation, and merely being willing to discuss it gives them more credibility than they deserve. That doesn't mean we don't get a kick from pointing out the retardation.

(March 18, 2012 at 7:01 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote:

(March 18, 2012 at 6:49 am)Phil Wrote: Why would an atheist that has any respect for himself resort to arguing an absurdity? I never understood that. It's like playing the Christians game and giving them some tacit approval.

If you are going to give the platform to debate, its worth understanding what they are likely to pull out of their ass.

If you construct an argument in a debate, you should be looking ahead at what their response is likely to be. Often, you may be constructing your argument to lead your debate opponent into a line of reasoning which you know can be obliterated easily.

As a good example, debating creationists on the fossil record is a pointless exercise since the idea of transitionary forms can have near infinite regress, so by understanding what argument is likely to be posited versus your position can lead them to having to defend their position instead of attacking yours.
For instance, leading them through your responses to having to defend the flood theory.

In this, Debating is a tactical game, it rarely has any useful merit. With creationists, we all know its a pointless exercise because of the fundamental retardation, and merely being willing to discuss it gives them more credibility than they deserve. That doesn't mean we don't get a kick from pointing out the retardation.

Debating science is one thing but it is almost never that they actually know any. Debating their bible or their theology is no different then pissing in the wind, playing their game and giving them tacit approval while elevating their fantasy to the status of peer with genuine reason and logic.

(March 18, 2012 at 7:01 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote: With creationists, we all know its a pointless exercise because of the fundamental retardation, and merely being willing to discuss it gives them more credibility than they deserve.

This... Logic and reason is unfortunately beyond them. I die a little inside every time I here Creationist call himself a scientist.

(March 18, 2012 at 6:41 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote: What we actually prove, is not so much the nonexistence of God, given the exemption of the first part of God is Love, but you do prove that God does NOT love anyone. He is the function of Love, but incapable of it himself.

Or rather the embodiment of "self-love" perhaps.

According to the Bible at least, he does everything for his own glorification, rather than being an actual force for good and simply ending all suffering in the world. Hard to believe there are Christians out there who genuinely love that sort of egoistical power-mad monster. He's good and merciful not for our sakes, but for his own name's sake, because it would embarrass and humiliate him if he allowed his elect to go astray.

It all adds weight to the whole "Christianity is an evil cult" argument.

Thing is imho that they have a hard time (thanks to their creed) of loving themselves let alone anything outside themselves ...

Just my take on it Phil