(August 22, 2012 at 11:11 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(August 22, 2012 at 10:41 pm)catfish Wrote: have fun attempting to ridicule that...

Ok:



Did you enjoy that? I've got plenty more...

I missed it....

But now my ass feels wet...

(August 22, 2012 at 10:41 pm)catfish Wrote: I have to disagree. The Bible says that a person cannot sin from innocence. I think their "sin" was one of shame and blame. They became ashamed of their natural bodies, hid from God, and blamed everyone except for themselves.

Did the Earth magically change at that point? I doubt it. All that changed was Adam and Eve's percetion of ALL THAT WAS GOOD to an awareness of good/evil, pleasure/pain, joy/sorrow, etc...

They started to be aware of things that were not... I.E. not clothed, not their fault, not simply life but a new awareness of duallity, the created and the non-existent.

have fun attempting to ridicule that...

The Bible says.....he he, ha ha, ho ho. You do realize that the accumulated knowledge of the human species makes your single source for truth absurd...but, perhaps not.

How exactly does one hide from your God? Adam could tell us because God went to Eden and couldn't find him. Or was this just the first game of hide and seek? So much for omniscience.

You also claim that Adam and Eve blamed everyone but themselves. Exactly who was everybody else when they, as reported, were the only two people on the face of the Earth?

Burn strawmen much?

When did I claim the Bible was my "single source for truth"?
Who said that Adam and Eve were the only two people on Earth? Let alone who restricted the narative to just people?

(August 23, 2012 at 1:49 am)catfish Wrote: Burn strawmen much?

When did I claim the Bible was my "single source for truth"?
Who said that Adam and Eve were the only two people on Earth? Let alone who restricted the narative to just people?

No straw here, just the burning embers of your attempt at reason.

You don't have to 'claim' the bible as your only source, it's the only source you have ever used.

Your bible claims that at the time of the fall that Adam and Eve were the only ones around. Admitting that there were others around at the time for Adam and Eve to blame means that you too know the claims of the bible to be bullshit. If Adam and Eve didn't blame other people, are you suggesting they blamed beasts of the field? This sounds very much like 'the dog ate my homework' excuse.

See, your commitment to foolishness is ridiculous. I don't even have to have fun trying.

catfish Wrote:have fun attempting to ridicule that...

Yes, how could anyone possibly ridicule the story of the first two human beings, one made from dirt and the other from the first's rib running around in a magic garden eating fruit that suddenly gave them knowledge?

(August 23, 2012 at 1:10 am)catfish Wrote:

(August 22, 2012 at 11:11 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Ok:



Did you enjoy that? I've got plenty more...

I missed it....

But now my ass feels wet...

You either need to call a doctor or a vet, depending on what kind of ass you own. If it's anything else, I'm afraid I may have started something I can't finish; the very last thing I intended was to arouse you in any way.

(August 22, 2012 at 5:15 pm)spockrates Wrote: Rather than avoiding the argument, I think I'm addressing it, though in a way you did not expect.

Given your posting history, a left-turn on your claim without admitting you were mistaken in your original is exactly what I was expecting.

(August 22, 2012 at 5:15 pm)spockrates Wrote: Use your imagination, Mister! Have a little fun with the wonder of what it must be like to be all-knowing and to know all. It cannot possibly be as dull and unremarkable as even the most creative person can imagine. Can it?

If I do that, will you learn the difference between precognition and prediction?

(August 22, 2012 at 5:15 pm)spockrates Wrote: They're not my examples of how to love.

People love how they love. You can talk about real love like humans experience it, or some other kind if that's what floats your boat.

(August 22, 2012 at 5:15 pm)spockrates Wrote: But yes, I suppose it highly likely that my character is no better than your own.

I wasn't trying to compare our characters. I was pointing out that in nearly all cases where the distinctions are clear (not a moral dilemma, for instance), the character we have deveoloped over the course of our lives determines what choices we make. I don't think it's meaningless to say we have free will, but it's necessarily limited. I'm not really free to suddenly go on a killing spree: considerable changes to my character would be required before that was a real choice. In the Genesis story, Adam and Eve would have had whatever character God made them with.

(August 22, 2012 at 6:15 pm)kılıç_mehmet Wrote:

(August 14, 2012 at 3:51 pm)spockrates Wrote: What are they? Reason for asking: I've been told by thoughtful atheists that looking for logical contradictions in Christian beliefs, or within the pages of the Bible is a waste of time. The explanation given is that there are much better reasons to give up on being Christian. I'm just wondering what the better reasons are so I can try them on and see how they fit.

Reasons? I really don't see any reasons to especially quit christianity.
A person might quit christianity with the following reasons, which are personal, and not general.

*Loss of faith, due to:
-personal conclusions about the existence of God in general
-personal conclusions about the correctness of christianity
-personal conclusions about the correctness of religions in general

Not sure I understand, KM. What makes a conclusion personal, and what makes a conclusion general?

---

(August 22, 2012 at 6:32 pm)Homo Sapiens Wrote:

(August 22, 2012 at 5:15 pm)spockrates Wrote: Hi, HS. Actually, my parents were both agnostic and did not try to teach me anything about the God they did not know. I rebelled by becoming a Christian!

I agree life with a body would be far superior to life without one, if such is possible. (Which is one reason why I hope the Bible is correct when it speaks of a future resurrection of the bodies of those who will live forever in them.) But please tell me how you know it is impossible for the mind to exist apart from the brain. I guess what I'm asking is this: What is the mind?

My parents are atheists and they didnt force their ideas on me.

we exist because we think,we are certain of our existence.As soon this ends we are no more.
And why are you relaying your sources on  thousands of years old documents?
 
and for the end just  believing in god makes him real. 

Ever play the game in elementary school where the kids get in a long line and the teacher whispers something in the ear of the one at the front of the line? That kid whispers what she heard to the kid behind her, and she in turn whispers what the kid told her to the next one in line, and so on. Ask the kid at the end of the line what he was told and it is ridiculously different from what the teacher told the first one in line.

Even a child knows that passing on a message by word of mouth is unreliable. So if you were a god and wanted to convey some message that would be least likely to become distorted over time, how would you go about it?

---

(August 22, 2012 at 6:40 pm)Faith No More Wrote:

Spockrates Wrote:I rebelled by becoming a Christian!

Worst. Rebel. Ever.

Would have been a rebel if someone didn't think so!

:p

(August 22, 2012 at 7:17 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(August 22, 2012 at 5:10 pm)spockrates Wrote: Who is to say the future is one, but not many? Who is to say that omniscience is not the ability to see only one outcome, but countless billions of possible outcomes, and to act in the present according to all the possible outcomes foreseen?

Who indeed, once we've gone down this road. But this is even more troubling for the judeo-christian god, and I've already begun to elaborate upon why, twice... posts ago.

Quote: Isn't this what someone does when he plays chess, but on a much smaller scale? Rather than avoiding the argument, I think I'm addressing it, though in a way you did not expect.

At no point does the chess player possess precognition, even though they may accurately determine the moves of their opponent, it isn't precognition that allows them to achieve this. See the above for what I may expect (or what you may propose that could be expected), and reread our posts.

Quote:the Use your imagination, Mister! Have a little fun with the wonder of what it must be like to be all-knowing and to know all. It cannot possibly be as dull and unremarkable as even the most creative person can imagine. Can it?

I wouldn't know, I couldn't rule out the utter dullness of omniscience personally, maybe Mister can, neither of us having experienced it. An eternity without so much as a single surprise....idk Spock...

I don't see a problem given the proposed definitions of time and omniscience.

Time = that which is impossible to become static in the future

Omniscient = knowing all of the possible outcomes of the future and what actions would have to be taken to make the impossible, possible and make the possible, impossible.

Now you say, "God is a precog." If by that you mean, "God is omniscient," then I'll stick with my response. No one outcome pre-known; no problem. You would have to proove, by some philosophical, or scientific method that time can become static, which I don't yet agree that you have.

But as I suggested earlier, even if you are correct, there is still no reason to disbelieve in God. One outcome pre-known; still no problem, because this is what Calvinists believe--freewill is an illusion. God predestines everyone for heaven, or hell and no one can change her destiny.

I used to be a member of an Evangelical Presbyterian church, so I know. Agreeing that freewill is unreal does not prevent a believer in Reformed Theology from logically believing in God. The Calvinist would simply say you are correct and advise me to return to Calvinism.

A student of logic might say you have no FE (factual errors) for your premises might be correct, but you've committed an LE (logical error) since your premises support the opposite conclusion: Even if freedom of choice is impossible, it is still possible for God to exist.

Yes, the lack of free will would not prove that god does not exist, however, it would prove that god is a sadistic prick, unworthy of even a single second of devotion and worship.