(April 12, 2010 at 7:15 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Sometimes sarcastic yes, but not if you're serious... I'd guess this geezer wasn't jesting about his missus.

It's not me this time! I swear!

Definitely not if your serious... that would make you a believer by definition... and then why would you call yourself an atheist? :S

loop to post #16

(April 12, 2010 at 6:32 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Ragging on God is more like believing than not IMO.

if you want to be a language literalist (retarded), yeah. wouldn't you agree that sometimes (for an atheist) discussing god is easier when referring to it as if one did exist?

edit: I read some more posts where you agree that speaking as if a god did exist in sarcasm is reasonable but in seriousness not reasonable. I still don't think that when my co boss was basically saying that a loving god wouldn't take his wife he didn't mean that there is a god that took his wife that he believes in. I mean... damn 'language literalists'... not everyone is hung up on the importance of extremely accurate language usage.

(April 12, 2010 at 7:36 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: loop to post #16

Are you psychic or what? TFS just responded to #16...

(April 12, 2010 at 9:37 pm)The_Flying_Skeptic Wrote: if you want to be a language literalist (retarded), yeah. wouldn't you agree that sometimes (for an atheist) discussing god is easier when referring to it as if one did exist?

edit: I read some more posts where you agree that speaking as if a god did exist in sarcasm is reasonable but in seriousness not reasonable. I still don't think that when my co boss was basically saying that a loving god wouldn't take his wife he didn't mean that there is a god that took his wife that he believes in. I mean... damn 'language literalists'... not everyone is hung up on the importance of extremely accurate language usage.

You're right it's more complex.

I personally think that all attempts of dodging the 'Problem of Evil' that I've ever seen have been pathetic. The only real way is to dodge it by simply defining all the horrible sick shit that's in the world as 'not evil'. But the whole point is that if a loving God has a concept of 'Evil' that does not consider the sick tragic and immoral crap in in the world to be Evil then by OUR human judgement he's sick because morals are subjective after all (at least in my mind as a moral and existential nihilist).

But.... the problem of Evil cannot eliminate God it can only eliminate a 'truly loving' omnipotent God. God could still exist and be an Evil fucker/completely neutral.

It doesn't disprove a loving God. It is merely that I myself, for example, personally define any God that allows this kind of crappy world to be as crappy (in so many areas that is) is certainly not an all loving and all powerful God because such a God would do something about it.

EvF

ITT we dance around the NTS fallacy in the form of "no true atheist would ever have a stupid reason for not believing in god!" lol who said we are all logical or rational at all? I don't believe in gods because the Invisible Pink Unicorn (BBHH) willed me to let go of such nonsense, and who am I to argue with her loveliness who created the universe?

Just for fun you should bring up the incident with Lot's wife and see if you can re-convert him. After all, God does take men's wives for no more transgression that looking backwards at inopportune moments.

YAY irrationality,
Rhizo