(May 2, 2010 at 4:19 am)True Christian Wrote: Thing is, im pretty sure that in your head you have already branded me as someone who ignores difficult questions, making me a hypocrit. It is easier for you to see me that way, because by making me a hypocrit you dont have to think about my answers, since they will all be lies in your eyes. It is EXACTLY what fundamentalist Christians do towards atheists. They see them as sinners, so they dont have to think about what they say, sinners being always wrong.
It is that presumption from both sides, the presumption that no matter what happens, YOU are the righteous one and the other side is always wrong in every possible way, that makes the dialogue between believers and non-believers very hard.

You dont know me, there are a thousand reasons why i wouldnt answer every question i was asked, but you immediately assumed i was avoiding them.

---

So that's what this is all about. True Christian is playing the martyr. The more people disagree with him, the stiffer he gets. That's why he has chosen to deny the OT god...He can play the martyr with other Christians as well.

(May 2, 2010 at 9:10 am)Zen Badger Wrote:

(May 2, 2010 at 7:47 am)True Christian Wrote: Yahwe doesnt exist. So it doesnt matter why he would test Abe. He isnt the one who sacrificed Jesus, the real God did.
The Old Testament, to me, is an old law that had moral principles and worshipped a false God. Jesus put them on the right track, by sending the true message of the Lord, but also agreeing with some of the moral principles of the old law (10 commandments for example)
I dont know what the real God was doing, but his only direct interaction with humanity is sending Jesus to Earth, so you might also ask what he was doing at the time of the dinosaurs or what he is doing now, I DONT KNOW, because im not God.

Well it's interesting you now claim that yahwe didn't actually exist, because to quote you directly:

"Although i would not call Yahwe a "murdering desert God". He did give Moses the 10 Commandements, or stopped Abraham from sacrificing his son (thus discouraging human sacrifice). He was, at his time, the closest thing to the real God. But he was not Him, because the True God does not have a "chosen" people." End quote.

You are quite clearly stating here that he did exist.

It appears to me that you don't really know what you believe.

I guess i didnt express myself clearly. I should have added "according to the old Testament...". I meant to say that Yahwe AS depicted by the Old Testament, was not that bad of a deity to worship either. However i insist: he never existed

(May 2, 2010 at 8:44 am)True Christian Wrote: English isnt my first language, i do my best not to make mistakes though...

These are not assumptions, the assumption is that i cannot answer the question and chose to avoid it. If you make assumptions its fine but if i make them im wrong?

Good on you! I can appreciate picking up a second language can be tricky, just remember your studies do come first. Some atheist crowds can be very fun to hang out with just as much as some theists brighten up your day, but please don't let the quest for knowledge distract you from, erm… knowledge!

Now with regards to assumptions, you're being called out on that merely because it's irrelevant to your argument for religion, no single person can speak for or claim to represent everyone here. I don't speak for all atheists; likewise you don't speak for all theists which is why we can never afford to be complacent around each other.

Quote:Also, for the love of God, please stop saying i dont see the wrongdoings of religion...i OPENED MY POST saying i know it has done bad things, i have repeated over and over that i know religion does bad things, all i am saying is that the good outweighs the bad.

When you have the time, what I'd like to see from you is a compiled list of benefits to mankind religion has provided throughout recorded history, however to have a debate these benefits listed (in no particular order) have to be exclusive to said religion and not found and/or accomplished anywhere else through other secular means.

(May 2, 2010 at 10:03 am)True Christian Wrote: I guess i didnt express myself clearly. I should have added "according to the old Testament...". I meant to say that Yahwe AS depicted by the Old Testament, was not that bad of a deity to worship either. However i insist: he never existed

I see where you're coming from with regards to the concept of Yahweh. I feel the need to ask you about your concept though. Do you believe God in both Testaments is immutable? In other words the idea that God's nature cannot and does not change?

(May 2, 2010 at 10:43 am)Welsh cake Wrote: Good on you! I can appreciate picking up a second language can be tricky, just remember your studies do come first. Some atheist crowds can be very fun to hang out with just as much as some theists brighten up your day, but please don't let the quest for knowledge distract you from, erm… knowledge!

Now with regards to assumptions, you're being called out on that merely because it's irrelevant to your argument for religion, no single person can speak for or claim to represent everyone here. I don't speak for all atheists; likewise you don't speak for all theists which is why we can never afford to be complacent around each other.

When you have the time, what I'd like to see from you is a compiled list of benefits to mankind religion has provided throughout recorded history, however to have a debate these benefits listed (in no particular order) have to be exclusive to said religion and not found and/or accomplished anywhere else through other secular means.


I see where you're coming from with regards to the concept of Yahweh. I feel the need to ask you about your concept though. Do you believe God in both Testaments is immutable? In other words the idea that God's nature cannot and does not change?

I don't claim to know what all atheist think, it is just that the accusation saying i was avoiding the real questions shows a kind of behavior that i have seen before, the behavior i described, which is "im right, everything you say and do is wrong, because im right".

I should really make a list of the benefits of religion, however the part about "no secular means" makes no sense, as i have said before. Because all of the wrongdoings of religion can and have been performed outside religion. Pedophilia, genocide, wars, discrimination, none of those are only included in religion.

However there is one thing religion has done that could not be achieved by secular means: throughout the Middle Ages, there was relative peace in Europe (and i do mean relative) thanks to the higher authority of the Church. Lords hesitated to engage in conflicts because they were scared of excommunication (is that the right word ?).

I guess Yahwe, as a character that has known no evolution in texts in thousands of years, is immutable just like Gulliver or Zeus or any other character.

As for God (by that i mean the real God), since he is eternal, i guess his nature is eternal as well.

Not to accuse you of avoiding anything, TC, but I'd like to point out that you have not responded to my post above. In it, I accuse you of cherry picking of the highest order and I would like you to explain yourself. This is not a personal attack of any sort. I am just curious as to why you believe as you do and where you get such notions. Unless, of course, your cherry picking is so ingrained that you are even applying it to this thread.

(May 2, 2010 at 11:28 am)Paul the Human Wrote: Not to accuse you of avoiding anything, TC, but I'd like to point out that you have not responded to my post above. In it, I accuse you of cherry picking of the highest order and I would like you to explain yourself. This is not a personal attack of any sort. I am just curious as to why you believe as you do and where you get such notions. Unless, of course, your cherry picking is so ingrained that you are even applying it to this thread.

Alright, here is the reason i think what i think: there is no evidence for the Old Testament. However there is evidence for Jesus as the Gospels are a collection of testimonies from Jesus' time.

For the sake of argument lets assume there is indeed compelling historical evidence of a man called Jesus (I've heard both sides of the argument so I guess I'm undecided on that one because I don't know which position is the most legit or how to tell).

What about evidence of the resurrection or any of his divinity in anyway though? Or anything supernatural at all for that matter?

Got any evidence that he was anything more than an ordinary bloke who thought he was special? Got any evidence that he really was the son of God/ God himself incarnate?

I think not but please provide if you think you have any

EvF

(May 2, 2010 at 12:42 pm)True Christian Wrote:

(May 2, 2010 at 11:28 am)Paul the Human Wrote: Not to accuse you of avoiding anything, TC, but I'd like to point out that you have not responded to my post above. In it, I accuse you of cherry picking of the highest order and I would like you to explain yourself. This is not a personal attack of any sort. I am just curious as to why you believe as you do and where you get such notions. Unless, of course, your cherry picking is so ingrained that you are even applying it to this thread.

Alright, here is the reason i think what i think: there is no evidence for the Old Testament. However there is evidence for Jesus as the Gospels are a collection of testimonies from Jesus' time.

Okay. So, it is what you believe, because it is what you believe. That works for me. It doesn't change my conclusion, but at least I know where you get your beliefs now. *mimes picking a cherry*

I absolutely love cherries but I don't pick my own

EvF