(February 24, 2015 at 9:55 pm)dyresand Wrote: In fact he needs to take it a step further and get a lobotomy [...]

Judging from his posting, he's a step ahead of you on that one.

(February 24, 2015 at 10:22 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(February 24, 2015 at 9:55 pm)dyresand Wrote: In fact he needs to take it a step further and get a lobotomy [...]

Judging from his posting, he's a step ahead of you on that one.

Someone needs to get GC night night nuggets and meds.

(February 24, 2015 at 10:22 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(February 24, 2015 at 9:55 pm)dyresand Wrote: In fact he needs to take it a step further and get a lobotomy [...]

Judging from his posting, he's a step ahead of you on that one.

He he he....ZING!

(February 24, 2015 at 10:13 pm)watchamadoodle Wrote: @Godschild, I wish you would try to stay on topic. It sometimes seems like you are deliberately derailing threads to sabotage discussions. How did this turn into a debate about evolution? I know it's not entirely your fault.

I didn't take it off topic, I was accused of circular reasoning and replied with my own show of circular reasoning and others jumped in and showed their willingness to continue something I had no intention of discussing.

GC

---

(February 24, 2015 at 10:19 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:

(February 24, 2015 at 7:32 pm)Godschild Wrote: If you refuse to read and study to find the truth, then stop complaining about something you have no true understanding of.

There is precious little of truth in that collection of iron age myths you cling to in hopes of surviving the death you so fear.

Absolutely no understanding of any tested, verifiable models of reality and yet you go on and on about the ignorance of others.

Your ignorance would be astounding if it weren't self inflicted. That it is, while astonishing, is also incredibly sad.

Why is this kinda' crap all you ever offer to a discussion, if this is the extent of your best stay away.

GC

(February 24, 2015 at 6:55 pm)IATIA Wrote:

(February 23, 2015 at 6:34 pm)Ignorant Wrote: What if I told you that God is pastichalony? When you ask me what pastichalony means, I respond with "Environmentalism is pastichalony". When you press me for a more meaningful description, I say, "it means different things to different people." When you ask me what I personally mean by it, I say, "I already told you that environmentalism is pastichalony." If you can adequately imagine that sort of exchange, you will understand my utter dissatisfaction.

That makes no sense. You have provided no description of pastichalony, but rather used it as a descriptor and assumed one should be able to define pastichalony without reference.

That is precisely the senseless use of language that I was trying to illustrate, so thank you for the feedback on its effectiveness. It shouldn't make sense if I illustrated it correctly.

The person in that example is using the word "pastichalony" as if everyone just knows what it means. When he is pressed to offer a definition, he just keeps using the word which is not understood.

Using a word as a descriptor and assuming other people should be able to define that word without reference is, indeed, without sense.

It also happens to be what several people are doing in this thread with the word "good". However, hopefully you will notice that when I was asked to supply my own definition, I described the word "good" in a much different way than the hypothetical person was describing "pastichalony"

---

(February 24, 2015 at 7:27 pm)Nope Wrote: Christians say that their god is good so they must have some sort of definition as to what good is. If they can't even define good how do they know that their god is good or that anything that they do is good?

That is an excellent question for Christians who don't know what they mean by the word "good", but hopefully you will admit that it is just as excellent a question for atheists who say that god is not good. I'm not demanding a definition, but we should not assume that we all mean the same thing by the word, or that we all actually can articulate what it means according to our usage of that word.

If an omnipotent God who wants pleasure maximized over pain exists, there would be no pain only pleasure.
There is pain.
Therefor, an omnipotent God who wants pleasure maximized over pain doesn't exist.

That narrows down the list of omnipotent gods whom could exist.

---

If an omnipotent God who wants people to follow his commands and not break them exists, there would be no commands broken.
Commands are broken
Therefor, an omnipotent God who wants people to follow his commands and not break them doesn't exist.
That narrows down the list of omnipotent gods whom could exist a little more.

Yup. We can have free will without hurtful choices available too, so that argument is bullshit.

The bible clearly shows God is neither omnipotent, nor even moderately benevolent. He's a barbed wire cock ring.

God can't repel chariots that are made of iron? He sucks then.

If an omnipotent god whose top goal is to stop child rape exists, there would be no child rape.
Children are raped.
An omnipotent god whose top goal is to stop child rape doesn't exist.

You could make another version of these kinds of argument against a merely unstoppable powerful being who isn't omnipotent to narrow it down even more.

Why do Christians think theism is uplifting?

If God is omniscient, he also knows about every single rape going on, how much suffering it is causing, and how it will affect that person in the future.

Yet he still sits back, respecting the free will of the assailant but not the victim, waving a finger saying, "You'll pay for that later, at a time when it's no longer relevant to you or the victim!"

As opposed to anyone with any compassion, who would just stop the rape as soon as possible. And without any omnipotence either.

Fucking ridiculous how people can spin this crap so that it makes sense to them.

Heck, our legal system is all about violating free will (assuming humans have it). We don't just let rapists run around the place because they have free will.