Part 3

[Faith No More]

Area 69 isn't a place you want the Lord knowing you look at.

It's not the atheist's fault that Jesus is a prude.

[LastPoet]

Area 69 isn't a place you want the Lord knowing you look at.

Hey! The rules are that the person should be over 18 and make proof of it, nothing more or less. Rayaan has a lord and go there.

But yeah, you can't imagine the rough-as-crap-ballslapping-tits-jiggling sex orgy action going on over there....

[Drich]

Hold up everyone! Stop what you are doing! Drich knows what the true nature of the Christian god is! Please tell us. We will probably disagree but thats expected from atheists. The funny thing is, a thousand different denominations of Christianity may well disagree with you too.

I know how God describes Himself in the bible and no bible believeing Christian will argue this point.

I referrs to Himself as I am. The Alpha, and The Omega (The beginning and end to all things.)

---

Drich if you can't even know what proof of god looks like then how do you prove god?
Especially when the bible can be proven false.

I know what proof of God looks like for me. I'm asking what does 'proof' of God look like for you.

Again if you do not know what you are looking for, then how can you possiably recognise it when you see it?

---

He's not going to tell us anything specific about his god. The best we can expect is obscure rhetoric about seeking our own answers, almost certainly with a warmed-through dollop of that stupid A/S/K shit on top.

And Drich? My morality certainly trumps that of your bible god. It definitely pisses all over its 'righteousness'. I've never gone out of my way to harm anyone, I've certainly never killed anyone, I've never ordered the taking of slaves and in fact would oppose anyone who did, I've never created a species deliberately imperfectly and then blamed them for not matching up to my standards, I'd never even consider hiding all trace of my existence from such a species and then condemn them for not trying to look for me, neither would I let something else I created cause chaos amongst that creation without doing something to destroy it and I certainly wouldn't blame my creations for falling victim to it...

Etc...

Etc...

Etc.

As for what constitutes 'proof' of your god claims; that's your problem, not ours.

Two things, what is your 'morality' based on if not God?

Again stimmy as I told RM 'proof' is meaningless if the people examining it don't know what they are looking at.

If you show a monkey proof of space travel, what do you think his response will be? He will throw poop at it as he does everything else unfamiliar to him.

---

To say your version of god does not exist because he is a contradiction of how God is portrayed in the bible is an absolute no brainer! OF COURSE HE DOES NOT EXIST, YOU MADE HIM UP!!!

HOW DARE YOU MAKE UP A GOD WHICH ISN'T LIKE THE GOD MADE UP IN THE BIBLE

---

We don't have an atheist only section.

Area 69 isn't a place you want the Lord knowing you look at.

Your missing the point perhaps intentionally.

If all you have ever done is question and test a god of your own creation of your own imagination, then how can you say there is no God? Fore all you have done is disproove that you can not imagine a God into existance.

---

Oh, I get it. You all feel that your 'morality' somehow trumps God's morality/righteousness.

Therefore God is not worthy of worship.

Close?

look at that - he can be taught

Whats even better is that you actually think that admitting your god has some unexplainable immunity to being labeled an immoral being will somehow satiate those who call him out on his atrocities.

If there was ANYONE on this site who was teetering on the edge of accepting your bogus messiah, you've definitely put an end to that.
You should be glad Jesus isn't real, he'd be pissed as fuck at you by now.

Not unexplainable immunity. I simply relayed the fact that you all do not understand why you/we are not to take on the role of God upon ourselves and take vengance or exact wrath onto other people.

If you want to know why God can do these things then ask.

[max-greece]

" what is your 'morality' based on if not God?"

Seriously?

Gee - I don't know - what were Aesop's Fables based on? You think they were new then? What did the Egyptians do for morality? How about India or China? Hinduism or Buddhism?

So many different moralities.....its almost as if we could write a moral history of the world with Jesus somewhere in the middle historically.

Today our morality is a product of our history - just as it has been for every generation since time began for us.

[Cyberman]

Leaving aside presupposition for the moment, in order to come to the conclusion that "God" is morality personified - or deified - you would need to assess its actions and intentions against your own inbuilt moral compass. It's like when someone tries to argue that there's a better way of discovering truth than the scientific method, failing to realise that they have to use that very method to determine what that better way would be and whether it works.

Taking what I actually described of my morality in account, I judge "God"'s morality as vastly inferior. The character is vengeful, vain, vindictive, petty, spiteful, murderous, bloodthirsty and just plain not nice. I am none of those things, at least by nature.

We've gone over this ground of where do our morals come from if not imposed by an external agency so many times before. For now, I'd just add this. Don't you think it belittles the glory of your god's creation that you believe happened, to hold that it was incapable (for whatever reason) of creating a species that was self-maintaining? One that requires - no, needs - a sense of morality imprinted into its psyche instead of being an emergent property of its nature? I'm reminded of a comedy skit that probably never happened, in which someone is decorating a room and has to use all his arms and legs and whatever else is to hand to keep the paper on the walls, continually having to micro-manage the whole enterprise instead of doing the job properly in the first place.

Either way, it's a joke.

[Cyberman]

Again stimmy as I told RM 'proof' is meaningless if the people examining it don't know what they are looking at.

But that's not your call to make. Here's how it works: you deliver whatever you consider to be proof, or at the very least evidence. We assess your proof and dissect it, then report our findings. If your proof and/or evidence doesn't survive that process, you need to find something stronger that might.

All we are asking for is something, anything, to support the claims you make. If someone came to me for a job as a typist, the first thing I'm going to ask them to do is type something. If they claim they can type twenty million words a minute, it's not for me to say they're lying; but if they can't or won't demonstrate that, they're out the door whether I'm risking losing the world's record typist or not.

[Lemonvariable72]

Well a quick example of a few things that count as evidence.
A voice in the sky (in a veritable incident)
A rock that tells you the will of god
A preaching squirrel
A large craving in the moon saying "hi this is god"
And of course if caprica six offered to have my children.
Of course you still have to apply scientific inquiry vigorously.

[Cyberman]

You would have to discount other possible explanations first, before leaping to the conclusion that it was something to do with a god. Psychosis, mistaken or impaired judgement, hoaxes, dreams etc. Even after surviving all that, you'd have generated one piece of evidence. Lather, rinse, repeat, until you've built up a body of mutually-supporting evidence and we might just be onto something.

Scientific enquiry is a journey, not a destination; unfortunately, all too many salesmen of bullshit want to jump over the steps inbetween.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Hold up everyone! Stop what you are doing! Drich knows what the true nature of the Christian god is! Please tell us. We will probably disagree but thats expected from atheists. The funny thing is, a thousand different denominations of Christianity may well disagree with you too.

There are as many gods as there believers. Drich's god is unique in that he has given it attributed based on his own faith and beliefs.

But naturally, his is the one true god.

[Drich]

" what is your 'morality' based on if not God?"

Seriously?

Gee - I don't know - what were Aesop's Fables based on? You think they were new then? What did the Egyptians do for morality? How about India or China? Hinduism or Buddhism?

So many different moralities.....its almost as if we could write a moral history of the world with Jesus somewhere in the middle historically.

Today our morality is a product of our history - just as it has been for every generation since time began for us.

So your morality is based on pop culture? What society tells you is right, and what society tells you in wrong? And if society goes off the deep end, are their any checks and balances in place to correct or preserve 'morality' as you understand it?

Before you answer, consider the pop morality you currently enjoy is way different than how it was just 20 years ago. Look at issues like smoking, how society treats gay people, how we discipline our children, How whites treat minorities.. What once was almost a soceitial mandate has now become a high crime.

If there are indeed checks and balances why the change?

I'm not asking you to try and determine whether a change is good or bad, just the fact that change happened. And then ask why did it happen? what was the catalyst? what fueled change? Now ask yourself how does this catalyst 'fuel change' and not go too far and burn through all boundries good or bad?

Remember those who do not know History are doomed to repeat it.

What seperates you and this society from others who base their morality on pop culture, that went over the edge?

---

Well a quick example of a few things that count as evidence.
A voice in the sky (in a veritable incident)
A rock that tells you the will of god
A preaching squirrel
A large craving in the moon saying "hi this is god"
And of course if caprica six offered to have my children.
Of course you still have to apply scientific inquiry vigorously.

ah, So you are looking for God to communicate to you directly. God tells us in Luke 11 that if we want direct communication with God then you must A/S/K for the Holy Spirit.

Not to say all of these thing will happen, but I also say these things wont happen either. What is promised is a measure of the Holy Spirit. If you are faithful to what you have been given more/a larger measure will be given to you. Meaning more direct and ground shaking contact will be established.

That said know that even if all of those things (Including 6's proposal to you) can and will be explained away by your doubting brothers. even though these things would convince you personally. That is the nature of God's proof. It is personal. It gives you what you need, while allowing those who do not want to be with God the opportunity to dismiss what they do not want to see or hear.

If you go to God with an open mind you will get the EXACT proof you need to not only Establish a relationship with Him, but He will provide you the on going 'proof' you need to maintain said relationship if you are indeed faithful to what you have been given