Why knocking is so important.

[Cyberman]

Going by this thread I reckon the holy spirit is at least 150 proof.

[Anomalocaris]

The Holy Spirit is the proof of God.

It's proof of your departure from reality.

He was never there.

---

Going by this thread I reckon the holy spirit is at least 150 proof.

Judging by his recent mad hatter behavior and neurological dysfunction the holy Moonshine wasn't all ethanol.

[FlowingFlame]

Whatever your (groups) reasons they can and will fall into one of the two catagories I have already mentioned. One you have found God and you have turned your back on Him. (Which if He has and you do it, makes you a misotheist and not an Atheist.) Or two you have a unsupported view of God and your faith has failed due whatever the flavor of rain God sent down on you cause your to doubt the viablity of your personal version of God. thus making you a legitmate atheist.

No, it doesn't. You're just trying to strawman everyone into your own narrow view of Atheism as someone who willingly turned away from God after accepting all of this bullshit. A lot of people never have any faith or belief to begin with so stop trying to narrowly define us as a group so you have something (your apparently perfect understanding of the bible) to lord over us.

Other options:

---

1. God doesn't exist and you're interpreting a book of bronze age myths, many of them stolen from older myths, as truth.

---

Which is indeed covered by option 2. In that as you understand God, your understanding (bronze age myth, all loving grand father or warrior meanie) does not exist, and has found no support by God.

Being told as a child that God is real and you should believe in him =/= constitute belief in God. Much the same way a child being told that Santa Clause is real doesn't make it so. There was no belief to be supported.

As a child I had NO understanding of this supposed God and viewed it much the same as I would presently view the claim that someone saw a ghost. I don't assume the ghost is real and then go from there.

It goes like this:

No belief + claim of God (ghosts)-> Analysis of facts (bible/cold spot in basement hallway viewed through thermal camera) -> Disbelief of God (ghosts)

Indeed. I can copy and paste 'no support/No proof' as long as you like as well.

Lazy arguing based on presumptions that you don't have to think about must be nice.

---

Also, assumption upon assumption. You assume I ever held an actual beliefs. You assume I require proof as a foundation for believing. You assume I ever received anything to begin with to turn my back on. It wasn't an argument, it was blind assertion based on preconceptions about Atheists.

---

And assumed rightly.
Or are you saying You do not require proof of anything in order to believe? If this were true your first statement can not be. Your third statement is incorrect as i did not assume that. i gave an option as in If not A then B. To say i assumed that you turned your back would mean I did not provide you with an option B.

1. As I stated above, belief DOES NOT come first.

2. Yes, you did assume that with your "Only other option" BS because of your poorly rigged questioning. You made is so that option A) lack of evidence) and option B) received evidence but it wasn't enough (also known as a lack of evidence), were basically the same thing and required a willing betrayal of God.

Try to word twist all you want, it still won't make me to have ever believed in God.

I have been answering questions from atheist for a while now. And, while you might still believe your a snow flake wrapped in an enigma. There is nothing you have said or done here that would indicate you have anything new. Matter of fact the 'you don't know me' spiell is atheism 101.

No shit. For good reason given the "I know you better than you know you" shit Christians constantly tout. Similar rebuttal will follow similar bullshit. What's your point other than wanting to look like a smug asshole?

Once you've learn to hate God properly you will graduate from the unique snow flake mentality to aligning yourself with a voltaire, nietzsche, or a dawkins of some type. Why? Because you will grow to understand that it is only under one of these 'preordained' philosphies will your thoughts find any traction.

Can't hate what I don't believe in, only the assholes that presume to tell me how to live my life in It's name. Oh, and condescending assholes that presume to know me and spout bullshit like this.

That's not to say for a while you might think your views are your own, but if you begin to read the works of some of the better known miso theists you will find out, all that makes you a unique snow flake has already been published by one of these guys, and if you keep reading they have already been refuted as well.

Ah yes, assume that someone mentioning their own thoughts and experiences (including hypothetical ones) in response to someone elses questions means they think said views are groundbreaking revelations just so you can mock and talk down to them. No fucking shit other people have had similar thoughts in the last few millennia! Where are you pulling this bullshit from?

Also, you can't possibly have posted this without realizing I could say exactly the same shit right back at you. You're the one making the most 'unique snowflake' claim in this thread. ~rubs temples~

Don't really think I can give you the benifet of the doubt anymore, it really just seems like you went out of your way just to be a condecending asshole and talk down to me. I'm curious, do you do take inspiration from the Bible to do shit like this or does it stem from your own nature?

---

But hey, for shits and giggles let's say the Holy Spirit gave me Proof of God and I turned my back on it. Wouldn't that be a failure on the part of the message if it wasn't enough for me at that point in my life to accept it?

---

Why would you assume that 'proof' would come in the form of a message?

Think it's pretty obvious that I meant whatever God chose to inspire me with is the 'message' but whatever.

---

Shouldn't God know I would find some aspect of it disagreeable to the point of rebellion? I would posit that whatever God's message it must be pretty lousy if even Angels, beings created perfect, IN paradise, face to face with God chose to rebel against him.

---

which is why i gave option 1 "That, God gave you proof and you turned your back on it." That is also why i said, 'at that point you could no longer call yourself an atheist.' (Meaning one who does not believe in God) If you have proof of God you can't say you do not believe in Him. No rather if you have proof and turn your back, it is because you find God disagreeable (Just as you said yourself) which makes you a misotheist.

This was a hypothetical posit as part of a previous response. Stop trying to force your personal views on me.

(See I have already been here with one/many of you snow flakes. I gave you your answer before you even knew to ask the question)

I did ask a question and it was hypothetical, see the sentence in my response that ends with a question mark. What the hell are you talking about? Is this more of your 'whipping' (presumptive bullshit) at work?

---

Are you fucking kidding me? Logic and Reasoning =\= Making up your opponents view for them and then making sweeping assumptions about an infinitely diverse group of people. All you've done is shown yourself to be a bit of an arrogant prick that assumes he knows all the answers. That in itself is bad form but you also failed to address my point. There are 41,000+ denominations of Christianity and many of them can and do disagree with you. Your 'whipping' technique is laughable.

---

(All good things come to those who wait.)

Somehow I really doubt you have some big zinger on hold.

You said something funny: "An infinatly diverse group" What you dont seem to get is all of you claim to believe one thing. In that one belief it can be boiled down to one of two reason to label one's self an "Atheist." (really just one)

---

a·the·ist
ˈāTHēˌist/Submit
noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
"he is a committed atheist"
(from a simple 'define atheist' google search)

Next, Lets look at the defination a person who disbelieves or lacks belief.

Now lets define belief the same way:
be·lief
biˈlēf/Submit
noun
1.
an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
"his belief in the value of hard work"
something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.
"contrary to popular belief, Aramaic is a living language"
synonyms: opinion, view, conviction, judgment, thinking, way of thinking, idea, impression, theory, conclusion, notion
"it's my belief that age is irrelevant"
a religious conviction.
"Christian beliefs"
synonyms: ideology, principle, ethic, tenet, canon; More

---

The fact that we only share a (lack of) belief in ONE thing is the important part here. Any two people who believe or don't believe in ONE thing can have vastly different views or experiences.

For example:

Man A believes baseball is the funnest sport because he grew up playing it and has fond memories. He thinks football it's too violent to be enjoyable.
Man B believes baseball is the funnest sport because he enjoys the more technical aspects of the game in comparison to other sports, football in particular.

Same conclusion, different reasons, completely different people. Should we then apply the sweeping generalization that they both received proof that football was the funnest sport but turned their back on it? Obviously not because preferences and beliefs don't work like that.

Meaning, If you have proof of something, and if one is bound by any sense of logic then belief must follow. So in order to say you are an Atheist you are saying you have no belief in God. As proof fosters belief, and if you have no belief, then one can say you have no proof.

Proof is a flimsy and relative term and absolutely does NOT foster belief unless you're a person that's willing to jump to conclusions without bothering to check said Proof against anything. One persons absolute proof can be completely laughable to another person. In the example I used above Man B's "proof" that Football is technically inferior to baseball doesn't mean anything to Man A because he has his own "proof" for his belief.

Your reasoning falls apart when you apply it to two people, how well do you think it's going to hold up when you apply it to billions? Atheists, like any grouping of people are infinitely diverse because everyones PERSONAL story and reasons for having belief or no belief in Gods are exactly that; personal.

per·son·al
ˈpərsənəl/Submit
adjective
1.
of, affecting, or belonging to a particular person rather than to anyone else.

The same applies to a comparison between any two people on any subject.

Hence option 2. God has not support your 'infinatly diverse groups' beliefs in Him just as Jesus said He wouldn't in the parable of the foolish builder.
Why? because again you/we all have our own pictures of God, and we must learn to let them go, and seek God for who he is. Not who we think Him to be.

I am suggesting that you put away ALL your preconceptions and just Seek The God of the Bible what ever the out come.

You also said this earlier. If someone seeks God and finds only stories told by genuinely awful human beings then their "proof" is just as valid as yours no matter how hard you disagree with it and it NEVER requires them to believe in God in the first place.

---

If God can't turn into a woman than he isn't all powerful. Hell, I find a being with the powers described of It having a gender at all to be hilarious and it simply smacks of Bronze Age tribesman logic.

Also, does It's "mysterious ways" have limits or something? Basic logic and reasoning would say that an All Powerful being can do anything.

---

Again, WE Describe God as all powerful, based on How God describes Himself. "The Great I am, The Alpha and Omega" If you can get past the desire to post a Meme of popeye, and look to the meaning of those words. You will find that God is and does what ever He wants to be/do. As the bible refers to Him as a him, and that He takes the role as a Father that would mean he was male.

Again, I reiterate that the bible you have today could be the result of either lies used to benefit the writers/conscriptors by applying their own nature and will onto a made up and supposedly divine being to cement their power. Or there are mistranslations/missing books that could prove that God is otherwise.

Given the corruptive nature of power, in particular of people that already has some power, I'm going with the former. Fits with everything I've observed both in and outside of the bible.

YOU need the bible to be true and accurate, I don't.

As a Follower of the God of the bible I do not care what gender He assigns Himself. I was told to look for a Him, and that is what I will do.

Guess you didn't drop ALL preconceptions before looking after all.

A is your answer.. Now all you have to do is find BCV that say God is supposed to be 'All Loving.' Or conceed that this is your own version of god that failed to get supported.

John seems to think so.

Join the club We were ALL BORN UNTO SIN. You are nothing special. That is why Christ came and died for us.[/url]

Presupposes God, and no, we weren't if you believe in Adam and Eve. The "sacrifice" rings so hollow since god intentionally created the problem the sacrifice needed to fix. If I stab you and then put a bandaid on it should I only be credited for treating your wounds and saving you? This is not a positive.

My journey has ended because I have found what it is i have been looking for. Now I seek to grow in what i have found and help others get to where I am at.

I honestly don't care for any of them unless they seek a relationship with the God of the bible.

Seems both dickish and contradictory.

That's just it. Those who don't have God, get nothing just as you said. Those who do, get to see God work every day.

Gotcha, need to have the magic decoder ring in order to not need the magic decoder ring.

You do not seem to be aware of what the book of Judges is about.
Ah, no. Not the book of judges as that book tells us with in the pages that what is being described is God's judgement, punishment and deliverance again, and again and again. Each time getting worse.

No you can not read the bible out of context and ascribe your own meaning and still be refering to the God of the bible.

Yes because not one single sect of Christianity has differing views on what is to be taken literal and what isn't.

Keep trumpeting your No True Scotsman fallacy all you want, it doesn't make it so. Even funnier is that your "unique snowflake" insult applies oh so perfectly to you!

That is like reading a Spiderman comic and then start to tell your own version of what was read changing whatever you like to bend who Marvel said Spiderman was, to suit your own picture of him. Soceity has a name for that now. It's fan fiction. If you take passages out of context to build your version of God (one that can't stand up to iron charriots, but is all loving, and has changed Himself into a woman but still calls himself Father) Then what you have done is no different. You have created a fan fiction version of God. Christ refers to this as building your house on the sand. Meaning when your fan fiction version of God is tested by the trials of life it falls flat on its face.

Look. In. A. Mirror. Context is subjective. You only THINK yours is right because you continue to fervently brush off everything that doesn't fit your own fanfiction. Guess you're just a truly unique snowflake!

Now just for arguement lets say I have indeed found God, and He has blessed me beyond what I deserve. Which would also mean I know him well and can see him and recognise him in others. Now lets say someone comes to me with a fan fiction version. What do you think my response would be when the fan fiction version is being held up like the God i know, who has richly blessed me?

Now imagine that same person took that further, using only examples from their own fanfiction, that you didn't deserve the same rights than them because of it. That you were worth less, deserve less than them because their fanfiction is so obviously better and they have a big dopey grin on their face when they do it.

Boy, I bet you'd sure like to subscribe to their fanfiction over your own, it seems to have turned them into a wonderful person...

A great many have tried here on this website, and have failed (that is why you stand a lone with me) If you want to try start a new thread, and lets test what it is you think you know... Oh, and if you are thinking of posting a link to the skeptics 'antiquated' bible, I will just post a link to the skeptics 'antiquated' bible Answered.

Burden of proof is on you. Their 'failure' is merely your interpretation. And stand alone? Really? Nobody else posting in this thread refuting your methods?

as being a recipient of said miracle i see it differently. What I see is back then people were looking for God and reveled when he showed up. Now People hate and fear God and desperately seek to bury and hide Him when ever He is made known.

Herein lies the point I was making. Many, hell I'd say most, of god's displays of power weren't person specific back in the day. He was thundering judgements and wrath on people who, by virtue of isolated job specific lifestyles and inability to read, likely had never even heard of him. Did everyone who died in the supposed flood have a personal and spiteful relationship with god?

And, like everything above this, miracles are subjective (and leading if you already believe in miracles). I've provided emergency medical care to thousands of people in my life. Some have thanked me personally, others have thanked god for sending me. Which ones were the miracles and which ones were just chance? Couldn't you just view everything good that happens to you in your life as a miracle and claim god did it? What about whatever bad stuff caused the situation that needed the miracle to begin with?

Seems pretty shady, almost like someone made it up to fit their personal view of god...

Feeling's mutual. There's always a book or verse that contradicts what's being said.
then show me.

I have, you just ignore or hand wave them because you're a dishonest person.

Proverbs 6:16-19English Standard Version (ESV)

16 There are six things that the Lord hates,
seven that are an abomination to him:
17 haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
and hands that shed innocent blood,
18 a heart that devises wicked plans,
feet that make haste to run to evil,
19 a false witness who breathes out lies (repetitive?),
and one who sows discord among brothers.

-or- I just whiped you with some good ole fashion logic and reasoning.
(See I have already been here with one/many of you snow flakes. I gave you your answer before you even knew to ask the question)
(All good things come to those who wait.)
A great many have tried here on this website, and have failed (that is why you stand a lone with me)

Uh oh, you're gonna have some 'splaining to do if god brings up your time here...

[spoiler]In which case separating the two, venue (heaven) and reward (relationship with God), is just an arbitrary action in order to put you on a pedestal above other religions and one of the worst cases of Special Pleading I've ever seen. You're damn well doing it for a reward, you just think yours is special. This desperation to elevate yourself above other faiths is so petty and lacking in humility that it's honestly disappointing./[spoiler]
If I tell you I have a billion dollars to give out as a reward for one who can do XYZ. Verses I am giving out my love and respect to the person who can give their life in my service, which is considered a trifle and which is considered a proper reward?

Subjective to the person. A person who wants money, the first. A special pleading Christian who needs to think he's better than others, the latter.

All I seek is the "well done my Good and faithful servant, you are welcome into my Fathers Rest." Christ promises us.

Dodge. Your views are not shared by every Bible based Christian which is the point I was making and you know it.

Personally I don't think people deserve to be TORTURED FOREVER for disagreeing with me.

Tomato/Toe-matto. Oh, and maybe the forever in Hell thing is not apart of a biblically based view of what God has in store for those who are sentenced there.

Unless you can find some BCV that actually supports what you think.

If you want to save some time I can accuratly tell you no where in scripture does it say 'we/man will burn in Hell forever.'[/quote] It says Hell is forever and that satan and his angels are slated to burn their forever... But, for us Hell is our sheol, our second death, our grave. We are to be consumed by the fires like the tares/weeds.[/quote]

Or maybe it hammers home the point I've been making that you so desperately try to avoid is that not every Bible based Christian agrees with you and thus your special pleading and sweeping assumptions mean nothing.

Good newws everyone! We can not be friends for a whole lot of reasons, except for the ones you listed.

That's a shame, I have lots of friends that are Christians and we have a lot of fun debating things and learning from each other. Then again, they're decent people that seem to have taken to heart to heart one of the positive aspects that the Bible inspires in SOME Christians.

Honestly, when you say stuff like this it makes when you say...

Now I seek to grow in what i have found and help others get to where I am at.

...seem an awful lot like bullshit. Damn near everything I've seen of you smacks of mockery, ridicule, and belittlement from atop a self issued pedestal. It's quite possibly the worst way to go about your supposed goal here. Try being a respectful person first, I guarantee the people you're trying to reach will be a lot more likely to listen. Keep heaping scorn and people will only respond in kind because nobody, Atheist/Christian/gay/straight/bigot/humanist/whatever will ever really be happy turning the other cheek.

Well, I think I've seen enough to know there's nothing worthwhile, or interesting to glean from you. Moving on!

[Lucanus]

What if i believed col. Sanders was not real? I know there is a ton of documentation that the col. was real. But what better proof of the col. Than the col. himself?
What better proof of God than God Himself?

SPOILERS: Col. Sanders was a person, the documentation regarding him is reliable and objective and can be verified by a third party. The documentation about god is oftentimes vague, imprecise and open to a variety of interpretations. God is your claim, and if you don't show us any objective evidence of him no one's going to change their minds.

The problem is that your looking for God to fit your understanding your logic.. What if God is just a little bit bigger than your system of logic will allow? Will you be able to find Him using it?

The problem is that you're looking for god but it does not stand up to any scrutiny from a third party. Our system of logic is based on reality, not self delusion. And you still haven't shown us HOW you can tell between self delusion and spiritual revelation, even if your supposed god "delivers".

---

The existence of other people can be confirmed objectively by hard evidence. What you have here is anything but hard (insert sexual joke here).

What I mean by this, is you have undeniable sensory evidence of the other person; that kind of evidence that can be verified by a third party: you know, *real* evidence. ASKing and its results are all in your mind.
So it's not vague eh?

---

Keep reading...

You didn't even consider my main point did you?
Anyway, keeping reading:

11 If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?

12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?

13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

Still looks like vague metaphors to me.

[Losty]

SPOILERS: Col. Sanders was a person, the documentation regarding him is reliable and objective and can be verified by a third party.

[Esquilax]

What better proof of God than God Himself?

That'd be fine proof, if you weren't constantly shifting the goalposts so you don't have to admit that no such proof exists.

[Lucanus]

SPOILERS: Col. Sanders was a person, the documentation regarding him is reliable and objective and can be verified by a third party.

Whoops! Something tells me I fail US culture!

[Losty]

Whoops! Something tells me I fail US culture!

No you did a perfect job! It was just the SPOILER part that cracked me up. That was meant to be sarcastic right?
Don't mind me your post was great!

[Lucanus]

Yes, yes, it was meant to be sarcastic :-P


(*relieved sigh*)

[Cato]

Whoops! Something tells me I fail US culture!

I thought it was an excellent example.

- God sends his son to feed people fishes and loaves; Sanders franchised to feed people chicken and biscuits.
- Jesus had twelve apostles; Sanders only needs 7 herbs and spices
- After death, Sanders is more successful than Jesus in the Middle East, North Africa and China despite Jesus' incredible head start.