How would you know?

[Napoléon]

There's a certain theme of assholeishness going on here isn't there.

If you were a person partial to puns you could have went with 'Ass-Holy-ness.' Eitherway, the only thing that does not benfit from a good asshole is what gets pooped out, or pooped on. Assholes may not be the most glarmous part of the body, (butt) never the less they serve a purpose.

Damn, why the fuck didn't I think of that.

Here too God serves a purpose in the He 'spews out' all who do not want to be apart of the body of Christ. I do not think I would have been so bold as to aliterate God on your terms without your inital direction, but never the less your observation works.

The observation as I see it still isn't a pleasant one no matter how you dress it up. But hey, the universe isn't nice, here I was thinking your god was.

Well I understand it a little deeper than the, either/or you have made it to be, so yes i am fine with it.

Well if you think my understanding of the scenario's I've put forth are simplistic then feel free to explain what makes your views so much deeper than mine.

As I explained Biblical Christianity states Heaven is not a reward for the Just. for none deserve the 'reward' of Heaven. Like wise Hell was meant to be eternal punishment from the Devil and his demons, which does not automatically, translate to eternal punishment to everone else. Eternal seperation yes, but not nessarily 'punishement.'

Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven

http://bible.cc/matthew/5-12.htm

Is this a semantics thing? Heaven is not the reward, but you receive it 'in' heaven.

Either way, this is probably going to go askew from the OP. So try and relate as much as possible if you can.

So, if you did not have the mental capasity to determine that forcing yourself onto someone else sexually was wrong, you would expect whatever authority over you to punish you like they would punish someone who had raped with malice his whole life???

There is a difference between having a mental problem which makes you unable to comprehend that rape is a bad thing, and being brought up in a world where rape is casually accepted.

In terms of the latter, in my opinion, it doesn't have a whole lot to do with mental capacity.

As for expecting god to punish anyone for crimes which he himself supposedly thinks are sinful, I would instead question why he has made a scenario possible where one can commit these sins and get away with it. Regardless of mental capacity, being brought up in a secluded environment, whatever, that's actually not the issue.

If this supreme being has supposedly created the system. Then he's made it with rather large loopholes.

Before God/Christ completed the Law in Mat 5 we did not know that lust was a sin, like we did not know Hate was akin to murder. Before that revelation was passed on from Christ God did not expect an attoning sacerfice for those sins.

I've just read a bit of Matthew from what I quoted earlier.

Does this then mean that gods laws are open to change any time he pleases? It would certainly suggest so.

Why was it ok to hate one minute, and not the other. Sounds like this guy can't make up his mind.

If he supposedly has these eternal laws, and an absolute moral stance, then how can he change his mind in such a way.


Oh but wait, you said he 'completed his law'. Guess this is a cop out, god just likes to take his time in telling us right?

Why do you assume He has 'Made' you do anything? He has only allowed you to indulege in the 'nature' that wants you to seperate yourself from Him.

He's the creator of everything. If he knows everything and created everything the 'nature' or choice, is non existent. It's impossible for it to be so.

God sets the boundaries, god makes the rules, god makes the players.

To say he lets us do our own thing, while he actively knows what we are going to do before hand and made us so we would do such things anyway, is ludicrous.

Please tell me where the element of choice (or nature as you called it) is in that.

What part is rude?

You don't think it's rude to create an organism, give it set rules to live by, and make it in such a way that it will break those rules, giving you the ability to then punish them, for something you didn't have to do?

That's not the slightest bit rude?

Demanding accountablity? If you gave your brother a loan, and he blows it on pot, pizza and porn. Is it your fault for not micro managing his life for him, making him spend the money more wisly?

If you already knew your brother would blow the loan on pot, pizza and porn would you still give him the loan?

NO, YOU FUCKING WOULDN'T WOULD YOU.

Same applies with this asshole god.

would it be unreasonable for you to expect a return on what was given him?

Yes, considering you knew beforehand he would break the terms of the loan.

This is called loan sharking.

God is the loan shark.

Now what If he did squander your money each and every chance he got without fail, and even went so far as to declare that living off of what you provide for him would be his life's work. would you then be obligated to further enable his way of life?

No.

or would simple accountablity keep you from giving him money each time he asked for it?

Yes.

Again my above quote would be what 'punishment' would look like. Giving you the eternal seperation you currently seek from God is not exactly a punishment is it?

So you're saying, because I'm an atheist, I automatically want to be without god, if there is an afterlife?

Bullshit.

This line of thought is based in liniar time, and incorrectly assumes God is bound to the same experience of time that you and I experience.

No, I'm assuming that we as humans experience time. I couldn't give a fuck what realm, dimension or reality god was in. But we obviously experience 'time'. So there was definitely a 'before' we are born.

Just by saying God is infinate (has no beginning and no end) Puts Him outside of our experience of time. Which means He does not live in the present as we do. Meaning he can experience or know the result of an event (like a human life span) before that life was even created.

It doesn't matter what experience of time god is going through. I couldn't give a flying fuck.

The universe he created (if you want to assume he created it), obviously has this essence of time. And it is in this universe, that we exist.

Now god must obviously have the capability to exist (in some fashion) in this universe as well.

(If I go along with your concept of god)

Jesus, didn't come around at a time 'beyond time'.

Matthew, didn't complete gods laws, at a time 'beyond time'.

The isolated islander, does not exist, at a time 'beyond time'.

So why the fuck does it matter, if there is a before each of these people, and god existed at that before moment, he knew what he was doing and what the outcome would be BEFORE these people.

So, ignoring my rant for a moment, you seem to contradict yourself.

You say that god is outside this concept of time, yet you also say he existed before you and I are born. Which one is it.

Honestly this is getting deeper and deeper into the realm of philosobabble.

So to say God chose those who would be saved before the creation of the world is no more 'mystical or biased' than you 'choosing' the survivors of a war movie you had already watched.

But I wasn't the director of the movie.

You know who is going to live and who is going to die if you already had foreknoweledge of the plot and personally witness the recorded events. Even though you did not personally write or stage the movie yourself.

But god did.

He wrote the script so to speak.

Your analogies are actually rather useful at highlighting my own points.

Like wise God knows those who will choose to call out to Him, and in turn He has laid a path to facilitate any and all of us who want to be with Him.

Favouritism.

We have been told no one Can seek the Father until the Father calls out to him.

So he's aside from being an incredibly rude loan shark who makes all the rules, created everyone, everything and time itself, he picks and chooses who he would like to join him up in his little throne room.

If this god did exist, he's a jackass.

I am amazed that so many theists just don't see it.

I guess it really is blind fear, or lack of a spine which makes you not call him out for the asshole he is.

This does not mean we can not petition God to call out to us.

And how/why would I go about such a thing, being an atheist.

The Herp Derp factor is growing I'm afraid.

I was born and lived the first 1/2 of my life as a devoute atheist. It was not till I petitioned God to help me call out to Him that anything Changed in my life.

If you were a real fucking atheist, you could not possibly petition a god to come and help you.

I really do not buy into any of this bullshit, you were never an atheist if you think you can randomly call out to god.


Anyway, I don't really care what your were, or what you think you were.

Indeed, just not to the limitations or boundries you have put on God's "wishes."

When have I put any limitations or boundaries on what god can do?

I'm the one who has been making the point for the last three quarters of an hour of writing this, that god can do anything, see anything and basically be anything.

It's you who is putting on the boundaries.

Such an existence is pointless, and arbitrary.

Not if you are willing to look beyond your made up mind.

It's becoming more and more evident to me, that the religious are the closed minded ones. The ones with their minds already made up.

We are basically slaves.

I think you are finally starting to get it.

Well I, unlike many others obviously, am not happy with being a slave.

"I'm not a slave, to a god, that doesn't exist" - Marilyn Manson.

We are either bound to the laws and conditions of Sin. Or we are bought by the blood of Christ and pressed into service where we are told His burden is easy and His Yoke is lite.

Sounds shit. Have fun wasting your life with it though.

I have a problem with that. I would like to think any other rational person would as well.

By rational I assume you mean 'Proud.' If so, I have no doubt. If you are ready to cast your pride aside then simply ask for humility.

Oh Drich. You've gave me a good time writing this. I thank you for that.

But honestly, I find your world view so whacked out and excruciatingly stupid, that I don't think I'll be converting any time soon, or even in this lifetime.

Seems to me it's you who is the proud one, so proud of your all loving, all powerful god. And you're right, you do show humility as well.

But I'm not going to show humiliation by bowing to a being that I have no idea whether it exists or not. Certainly not one that hasn't had the common decency to say hello.

So with that, I'll say thanks for the chat. It's been interesting, and I look forward to hearing your responses. If I feel we're gonna be going over the same arguments though, I likely won't respond again.

Cheers.

---

But as long as we are imagining, why limit your imagination to just heaven and hell? Catholics, for example, believe in a third destination called Purgatoy. Most end up there, they believe, and all eventually leave there and exit to heaven.

Purgatory isn't even supported by the bible. It's bullshit the catholics made up to try and account for scenarios such as the one I described in the OP.

Sorry, I don't buy it.

---

I prefer facts and reality to imagination.

Einstein had to imagine his theory of relativity before anyone believed it was real. Proponents of string theory are now imagining something else.

The difference between Einstein's theory of relativity and theories about god though?

Oh yeah, that little thing known as scientific evidence.

[Zen Badger]

Einstein had to imagine his theory of relativity before anyone believed it was real. Proponents of string theory are now imagining something else.

:p

How dare you even compare Einstein with fairy believers imagining an afterlife based on zero reasoning.

I would differentiate between imagination and the blind cleaving unto an outdated mythology which requires a distinct lack of imagination or questioning.

[KichigaiNeko]

“Where ignorance lurks, so too do the frontiers of discovery and imagination”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson

Damn ...more to follow...the guy is genius!

---

“God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson

---

“Dinosaurs are extinct today because they lacked opposable thumbs and the brainpower to build a space program.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson, The Sky Is Not the Limit: Adventures of an Urban Astrophysicist

[Drich]

The observation as I see it still isn't a pleasant one no matter how you dress it up. But hey, the universe isn't nice, here I was thinking your god was.

We touched on this in my 'God doesn't love you' thread. Love or rather our understanding of it or even 'nice' is not God's leading attribute. righteousness is. The Fact that He had to hang His Son (A son that He loved) on a cross for the attonement of sin. Should show you that the full fillment of Righteousness superceeds our understanding of the word love.

Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven

http://bible.cc/matthew/5-12.htm

Is this a semantics thing? Heaven is not the reward, but you receive it 'in' heaven.

Either way, this is probably going to go askew from the OP. So try and relate as much as possible if you can.

The reward is not Heaven, it is in Heaven meaning We will be rewarded in Heaven.

There is a difference between having a mental problem which makes you unable to comprehend that rape is a bad thing, and being brought up in a world where rape is casually accepted.

That is not what your senerio implied. God sets a standard and despite what the world accepts we are to adhere to his standard. That is the difference between 'morality' and Righteousness. Man's morality is whatever he deems acceptable in a given soceity. God's righteousness is an absolute standard that does not change. (even though it is permissiable for our understanding of it to be incomplete.)

In terms of the latter, in my opinion, it doesn't have a whole lot to do with mental capacity.

As for expecting god to punish anyone for crimes which he himself supposedly thinks are sinful, I would instead question why he has made a scenario possible where one can commit these sins and get away with it. Regardless of mental capacity, being brought up in a secluded environment, whatever, that's actually not the issue.

If this supreme being has supposedly created the system. Then he's made it with rather large loopholes.

Sin is choice. Inorder to have choice we must be allowed to choose either between His will or our own. This sin choice is what the bible identifies and what earily church leaders identified as free will. Note this 'free will' is not the same as the philosphy based on the idea that free will is complete freedom of choice to do with what you want.

Free will as the bible describes it is the ablity to sin. If we did not have this ablity we would not have the 'freedom' to be outside the Expressed will of God. In otherwords we could not sin.

The reason we can 'get away' with these sins (for now) is because this life was given as a gift apart from the presents, and known glory of God, for the for the purpose of proving to yourself what type of person you are, and why you will given/assigned your eternal fate.
This apppearently is best served by giving you this brief existance without the automatic knoweledge of God. (while the Cat's away)

I've just read a bit of Matthew from what I quoted earlier.

Does this then mean that gods laws are open to change any time he pleases? It would certainly suggest so.

Appearently not according to Christ. He said He 'completed' the law with that bit in Matthew 5. This term would indicate that the whole law is before you now. A law that you can never hope to uphold from birth to death.

Why was it ok to hate one minute, and not the other. Sounds like this guy can't make up his mind.[/quote]
It was never ok to hate or lust or any of the sins we commit in our hearts. God did not orginally tell the Jews because of the hardness of their hearts. It was this hard heart, that He ever made such allowances, and did not hold them to the full measure of the law.

If he supposedly has these eternal laws, and an absolute moral stance, then how can he change his mind in such a way.

Not morality God's standard is known as Righteousness. God knew before the sacerfice of Christ that there was no way for them to atone for that much sin, so He did not hold them accountable for the full complete law.

Which Brings us back to your guy on your island, and Hebrews 4:11-14, and the parable of the Talents. The Parable of the Talents tells us we are only ever responsiable for what God has given us, and Heb 4 tell us Christ (The Word) will rightly divide and judge completely and most fairly what we have been given and what we have done with it. It is to this standard that we go before God and not some artifical standard created just to pack people in a given denomination's pue's. (meaning this doctrine or this specific version of Christianity.)

Oh but wait, you said he 'completed his law'. Guess this is a cop out, god just likes to take his time in telling us right?

If God holds back from you then you are not responsiable for it.

He's the creator of everything. If he knows everything and created everything the 'nature' or choice, is non existent. It's impossible for it to be so.

You do not understand the choice being offered. The Choice is the ablity to sin. you can sin therefore you have choice despite what you philosphy is telling you to think.

God sets the boundaries, god makes the rules, god makes the players.

And the players choose to either seek attonement for the 'choices' they made or, they choose not.

To say he lets us do our own thing, while he actively knows what we are going to do before hand and made us so we would do such things anyway, is ludicrous.

again it seems you misunderstand the choice being offered.

Please tell me where the element of choice (or nature as you called it) is in that.

It is in the ablity to be outside the Expressed will of God. It is the ablity to sin.

What part is rude?

You don't think it's rude to create an organism, give it set rules to live by, and make it in such a way that it will break those rules, giving you the ability to then punish them, for something you didn't have to do?

That's not the slightest bit rude?

Nooope. not if you offer attonement for those 'bad choices.' This way it allows those who want to align themselves with God the ablity to do so and for those who want to further seperate themselves from God it gives them the path to do that as well.
For Not all want to submit and humble themselves before God. (Which you make perfectly clear at the end of your post)

If you already knew your brother would blow the loan on pot, pizza and porn would you still give him the loan?

NO, YOU FUCKING WOULDN'T WOULD YOU.

Same applies with this asshole god.

I am glad you feel this way! Now just open you mind a little wider and incorperate the larger picture. Why would God intrust you (Any unrepentant sinner not you specifically) with anything if you have taken what you have been already been given and spent it on indulging yourself any way you wish? You are the pot head brother here, your life is what you have been given/loaned and it is what you are waisting. So again why should God give you infinatly more, if you waste away what you have now?

Yes, considering you knew beforehand he would break the terms of the loan.

This is called loan sharking.

God is the loan shark.

Actually no, Loan sharking is when you offer a loan that is to be paid back for more than the maximum lending rate.

Simple Intrest on a loan is not a crime nor a sin.

Now what If he did squander your money each and every chance he got without fail, and even went so far as to declare that living off of what you provide for him would be his life's work. would you then be obligated to further enable his way of life?

No.

Then why would God be obligated to offer you (again not nessarily you) more in the way of eternal life, if whatever was given (on or off a deserted island) was squandered away?

or would simple accountablity keep you from giving him money each time he asked for it?

Yes.

Then so too would God, and hold 'you' accountable to what you have been given is no more or less 'mean' than holding one's pot head brother to account for what has been given to him... Unless you are the pot head brother then everything bogus, and you're not being treated fairly..

So you're saying, because I'm an atheist, I automatically want to be without god, if there is an afterlife?

Bullshit.

not at all. I know the 'want' for self perservation will be there without doubt, however your heart's desire (to be seperate from the will of God) will be silenced for fear of the pit. If you truly wanted to be with God (as He outlines) you would want to be with Him whether or not you are aware of all that he has to offer you or not. Meaning you would want to be with him in this life, when all you seem to be aware of is eternal life. again Eternal life is not the 'reward' it is a gift. The 'reward' comes from a life dedicated to the service of God. It is what will make an eternal life worth living.

No, I'm assuming that we as humans experience time. I couldn't give a fuck what realm, dimension or reality god was in. But we obviously experience 'time'. So there was definitely a 'before' we are born.

Which makes your understanding of time linear.

It doesn't matter what experience of time god is going through. I couldn't give a flying fuck.

You do if you want a proper perspective of how God can know before it happens.

The universe he created (if you want to assume he created it), obviously has this essence of time. And it is in this universe, that we exist.

Now god must obviously have the capability to exist (in some fashion) in this universe as well.

I would think so.

Jesus, didn't come around at a time 'beyond time'.

when He was born of Woman, no. At the same time, John 1 recordes He did exist before Creation.

Matthew, didn't complete gods laws, at a time 'beyond time'.

The isolated islander, does not exist, at a time 'beyond time'.

So why the fuck does it matter, if there is a before each of these people, and god existed at that before moment, he knew what he was doing and what the outcome would be BEFORE these people.

What i am trying to communicate is that given a life to examine God knows all this person would do and accomplish given a set of inputs. He also knows the condition of a persons heart. For those Hearts who would live their lives and select a relationship with God if afforded the oppertunity He Provides and callls them near, and for those who do not, He allows them this life to live any way they wish.

So, ignoring my rant for a moment, you seem to contradict yourself.

You say that god is outside this concept of time, yet you also say he existed before you and I are born. Which one is it.

Neither. For i said God lives outside your understanding of time. Or linar time meaning he can exist before anything was created.
[/quote]

Honestly this is getting deeper and deeper into the realm of philosobabble.

It is just the nature of the question you asked.

But I wasn't the director of the movie.

God does not 'direct' this life as a director would direct a movie.

But god did.

He wrote the script so to speak.

According to who? Your own personal philosphy?
He built the sets He paid for the production, we write and perform out our lives. We have been given this life apart from the expressed will of God. This was the plan from the beginning (The reason for putting the tree of knoweledge in the middle of the garden before the creation of Man)

Favouritism.

Indeed! He Favors those who would choose Him, over those who do not.

So he's aside from being an incredibly rude loan shark who makes all the rules, created everyone, everything and time itself, he picks and chooses who he would like to join him up in his little throne room.

You are So certain of God's reasoning. why is iit that you assume that Choose us that we have no say in the matter? Is it because you are tied to thinking on a linear time line, where God can not see of know who you are before you are born and choose those who would choose Him? Or are you so certain because if you were given absolute power to pick and choose you would pick and choose based on what you personally liked and not based in any type of merrit or desire of the indivisual?

Again his choice is based on what we do in this life (our whole life and not just the present or ppast that we know.) Meaning if we at some point in the future decide to truly seek out God then from that point He will call out to us.

If this god did exist, he's a jackass.

If you are assuming God would 'choose' us like you would choose, if given the oppertunity then 'God' isn't the Jackass here is He?

I am amazed that so many theists just don't see it.

Theist see that God does not pander to the self serving or carnal, but don't care. why? Because What god offers in return is above and beyond anything we could even know we'd want for ourselves.

I guess it really is blind fear, or lack of a spine which makes you not call him out for the asshole he is.

If you remember how I started my last post I agreed that your Ass-essment was spot on. God was an "ass-hole", but because I wasn't being Shat out or Shat on, it wasn't a bad thing. For we all needs Ass holes to expell toxic and undesirable material out of our lives. without this 'hole' in our lives our bodies would become toxic and die. just because it is not a presentable or celibrated part of the body does not mean it does not play a vital role.

This does not mean we can not petition God to call out to us.

And how/why would I go about such a thing, being an atheist.

The Herp Derp factor is growing I'm afraid.

Indeed. why else would anyone who did not believe in God spend so much time debating reasons not to contact Him?

If you were a real fucking atheist, you could not possibly petition a god to come and help you.

Oh, oh! Do I see a no true scotsman fallacy? Or does that only work with actual scotsmen and Christian's who do things no 'true christian' would do?

I really do not buy into any of this bullshit, you were never an atheist if you think you can randomly call out to god.

we were all born Atheists! Think about it before you say something foolish.

When have I put any limitations or boundaries on what god can do?

I'm the one who has been making the point for the last three quarters of an hour of writing this, that god can do anything, see anything and basically be anything.

It's you who is putting on the boundaries.

45 mins is a long time to spend telling a stranger why your personal philosphy will not allow you to earnestly cry out to God.. How long do you think it would take for you to actually cry out to God?

Well I, unlike many others obviously, am not happy with being a slave.

Which still makes you a slave to sin and the consenquences of said sin.

"I'm not a slave, to a god, that doesn't exist" - Marilyn Manson.

The philosphies of Mason..That's a good man to live under.

Oh Drich. You've gave me a good time writing this. I thank you for that.

But honestly, I find your world view so whacked out and excruciatingly stupid, that I don't think I'll be converting any time soon, or even in this lifetime.

Seems to me it's you who is the proud one, so proud of your all loving, all powerful god. And you're right, you do show humility as well.

But I'm not going to show humiliation by bowing to a being that I have no idea whether it exists or not. Certainly not one that hasn't had the common decency to say hello.

So with that, I'll say thanks for the chat. It's been interesting, and I look forward to hearing your responses. If I feel we're gonna be going over the same arguments though, I likely won't respond again.

Cheers.

---

But as long as we are imagining, why limit your imagination to just heaven and hell? Catholics, for example, believe in a third destination called Purgatoy. Most end up there, they believe, and all eventually leave there and exit to heaven.

Purgatory isn't even supported by the bible. It's bullshit the catholics made up to try and account for scenarios such as the one I described in the OP.

Sorry, I don't buy it.

---

Einstein had to imagine his theory of relativity before anyone believed it was real. Proponents of string theory are now imagining something else.

The difference between Einstein's theory of relativity and theories about god though?

Oh yeah, that little thing known as scientific evidence.
[/quote]

[Napoléon]

If you were a real fucking atheist, you could not possibly petition a god to come and help you.

Oh, oh! Do I see a no true scotsman fallacy? Or does that only work with actual scotsmen and Christian's who do things no 'true christian' would do?

I'll pick out this to respond to specifically because it isn't the fallacy you say it is.

A simple rendition would be:
Alice: All Scotsmen enjoy haggis.
Bob: My uncle is a Scotsman, and he doesn't like haggis!
Alice: Well, all true Scotsmen like haggis.

---

The appearance of this fallacy should not be confused with actually failing to meet criteria. In the Scotsman and haggis example, it is quite doubtful that the widely accepted definition of a Scotsman necessarily includes liking haggis. (It is more likely to include being born of Scottish parents.) To Alice it does include liking haggis; to Bob and, probably, to the reader of the above section, it does not. On the other hand, consider a conversation along these lines:
Deb: All vegetarians refuse to eat steak.
Jake: My aunt is a vegetarian, and she eats steak all the time!
Deb: Well, then she's not really a vegetarian.

In this example, Deb's reply is reasonable, because it is widely accepted that being a vegetarian does necessarily involve refusing to eat meat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Using the definition of an atheist, it is unreasonable for an atheist to petition a god, considering they don't believe one exists.

I really do not buy into any of this bullshit, you were never an atheist if you think you can randomly call out to god.

we were all born Atheists! Think about it before you say something foolish.

You know exactly what I mean. I was talking with reference to the above explanation. Surely you are not so stupid to think that I meant anything other than that.


As for the rest, I'd really be going over the same old shit explaining to you my points.

We obviously disagree on certain 'characteristics' of your god.

Whatever.

It's going to go nowhere.

Cheers for the explanations, but I don't find them at all convincing.

[Drich]

Oh, oh! Do I see a no true scotsman fallacy? Or does that only work with actual scotsmen and Christian's who do things no 'true christian' would do?

I'll pick out this to respond to specifically because it isn't the fallacy you say it is.

A simple rendition would be:
Alice: All Scotsmen enjoy haggis.
Bob: My uncle is a Scotsman, and he doesn't like haggis!
Alice: Well, all true Scotsmen like haggis.

---

The appearance of this fallacy should not be confused with actually failing to meet criteria. In the Scotsman and haggis example, it is quite doubtful that the widely accepted definition of a Scotsman necessarily includes liking haggis. (It is more likely to include being born of Scottish parents.) To Alice it does include liking haggis; to Bob and, probably, to the reader of the above section, it does not. On the other hand, consider a conversation along these lines:
Deb: All vegetarians refuse to eat steak.
Jake: My aunt is a vegetarian, and she eats steak all the time!
Deb: Well, then she's not really a vegetarian.

In this example, Deb's reply is reasonable, because it is widely accepted that being a vegetarian does necessarily involve refusing to eat meat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Using the definition of an atheist, it is unreasonable for an atheist to petition a god, considering they don't believe one exists.

we were all born Atheists! Think about it before you say something foolish.

You know exactly what I mean. I was talking with reference to the above explanation. Surely you are not so stupid to think that I meant anything other than that.


As for the rest, I'd really be going over the same old shit explaining to you my points.

We obviously disagree on certain 'characteristics' of your god.

Whatever.

It's going to go nowhere.

Cheers for the explanations, but I don't find them at all convincing.

i do know what you mean and have use your explaination to climb out of the same mislables put on 'christians.' Just thought it would be fun to turn the tables, and see how you would respond.

I am not here to convince anyone of anything. i am here just broad casting pure/clean seed. whether you completely agree or not is not the point. the point is now you've at least heard/read an accurate biblical repersentation of God in relation to your questions or concerns. It is most logical that you do not see things as i do, or you'd have my faith. you have a picture of God (whether as an atheist you can admit it or not is another discussion one I have little interest in), and I have another. The question is are you willing to change your picture IF the bible or God shows you otherwise? If you can there is hope. if however, you must hold on to what your faith as an atheist demands despite the evidence to the contary... Then good luck finding the god you have painted for yourself, so you can give him a piece of your mind when this life is over.

[Napoléon]

Oh I wasn't under the impression you were here to convince me of anything, I'm just saying you don't anyway.

But carry on thinking I've got faith and all that

I really do think you have a warped idea of what atheism is.

[The Grand Nudger]

How many times is this asshat going to remind us that he's here to preach?

Yes, Drich, we know..we know, ffs.....we know.

[Napoléon]

How many times is this asshat going to remind us that he's here to preach?

Yes, Drich, we know..we know, ffs.....we know.

In fairness he's only responded to the OP and questions I've asked.

In fact he stated right there in his last response he's not here to convince me of anything, and from what he has posted I have no reason to think otherwise. Hell there has been far more preaching on this site than in this thread. Ofcourse there is that typical christian attitude, and comments which come off as preachy, but that's a given.

It was just discussion, he has his viewpoints I have mine.

[The Grand Nudger]

Meh, what one person calls a given I call bullshit. Takes all kinds.