Is God Altruistic? Is God Happy?

[Acrobat]

My answer to- Is God altruistic is no, that is not possible. Everything Yahweh does in the buy-bull is for his own pleasure such as worship by piss ants compared to His glory and magnificence.

My answer to- is God happy is no, I think it needs a psychiatrist. I am perplexed as to why God would even have emotions. Human emotions have a function. Love for reproduction and sanctity of life. Anger for strength. Guilt for self-reflection. I think you see where I'm going with this. Yea, I cannot reconcile how a disembodied brain would even exist even in the strangest of places in our universe. I am not trying to claim there is, I do not believe the woo woo. If somebody can convince me why the supreme being that existed before time and space has emotions, I might change my mind.

God isn't real. Therefore, it is the man who believes in god who thinks he is altruistic and happy.

Gasp, an atheist who doesn’t just lack a belief in God, but believes God isn’t real.

And what proof do you have of that?

[Foxaèr]

God isn't real. Therefore, it is the man who believes in god who thinks he is altruistic and happy.

Gasp, an atheist who doesn’t just lack a belief in God, but believes God isn’t real.

And what proof do you have of that?

I'm afraid, dear sir, the burden of proof lies with you; the believer in a deity that cannot be proven to exist.

However, if you wish: the fact that after thousands of years and zero empirical evidence to prove god's existence outside of a fictional book called the bible and believers fraught with delusion, the more credible belief is that god does not exist. The only thing keeping god belief alive, after all, is a fiction book called the bible and the delusion of god believers. Because goodness forbid that theists reason outside of their imaginations.

[The Grand Nudger]

This is why I have trouble minding the gap as your pointed out. I don't see one. as far as I can see Jesus waiting for your invatation is no different than you having to sign up for government assistence or in a church pantry sign up for food assistance.

Beyond failing to rehabilitate god's alleged altruism...I doubt that this is true.  If the governments ask for "signing up" for something were equivalent to gods then every nutball christer on earth would erupt into a tizzy fit.  You already do.

It's not really enough, in the christian mind, to write your name down on something. That isn't going to get anyone a golden ticket. Most of you are certain that a significant portion of professing christians are mere cultural christians because that's all they've done.

[Acrobat]

Gasp, an atheist who doesn’t just lack a belief in God, but believes God isn’t real.

And what proof do you have of that?

I'm afraid, dear sir, the burden of proof lies with you; the believer in a deity that cannot be proven to exist.

However, if you wish: the fact that after thousands of years and zero empirical evidence to prove god's existence outside of a fictional book called the bible and believers fraught with delusion, the more credible belief is that god does not exist. The only thing keeping god belief alive, after all, is a fiction book called the bible and the delusion of god believers. Because goodness forbid that theists reason outside of their imaginations.

Ah see the dishonesty?

In order for an atheist to claim he has no burden of proof, he has to proclaim a lack of belief, where you hold a belief, a belief that God isn’t real, which is as much a positive belief as proclaiming the holocaust didn’t happen, or SandyHook wasn’t real.

If you still want to claim that your belief that god isn’t real isn’t based on evidence or proof, than I guess you hold a belief without evidence or proof that it’s true?

[Foxaèr]

Ah see the dishonesty?

In order for an atheist to claim he has no burden of proof, he has to proclaim a lack of belief, where you hold a belief, a belief that God isn’t real, which is as much a positive belief as proclaiming the holocaust didn’t happen, or SandyHook wasn’t real.

If you still want to claim that your belief that god isn’t real isn’t based on evidence or proof, than I guess you hold a belief without evidence or proof that it’s true?

Enjoying your word salad?

There is nothing dishonest about the fact that god does not exist.

[Acrobat]

However, if you wish: the fact that after thousands of years and zero empirical evidence to prove god's existence outside of a fictional book called the bible and believers fraught with delusion, the more credible belief is that god does not exist. The only thing keeping god belief alive, after all, is a fiction book called the bible and the delusion of god believers. Because goodness forbid that theists reason outside of their imaginations.

No, absent of any evidence or proof one way or the other, the credible belief is no belief, a lack of belief. I have no evidence or proof that you’re married, the credible belief isn’t to assume that you’re not married, but put simply that I don’t know or believe one way or the other.

---

Ah see the dishonesty?

In order for an atheist to claim he has no burden of proof, he has to proclaim a lack of belief, where you hold a belief, a belief that God isn’t real, which is as much a positive belief as proclaiming the holocaust didn’t happen, or SandyHook wasn’t real.

If you still want to claim that your belief that god isn’t real isn’t based on evidence or proof, than I guess you hold a belief without evidence or proof that it’s true?

Enjoying your word salad?

There is nothing dishonest about the fact that god does not exist.

The dishonesty is imagining that you have no burden of proof when making such a claim.

It’s like a holocaust denier claiming the holocaust didn’t happen, and proclaiming he has no burden of proof to demonstrate this, only those who claim it did, do.

[Foxaèr]

However, if you wish: the fact that after thousands of years and zero empirical evidence to prove god's existence outside of a fictional book called the bible and believers fraught with delusion, the more credible belief is that god does not exist. The only thing keeping god belief alive, after all, is a fiction book called the bible and the delusion of god believers. Because goodness forbid that theists reason outside of their imaginations.

No, absent of any evidence or proof one way or the other, the credible belief is no belief, a lack of belief. I have no evidence or proof that you’re married, the credible belief isn’t to assume that you’re not married, but put simply that I don’t know or believe one way or the other.

No.

You're not reasoning properly, per usual theistic notions of grandeur.

You can easily ascertain that I am married by taking a trip to where I live, to meet me and my husband, etc. The same can be stated for those who have never seen something in a foreign land. The ill logic in comparison is sickening, and not in a good way.

There is no way for anyone to ascertain the existence of god, unless as theists state we completely suspend all reason to simply believe. Sorry, but that is retarded.

[The Grand Nudger]

If the only place you find a character is in a comic book..then the rational conclusion is that you're discussing a comic book character.  

Some atheists don't rule out some other undescribed god, even if they do rule out comic book characters. Others don't, they rule out gods as a set. Kit, by making the statements above, identifies as a person in the latter set...so bitching about people in the first set, to kit..is kind of pointless, don't you think Acro?

Bitching about agnostic atheism to gnostic atheists, or gnostic atheism to agnostic atheists is just silly. All of your confusion here could be fixed if you'd just listen to atheists. We'll gladly tell you that we don't all think the same things, for the same reasons.

[Foxaèr]

The dishonesty is imagining  that you have no burden of proof when making such a claim.

It’s like a holocaust denier claiming the holocaust didn’t happen, and proclaiming he has no burden of proof to demonstrate this, only those who claim it did, do.

The burden of proof resides with the one making the positive claim of something existing when there is no evidence of its existence.

That is literally how burden of proof works in relation to religious subjects.

If I was to state that leprechauns do not exist, it would be absurd to claim that the burden of proof is to prove something doesn't exist.

If it doesn't exist, obviously it doesn't exist and the burden only resides on the one making the claim of existence.

[Acrobat]

The dishonesty is imagining  that you have no burden of proof when making such a claim.

It’s like a holocaust denier claiming the holocaust didn’t happen, and proclaiming he has no burden of proof to demonstrate this, only those who claim it did, do.

The burden of proof resides with the one making the positive claim of something existing when there is no evidence of its existence.

That is literally how burden of proof works in relation to religious subjects.

If I was to state that leprechauns do not exist, it would be absurd to claim that the burden of proof is to prove something doesn't exist.

If it doesn't exist, obviously it doesn't exist and the burden only resides on the one making the claim of existence.

Lol, that's not "literally" how the burden of proof works. 

" whoever makes a claim carries the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content in the claim."

"Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position."

"When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_...hilosophy)

You're the one making the claim that God isn't real. And you resorting to dishonesty in suggesting that you have no obligation or burden of proof to support this claim. That you can make it, and take refuge in suggesting you have no burden of proof. How much more dishonest could you get?

The only in which you wouldn't have a burden of proof, is by not making such a claim at all.

You can easily ascertain that I am married by taking a trip to where I live, to meet me and my husband, etc. The same can be stated for those who have never seen something in a foreign land. The ill logic in comparison is sickening, and not in a good way.

No I can’t easily do that. But I’m speaking about the present state of things. That I have no evidence that you’re married. Even if it were impossible for me to obtain evidence one way or the other, for whatever reason, the only honest conclusion would be to say I don’t know one way or the other, and not as result of the absence of evidence I should hold that you’re not married.