It's okay shiny, little buddy. Whatever you say goes.

We understand you're super spiritual and don't need "evidence" or "reason" to come to ironclad delu..er.. conclusions about what is just and reasonable.

Your morality is "faith-based". You have the faith to believe that obedience to authority is the best outcome. All the time. Duh.

Tho most of the folks you debate with,however, have morality based on.. reasons,earnest evaluation,empathy.

You and we are on twooo different uh.. wavelengths. It's a good video tho. = ]

Having watched the first 30 seconds again and thought about it, with Craig's ...Premise Two cannot be proven, and that's Craig's argument completely sunk, and it could have been the end of the video too.

I think you're looking at the argument from the wrong perspective. Let's examine the premises:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist:

The basic question here is, in the absence of God, is there is any objective difference between good and evil? That, if there is no God, is the difference between good and evil like the difference between coke and pepsi? An example Craig gives is, is the difference like which side of the road that you drive on, which varies from culture to culture?

So, this is where you would make an argument for valid and binding objective moral values outside of Gods existence. You can invalidate the whole argument right here, but you have to provide a logical foundation. I have yet to see anyone refute premise one.

2. Objective moral values do exist

Now, to say this premise is false is to admit that objective moral values do not exist. IE, you will have to admit that torturing babies for fun isn't actually wrong. I have actually debated people who tried to defend it, but I give them credit for being intellectually honest, because that is the logical conclusion; that if objective moral values do not exist, torturing babies for fun isn't absolutely wrong. However, I think we both know that it is, therefore objective moral values do exist.

So, this is a rather tricky argument for an atheist. Qualia soup gets the whole thing wrong here. The basic trouble for you is, if you want to dispute premise one, you have to come up with a foundation for objective moral values outside of God. If you admit there is no such foundation, then we move to premise 2, and there you have to argue that objective moral values do not exist. If you can not argue it, or if you admit objective moral values do exist, then you are forced to accept premise 3, that therefore God exists.

For example, can we just accept that you and I exist, one independent of the other, neither a figment of the other's imagination? Can we accept that our normal external sensory input can be accepted as correct for the purposes of this conversation, (except in the trivial cases of optical illusions and so forth)? You probably know what I'm saying. I hate it when I get into an argument and think I've made a very strong point, only to have my opponent come back with, "Everything's subjective; you can't prove anything is real," or, "Maybe you imagined the whole thing, I mean, you can't prove you didn't," or, "You can prove anything with facts," or, "Well, you have your beliefs and I have mine," or some crap like that where I'm not talking about subjective facts or my own beliefs.

Yes, I can agree with all of this. I believe that the Universe is tangibly real, and is generally how it appears to be, in that it is not a malicious deception or a meaningless illusion. I believe we are both individuals made in the image of God with an independent existence and a soul. I believe we can come to meaningful conclusions about reality, and that there is a truth which is tangible, accessible to reason, and which does not change based on our interpretation or personal preferences.

Also, in theological arguments, I must insist on a couple things. The first is that words must have meaning. If you say something, you can't later say that it's not to be taken literally, or that that word has a different meaning when applied to God. The second is that everything logically entailed by a statement must stand with the original statement, and any other statement. If there's any inconsistencies, then at least one of the statements must be false.

I am very consistent when it comes to meanings. This is one of the hallmarks of literal interpretation, that the words in the bible, while they can sometimes be applied in a metaphorical sense, always have an intended meaning which is absolutely true in all circumstances.

Also, please don't assert supernatural things like the existence of Satan, or your knowledge of how he works, telling me these things like I'm ignorant of them, rather than fully aware of the stories, but sceptical. Say that it's what you believe or have come to believe or whatever, but don't say it like objective fact. Same goes for Bible verses. I don't accept them as fact any more than you'd accept Skeletor quotes as fact. To me that book is best treated as fiction, though it's possible it conveys some details of events that really happened, but pronouncements of the way the world is I absolutely do not accept as the word of God, especially since I don't believe he exists. I don't care if the Bible predicts atheists/sceptics. All that tells me is that people have been doubting the veracity of the word for 2,000 years, and someone took the precaution of adding a word or two against non-believers into the text so believers down the line would have justification "from God" for dismissing my arguments as guided by Satan, or whatever.

I generally won't propose arguments that would take faith to accept. I understand your natural skepticism because I used to be equally skeptical. I will just submit that when you are deceived, you don't know you are deceived:

2 Corinthians 4:4

In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

I admit the possibility that I could be deceived, so I think if we both can admit this, we will have a more fruitful conversation.

know you don't think Qualia's line of reasoning holds, but I don't know what you think of Craig's argument. Is it valid, in your mind? And here, I'm mostly interested in how you think. As I've said, the video was only intended to take apart the argument of one Christian apologist, and not to prove or disprove anything.

I think it is logically airtight. That if you cannot prove there is a foundation for objective moral values outside of God, and you cannot disprove that some actions are objectively wrong, that you must accept the conclusion of the argument.

I'm 99% sure you said in a comment somewhere that you're dubious of science. Could you explain what you mean by that? Science isn't a system of faith or a set of theories. It's a process of testing theories. Are you dubious of the process? What parts of it specifically do you mean?

I am dubious of the philosophy of empiricism upon which science is founded upon. Empiricism assumes that truth can only be discerned through our senses, and that our minds merely processes and categorizes this truth. I reject this view because there are clearly truths that empiricism cannot evaluate, including the validity of empiricism itself. I'll bring in craig again for this one:



I apologize for the title..it's just the best clip I could find.

Is it accurate to say that the sum of your experience of God is subjective, that's to say, is based solely on your own experience in your head, and possibly in things in the objective world that you have interpreted in a subjective way, and is not borne out in any demonstrable way in the measurable material world?

I would say my experience is generally subjective but is objectively confirmed, both by other people, and my daily life. You can say I have interpreted those experiences subjectively, and I am just fooling myself, of course. Personal experience is something hard to prove, as the other person is naturally skeptical of the other persons ability to evaluate what is true. All I can say is that truth is paramount to me and I am incapable of believing something just because I want it to be true. I would rather have nothing and die a meaningless death than live out a comfortable lie.

Please describe God. Where is he? When is he? What is he capable of? What does he feel? Is he immutable? Please add anything you can about why he did things like create the universe and animals and us and disease and suffering and inequality and joy, why he cares for us, why he cares what we do, why he made some things moral and some things evil, and any other informative facts. Is there a God the Father anymore, or just Jesus? Did Jesus have a human form and a godly form, or did he transmute from one to the other? What was Jesus before he was born? Was he born of the virgin Mary?

This is a rather large subject. I'll do my best..

God is perfect. He is holy, loving, and just. He exists outside of time and space in His own realm, which is called Heaven. He is capable of doing anything that can be done. As far as what God feels, that can be hard to quantify. For instance, you can say God feels love, but by definition, God is love. In general, from the bible, it seems God can be pleased, can be jealous, has compassion, is kind, is loving, can be grieved and can be angered. His nature is immutable, in that He is goodness itself. He is light and there is no darkness in Him. That doesn't change. He can however change how He interacts with us.

God created us out of the abundance of His love. It wasn't out of a need, as He already had perfect love within the relationships of the Holy Trinity, but it was an overflowing of that love. He created us to be in relationship to Him, as His children.

There were no diseases, or any inequality before the fall. He created the world perfectly, and He set us in paradise, to learn and grow under His care. However, because robots would be undesirable, He gave us free will to be obedient to Him or not. Unfortunately, we abused that, and broke fellowship with God. Sin and death were brought into the world because of it, and since then this has been a fallen creation. If you have something perfect, and introduce an imperfection, then it is no longer perfect and neither can anything perfect ever come from it. Sin and death ruined that perfection, and they are the cause for all of the disease and inequality today.

Because of this, God brought the law into the world, to give us a minimum standard for moral behavior. The law in itself was not capable of fixing the situation, as everyone fell short of the law, but rather it highlighted our need for a savior. This is the reason Jesus Christ came.

He came to Earth, putting aside His glory and position to live as a man, being the first human being since Adam to be born without sin. He lived a perfect life, though He was tempted in every way that we are, and fulfilled the entire law. Finally, He sacrificed Himself on the cross for the sins of mankind, as a substitutionary atonement for our crimes, and He tasted death for all men. God proved all of this by raising Him from the dead. So, Christ defeated death and sin on the cross, and imputed His righteousness, the righteousness of God, back into mankind. Therefore, anyone who accepts His Lordship will have his sins forgiven and receive eternal life. It is by the imputation of Gods perfect righteousness and substituionary atonement that the effects of the fall have been countered, and we are again reconciled to God and can enjoy perfect relationship to Him as His children.

God is three persons, the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit. Jesus ascended to Heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father, making intercession on our behalf. Jesus was born of a virgin, and was both God and man; He had two natures, which were united for one purpose in submission to the Father. Jesus, before He was born as a human being, existed as God. "Before abraham was, I am."

John 1:1-3

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Hope that answers your questions.



>> ^messenger:

@shinyblurry

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Martin Luther King managed to create protests and a movement that DIDN'T get in people's faces or disrupting the business of innocent bystanders who have nothing to do with what you're protesting. He did it with a positive, uplifting, inspirational message that people of good sense could not help but agree with. These yahoos are doing the exact opposite. They couldn't be driving people AWAY from their cause any better if they were trying.


wrong wrong WRONG!
martin luther king jr knew full well the only way a peaceful protest would be effective was by interfering with business.
any protest that was even moderately successful interfered with business and the everyday machinery of government.
now we have "free speech zones"(see:RNC 2008 st paul MN) which are many times far distances from the very thing being protested.....how convenient.
this is where the protesters can be marginalized and ignored but get in the way of everyday business and NOW you will get noticed.
and the government will send its goons in to strong arm and intimidate because the business class scream bloody murder.
there will be arrests.
there will be macings.
there will be violence and yes,even sometimes murders.
all of which can now be clandestinely videotaped from a phone exposing the strong arm tactics of the government all in the name of "keeping the peace".

this aint rocket science.it is effective and it works.
your obedient slave solution just leaves the protester flaccid and ineffective.
you have the RIGHT of redress.
you have the RIGHT to assemble.
and the police are within their powers to cite or detain you for civil disobedience.
they are NOT within their powers to:maim,torture,brutalize and disregard the laws in which they were sworn to uphold.
this is about challenging power and authority and the only way to do that properly is to disrupt the machinations of power and authority.

That's a most excellent answer and I agree with every word of it. Faith is a gift from God, and even the act of turning towards Christ is by the work of the Holy Spirit. I was urged by the Spirit to say what I did, so I assumed it was for a reason. I feel God blessed it, and that it was His will. You're right that it would be impossible for someone give their lives in totality without being reborn, however, I put that out there that that is what God wants, and even the intention of doing it is useful to God. He could use that and support it and make sure it happens. People do drop to their knees and give their lives to God every day, and whether it is from going to church or seeing a message like mine, whatever it is, I know it is all by the grace of the Spirit. So we're in full agreement, which is odd if you're not a Christian. How did that happen?

>> ^dr_izzybizzy:
It seems to me that one of the basic tenets of orthodox Christianity is the belief that humans are incapable of being totally committed to the service of God, of worshiping God in Spirit and in Truth, or even of having faith at all prior to their regeneration and new life in Christ. To suggest that it is necessary (and therefore possible) for us to make a total submission of our will to the will of God before we invite Christ to enter our life and take over is to put the cart before the horse, for the very reason we need Christ to "take over" our lives is the fact that we are incapable of obedience (willing submission) on our own. If we could do it before receiving divine assistance, we could do it apart from divine assistance, which renders Christ unnecessary, which no orthodox Christian would ever affirm. In fact, we cannot even be willing to submit (which, to be sure, is different from willing submission) prior to the reception of grace. To think otherwise is to fall into the heretical trap of Pelagianism, which has been condemned among orthodox Christians since the 4th century.
And so, Augustine argues that if, as the Bible says, God creates in the believer a new heart to replace their heart of stone, then we cannot assume "without absurdity" that "there previously existed in any man the merit of a good will, to entitle him to the removal of his stony heart, when all the while this very heart of stone signifies nothing else than a will of the hardest kind and such as is absolutely inflexible against God. For where a good will precedes, there is, of course, no longer a heart of stone."
...which is why Anselm prays "Teach me to seek you, and reveal yourself to me, when I seek you, for I cannot seek you, except you teach me, nor find you, except you reveal yourself."
...and Aquinas reasons "a man cannot turn to God except through God turning him to himself."
...and Luther writes a whole treatise on "The Bondage of the Will"
And, to be sure, they all consider themselves to be drawing logical conclusions from what they read in the Bible, quoting passages like:
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44)
"You did not choose me, I chose you" (John 15:16)
"Without me you can do nothing" (John 15:5)
"Turn thou us unto thee, O Lord, and we shall be turned." (Lamentations 5:8)
"By grace you have been saved, through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God--not because of works, lest any man should boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9)
So, in sum, orthodox Christians have, for at least 1500 years or so, agreed that there is nothing humans can do on their own to prepare themselves (i.e. be worthy of) the reception of grace(i.e. to have a new life in Christ in which he "takes over") -which is precisely why Christians have no reason to boast. To say we must do something first, whether it be "to believe" or "have faith" or "be willing to obey," before we can receive grace (a life in Christ) is to treat grace as a reward, which no orthodox Christian would maintain. I'm sorry to say, what you have asked of us is not only impossible, it appears to be unchristian (which, to be fair, I'm sure was not your intention).
I applaud your desire to share your faith. I encourage you to learn more about it.
>> ^shinyblurry:
The reason I said that is because God requires a total commitment. God is looking for people who will worship Him in Spirit and in truth. So, if you're half-hearted about it that isn't going to get you anywhere. God will provide the evidence that He is there, but you have to be willing to give your life to God first.
Hebrews 11:6
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
>> ^dr_izzybizzy:
So...doing X will lead to paradise, not doing X will lead to endless misery?
For curiosity's sake, why shouldn't I ask Jesus to take control of my life if I'm not ready (i.e. what would be the negative consequence of doing so)?
>> ^shinyblurry:
There is only one way to eternal life, and that is through Jesus Christ. If you want to know Him, find a quiet place and pray that He enter your life, and let Him take it over. Don't make the request unless you are willing to turn yourself, and your life completely over to God. God bless.
John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
>> ^vaire2ube:
imagine the double rainbow!!
he says we should accept our mortality, but stopping aging and melding minds with technology to live forever is kinda my hope. I enjoy watching this all unfold and id like to continue to.

It seems to me that one of the basic tenets of orthodox Christianity is the belief that humans are incapable of being totally committed to the service of God, of worshiping God in Spirit and in Truth, or even of having faith at all prior to their regeneration and new life in Christ. To suggest that it is necessary (and therefore possible) for us to make a total submission of our will to the will of God before we invite Christ to enter our life and take over is to put the cart before the horse, for the very reason we need Christ to "take over" our lives is the fact that we are incapable of obedience (willing submission) on our own. If we could do it before receiving divine assistance, we could do it apart from divine assistance, which renders Christ unnecessary, which no orthodox Christian would ever affirm. In fact, we cannot even be willing to submit (which, to be sure, is different from willing submission) prior to the reception of grace. To think otherwise is to fall into the heretical trap of Pelagianism, which has been condemned among orthodox Christians since the 4th century.

And so, Augustine argues that if, as the Bible says, God creates in the believer a new heart to replace their heart of stone, then we cannot assume "without absurdity" that "there previously existed in any man the merit of a good will, to entitle him to the removal of his stony heart, when all the while this very heart of stone signifies nothing else than a will of the hardest kind and such as is absolutely inflexible against God. For where a good will precedes, there is, of course, no longer a heart of stone."

...which is why Anselm prays "Teach me to seek you, and reveal yourself to me, when I seek you, for I cannot seek you, except you teach me, nor find you, except you reveal yourself."

...and Aquinas reasons "a man cannot turn to God except through God turning him to himself."

...and Luther writes a whole treatise on "The Bondage of the Will"

And, to be sure, they all consider themselves to be drawing logical conclusions from what they read in the Bible, quoting passages like:
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44)
"You did not choose me, I chose you" (John 15:16)
"Without me you can do nothing" (John 15:5)
"Turn thou us unto thee, O Lord, and we shall be turned." (Lamentations 5:8)
"By grace you have been saved, through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God--not because of works, lest any man should boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9)


So, in sum, orthodox Christians have, for at least 1500 years or so, agreed that there is nothing humans can do on their own to prepare themselves (i.e. be worthy of) the reception of grace(i.e. to have a new life in Christ in which he "takes over") -which is precisely why Christians have no reason to boast. To say we must do something first, whether it be "to believe" or "have faith" or "be willing to obey," before we can receive grace (a life in Christ) is to treat grace as a reward, which no orthodox Christian would maintain. I'm sorry to say, what you have asked of us is not only impossible, it appears to be unchristian (which, to be fair, I'm sure was not your intention).

I applaud your desire to share your faith. I encourage you to learn more about it.


>> ^shinyblurry:

The reason I said that is because God requires a total commitment. God is looking for people who will worship Him in Spirit and in truth. So, if you're half-hearted about it that isn't going to get you anywhere. God will provide the evidence that He is there, but you have to be willing to give your life to God first.
Hebrews 11:6
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
>> ^dr_izzybizzy:
So...doing X will lead to paradise, not doing X will lead to endless misery?
For curiosity's sake, why shouldn't I ask Jesus to take control of my life if I'm not ready (i.e. what would be the negative consequence of doing so)?
>> ^shinyblurry:
There is only one way to eternal life, and that is through Jesus Christ. If you want to know Him, find a quiet place and pray that He enter your life, and let Him take it over. Don't make the request unless you are willing to turn yourself, and your life completely over to God. God bless.
John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
>> ^vaire2ube:
imagine the double rainbow!!
he says we should accept our mortality, but stopping aging and melding minds with technology to live forever is kinda my hope. I enjoy watching this all unfold and id like to continue to.

Friendly reminder, there is a God and He loves you, and so do I. Looks like you're using new words too. Did you invent parroticaly all by yourself?

>> ^hpqp:
Heh, I'm just going to keep this gem of a comment, for further use evil laughter
Lookitchu, shiny, all full of new words you can parroticaly throw back at the first person who calls you out, how cute.
Just a friendly reminder: there is/are no God/s. When people like @SpaceGirlSpiff or myself talk about God/s it's the concept we are discussing. A bit like when fans of Star Wars debate about the fundamentals of the Force, and whether Darth Vador is redeemable or not. Now imagine someone comes to the discussion and claims Obi Wan showed himself to them, revealing knowledge that was later confirmed by watching the Star Wars Trilogy (the original, of course; the prequels are akin to The Book of Mormon). See where this is going?
I must admit, every time you accuse someone else of being illogical, irrational, condescending, arrogant, prejudiced, etc., it makes me smile and shake my head slowly. Oh well, I'm off to do something more productive than talking to a godbot. Hmmm, a devilish diddle sounds like a good idea goes off to find pr0n
>> ^shinyblurry:
@SpaceGirlSpiff
Spacegirl, your former post is riddled with logical fallacies. False analogies, begging the question, non-sequiturs and strawmen fallacies. You provided absolutely no rationale for any of your conclusions. You simply dictated the terms of the discussion as if everything you said was factual and justified. This alone makes your entire post irrational, and unfounded. Then you go on to unfairly characterize me as an unthinking animal or a mindless automoton in one giant Ad hom, dodging the debate completely, saying in the height of arrogance that I am not even worthy of a reply.
Let's go over this again. You asked, how do I know I am not following the wrong deity? My answer is personal revelation. Why do you think this is unreasonable, or irrational? If God exists He is quite capable of revealing Himself to whomever he chooses. It is a perfectly reasonable and rational reason to believe the bible is true. I explained that before I even read the bible, God had personally revealed to me certain facts about Himself which were confirmed later by the bible, and this is the reason I know the bible is accurate. Whether you consider that rational or not is a separate question. It is an appropiate and reasonable answer to your inquiry.
You stated Satan has the power of deity. I countered with the fact that the activities of Satan are restricted by God and that he cannot do anything without permission. A god that has to ask permission isn't a god. Again, this is a reasonable answer.
You go on to say God commands the slaughter of innocents. I reply that there are no innocents on a fallen world. So I reject your premise on the outset, as it is simply ignorant of even basic scripture. You say God condemns people to hell unless they bow, which is also grossly inaccurate. God condemns all sin, and it is unrepentant sinners that go to hell.
You further state that God commits genocide, another unproven and inaccurate assertion. You need an argument showing how God is morally culpable for executing His judgement and sovereign will before you can claim genocide. You go on to say job was punished to prove a point; i pointed out that job himself realized that nothing he had belonged to him, but rather it belonged to God and it was His right to give it or take it back, and that this was a lesson for the church, that God is not our debtor, but its rather the opposite. During the trial, God used this experience to teach at least 4 other people who came to argue Job back into obedience. It also presumes that job was punished unfairly, which is untrue. Job was a sinner, despite being very loyal, and moreover during the trial he sinned even more. I will further point out that God restored job to even greater heights after this was over.
On the last bit, you state an incoherent false analogy about a corrupt dictator who provided his subjects with a book declaring himself to be god and prevents outside communication. Well, there is plenty of communication going on in this world and plenty of books which all maintain different ideas about who God is. God isn't preventing any of that. A corrupt dictator allows no freedom of choice, you are obviously free to reject God your entire life. You make a number of false correlations about reason and logic and removing blinders, but none of these conclusions follow from the premise, which is a false analogy to begin with.
In short, spacegirlspiff, your post leaves much to be desired in terms of rationality and your personal attack on me further shows that this debate is based not on logic but on your personal prejudice against Christianity and God in general.

Heh, I'm just going to keep this gem of a comment, for further use *evil laughter*

Lookitchu, shiny, all full of new words you can parroticaly throw back at the first person who calls you out, how cute.

Just a friendly reminder: there is/are no God/s. When people like @SpaceGirlSpiff or myself talk about God/s it's the concept we are discussing. A bit like when fans of Star Wars debate about the fundamentals of the Force, and whether Darth Vador is redeemable or not. Now imagine someone comes to the discussion and claims Obi Wan showed himself to them, revealing knowledge that was later confirmed by watching the Star Wars Trilogy (the original, of course; the prequels are akin to The Book of Mormon). See where this is going?

I must admit, every time you accuse someone else of being illogical, irrational, condescending, arrogant, prejudiced, etc., it makes me smile and shake my head slowly. Oh well, I'm off to do something more productive than talking to a godbot. Hmmm, a devilish diddle sounds like a good idea *goes off to find pr0n*

>> ^shinyblurry:

@SpaceGirlSpiff
Spacegirl, your former post is riddled with logical fallacies. False analogies, begging the question, non-sequiturs and strawmen fallacies. You provided absolutely no rationale for any of your conclusions. You simply dictated the terms of the discussion as if everything you said was factual and justified. This alone makes your entire post irrational, and unfounded. Then you go on to unfairly characterize me as an unthinking animal or a mindless automoton in one giant Ad hom, dodging the debate completely, saying in the height of arrogance that I am not even worthy of a reply.
Let's go over this again. You asked, how do I know I am not following the wrong deity? My answer is personal revelation. Why do you think this is unreasonable, or irrational? If God exists He is quite capable of revealing Himself to whomever he chooses. It is a perfectly reasonable and rational reason to believe the bible is true. I explained that before I even read the bible, God had personally revealed to me certain facts about Himself which were confirmed later by the bible, and this is the reason I know the bible is accurate. Whether you consider that rational or not is a separate question. It is an appropiate and reasonable answer to your inquiry.
You stated Satan has the power of deity. I countered with the fact that the activities of Satan are restricted by God and that he cannot do anything without permission. A god that has to ask permission isn't a god. Again, this is a reasonable answer.
You go on to say God commands the slaughter of innocents. I reply that there are no innocents on a fallen world. So I reject your premise on the outset, as it is simply ignorant of even basic scripture. You say God condemns people to hell unless they bow, which is also grossly inaccurate. God condemns all sin, and it is unrepentant sinners that go to hell.
You further state that God commits genocide, another unproven and inaccurate assertion. You need an argument showing how God is morally culpable for executing His judgement and sovereign will before you can claim genocide. You go on to say job was punished to prove a point; i pointed out that job himself realized that nothing he had belonged to him, but rather it belonged to God and it was His right to give it or take it back, and that this was a lesson for the church, that God is not our debtor, but its rather the opposite. During the trial, God used this experience to teach at least 4 other people who came to argue Job back into obedience. It also presumes that job was punished unfairly, which is untrue. Job was a sinner, despite being very loyal, and moreover during the trial he sinned even more. I will further point out that God restored job to even greater heights after this was over.
On the last bit, you state an incoherent false analogy about a corrupt dictator who provided his subjects with a book declaring himself to be god and prevents outside communication. Well, there is plenty of communication going on in this world and plenty of books which all maintain different ideas about who God is. God isn't preventing any of that. A corrupt dictator allows no freedom of choice, you are obviously free to reject God your entire life. You make a number of false correlations about reason and logic and removing blinders, but none of these conclusions follow from the premise, which is a false analogy to begin with.
In short, spacegirlspiff, your post leaves much to be desired in terms of rationality and your personal attack on me further shows that this debate is based not on logic but on your personal prejudice against Christianity and God in general.

@SpaceGirlSpiff

Spacegirl, your former post is riddled with logical fallacies. False analogies, begging the question, non-sequiturs and strawmen fallacies. You provided absolutely no rationale for any of your conclusions. You simply dictated the terms of the discussion as if everything you said was factual and justified. This alone makes your entire post irrational, and unfounded. Then you go on to unfairly characterize me as an unthinking animal or a mindless automoton in one giant Ad hom, dodging the debate completely, saying in the height of arrogance that I am not even worthy of a reply.

Let's go over this again. You asked, how do I know I am not following the wrong deity? My answer is personal revelation. Why do you think this is unreasonable, or irrational? If God exists He is quite capable of revealing Himself to whomever he chooses. It is a perfectly reasonable and rational reason to believe the bible is true. I explained that before I even read the bible, God had personally revealed to me certain facts about Himself which were confirmed later by the bible, and this is the reason I know the bible is accurate. Whether you consider that rational or not is a separate question. It is an appropiate and reasonable answer to your inquiry.

You stated Satan has the power of deity. I countered with the fact that the activities of Satan are restricted by God and that he cannot do anything without permission. A god that has to ask permission isn't a god. Again, this is a reasonable answer.

You go on to say God commands the slaughter of innocents. I reply that there are no innocents on a fallen world. So I reject your premise on the outset, as it is simply ignorant of even basic scripture. You say God condemns people to hell unless they bow, which is also grossly inaccurate. God condemns all sin, and it is unrepentant sinners that go to hell.

You further state that God commits genocide, another unproven and inaccurate assertion. You need an argument showing how God is morally culpable for executing His judgement and sovereign will before you can claim genocide. You go on to say job was punished to prove a point; i pointed out that job himself realized that nothing he had belonged to him, but rather it belonged to God and it was His right to give it or take it back, and that this was a lesson for the church, that God is not our debtor, but its rather the opposite. During the trial, God used this experience to teach at least 4 other people who came to argue Job back into obedience. It also presumes that job was punished unfairly, which is untrue. Job was a sinner, despite being very loyal, and moreover during the trial he sinned even more. I will further point out that God restored job to even greater heights after this was over.

On the last bit, you state an incoherent false analogy about a corrupt dictator who provided his subjects with a book declaring himself to be god and prevents outside communication. Well, there is plenty of communication going on in this world and plenty of books which all maintain different ideas about who God is. God isn't preventing any of that. A corrupt dictator allows no freedom of choice, you are obviously free to reject God your entire life. You make a number of false correlations about reason and logic and removing blinders, but none of these conclusions follow from the premise, which is a false analogy to begin with.

In short, spacegirlspiff, your post leaves much to be desired in terms of rationality and your personal attack on me further shows that this debate is based not on logic but on your personal prejudice against Christianity and God in general.

You probably have no idea but the scientific method was created by Christians who believed that matter behaved rationally because God created an orderly universe. The same goes for the idea of natural law. Some of the very greatest scientists who ever lived were Christians, and not lapsed Christians either, but pursued science as part of their Christian world view, with their love for Gods amazing creation.

Christianity has never been opposed to science, and neither am I. When I grew up I wanted to be an astronomer, and I had the math skills, I would probably be one today. I think the study of the Universe is extremely fascinating and wonderful. I just don't happen to agree with all the conclusions of modern science. Specifically the age of the Universe and its theories about origins.

As far as my church is concerned, there is no pressure to tithe. People give because they want to, not because anyone pressured them to do it. My church uses the money it gets to build wells for people who don't have access to clean water. The only time I ever hear money mentioned is when we're trying to raise some for a charitable cause. There are definitely some churches which are run around the tithe, but you won't find the Spirit of God there. We get together because we love God, and we study the bible and sing hymms. It's a fellowship. I'm not sure where you get your ideas from, but your salvation doesn't come from going to church. The church is a place where Christians gather together to worship God..going to church doesn't make you Christian, and pastors don't decide if you go to Heaven. A pastor is the same as anyone else in that regard.

In short you present a false dichotomy that doesn't exist in my world. I am an avid user of technology, and the beneficial use of science, but I oppose the conclusions of the secular worldview that is driving some aspects of it. If you don't think there is an agenda please watch the documentry "Expelled".

As far as my beliefs, I am not selling anything. I don't want your money. I am quite plainly just trying to save your life, because I honestly care about you as a human being. I cannot remain silent about the gospel in any case, because it is the good news and I am commanded by God to preach it.

>> ^Deadrisenmortal:
So, um, what were these lies that have been told to you all your life? That the earth is round and over 4 billion years old? That the sun is the center of the solar system? That there is undeniable evidence that suggests that man evolved from primates?
Now that you have found god and are visiting the church regularly (and likely investing a good amount of your accumulated agnostic secular materialistic wealth into the collection plate) you believe that those people are telling you the truth? Instead of providing evidence that supports their claims you are told to believe based upon faith? The church is asking you for your time, your money, your obedience, all in exchange for some supposed heavenly glory that you will never be certain that you will receive.
Tell me, what has the scientific community ever asked of you in return for the knowledge that they are offering?
Look around you, every modern convenience that you currently enjoy was made possible by science and engineering. Science drives our species forward, religion fights to hold us back while struggling to stay relevant.
Believe what you want, just keep it to your self. I don't need what you are selling.
>> ^shinyblurry:
My Dad is an atheist and my mom an agnostistic/near-theist..I was raised with no religion. Was an agnostic secular materialist by default. I received revelation of Gods existence a few years back. Although I am sad I was lied to all my life and believed the lies, I marvel at the fake world we live in, and am amazed more people don't see right through it..but then remember I used to be one of those people. Although I was never so arrogant as to rule out Gods existence, I have empathy for people who can't see it.

So, um, what were these lies that have been told to you all your life? That the earth is round and over 4 billion years old? That the sun is the center of the solar system? That there is undeniable evidence that suggests that man evolved from primates?

Now that you have found god and are visiting the church regularly (and likely investing a good amount of your accumulated agnostic secular materialistic wealth into the collection plate) you believe that those people are telling you the truth? Instead of providing evidence that supports their claims you are told to believe based upon faith? The church is asking you for your time, your money, your obedience, all in exchange for some supposed heavenly glory that you will never be certain that you will receive.

Tell me, what has the scientific community ever asked of you in return for the knowledge that they are offering?

Look around you, every modern convenience that you currently enjoy was made possible by science and engineering. Science drives our species forward, religion fights to hold us back while struggling to stay relevant.

Believe what you want, just keep it to your self. I don't need what you are selling.

>> ^shinyblurry:

My Dad is an atheist and my mom an agnostistic/near-theist..I was raised with no religion. Was an agnostic secular materialist by default. I received revelation of Gods existence a few years back. Although I am sad I was lied to all my life and believed the lies, I marvel at the fake world we live in, and am amazed more people don't see right through it..but then remember I used to be one of those people. Although I was never so arrogant as to rule out Gods existence, I have empathy for people who can't see it.

That's a laugh..the first thing you did in our "debate" is try to argue I am a troll. Then we had a little contentious back and forth in which my answers were perfectly adaquete..the problem was that you copped out and ran away. Here is our final exchange:

"@shinyblurry

I was going to leave you in the metaphorical pit of self-contradiction and nonsense you had dug yourself into, but then you had to go insult my eloquence... jk, I was going to address your answers anyway:

Would you condemn and punish someone's child for something their parents did? Why should anyone respect - much less worship - a being whose moral standards are far inferior to those of the worst among us humans (or "sinners" as you call us)?

2. "Special Revelation"... and yet it is those who use reason and evidence who are "arrogant", or have a "fevered ego", right? But let me try to grasp this "Holy Spirit" thing once and for all:

Basically, a Christian cannot deny the HS, otherwise he was never a Christian? But one can only reject the HS if they have it, i.e. if they are a Christian... do you see where this is going? Moreover, this suggests a deterministic outlook: some have been chosen, the rest can suck it (you did not answer the part of my question which asks what happens to those that are not "chosen").

So God makes an exception, giving them the knowledge of good and evil only so that they do not obtain the knowledge of good and evil... Even if this fantastic extrapolation of yours was not a direct insult to the textual integrity of the Bible (which is about the only integrity that thing has got), it would only confirm my point vis-à-vis God/religion's reliance on blind obedience.

Which brings me to another tasty tidbit of yours:

He doesn't coerce your love, but he will let you reap the consequences of the evil that you do [...]
Mafia boss says: you don't have to pay up, but I'll beat the shit out of you if you don't.

Does the irony escape you?"

My reply:

1. You're still not getting it. Before Adam and Eve sinned, they were spiritually perfected. When they sinned their spirit became corrupt and could no longer be in the presence of God. This is why Creation fell. Human nature has been corrupted since then. This is why we live in a fallen world. Instead of starting over, God bore all of this out with us. He had a plan to restore Creation, which He did by sending His Son to die for our sins. Jesus is the name under which man is reconciled back to God and spiritually perfected, so we can again live with God. It's not about punishment, it's about restoration.

You say it's immoral for God to punish people..I'll explain why it's not but first, lets examine your hypocripsy here. You're an atheist so you believe death is the end. Yet, I bet you adovocate the death penalty or life in prison for serious crimes. You're perfectly fine with humans meting out ultimate justice on other humans, which is the same as God punishing someone forever, because if this life is all we have then a death sentence is forever. Life in prison is just as good. Yet, you somehow have a problem with God punishing people, who as our Creator and the moral authority not only has the perrogative, but indeed would be immoral if He didn't do so.

Think about it this way. You don't like God and you don't respect His authority. You certainly don't want to live forever with Him. So, though He loves you and wants to share eternity with you, He will allow you to make your choice as to whether to love Him or not. He's let you know the consequences over and over again, mostly recently through this dialogue. You are choosing directly to be seperated from God, indeed you have made it a mission to spread your ignorance about Him. So why then should you be surprised when you earn the reward you had hoped for? It's entirely moral, and entirely your choice.

2. It doesn't suggest anything of the sort. Only a Christian could receive the Holy Spirit, they are saved. A person who professes a belief in Christ yet does not accept His Spirit has committed blasphemy against the Spirit. They are not saved. A person who does not believe in Christ will never receive the Spirit, nor can they even perceive it, so they cannot commit blasphemy against Him. This is the meaning of the passage:

"Not everyone who says to Me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 "Many will say to Me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' 23 "And then I will declare to them, `I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS."

3. What was your question?

You never answered to any of this. This was your final reply:

Shiny quoted conserva-facts-don't-affect-me-pedia.com; conversation ended. You fail.

You used the excuse that I had quoted conservapedia about zooasterism to Enoch to run away from our debate. So please get off your high horse..and you never provided an intelligent or comprehensive position..most of it was simply rooted in your amatuer understanding of scripture.


>> ^hpqp:
You'd really crack me up if I didn't know you were dead serious. Remember our very first debate Mr Shiny? The one under you first sifted video? There was no quoting Leviticus, instead I provided serious questions to the ideology stemming from the Creation and Fall myths, to which you were unable to adequately reply. As for spewing Bible verses, it's a two-way street, although you definitely take it more than anyone else here, and with the added stupidity of actually thinking that an ancient collection of ideological, mythological and historical texts - compiled and edited over hundreds of years - is actually the divinely inspired word of your sky dictator. So yeah, sometimes myself and others will quote contentious scripture just to remind you that it's only manmade text (although even you go to some lengths to try and make the worst of it make sense... (re: your attempt at rationalising having to marry one's rapist)).
Most people who tried to have an intelligent debate with you here have given up. If you still can't understand why, maybe you should pore over your responses to people's questions and have a long, hard think (yes, I know that's hard).
Yours satanically,
Lucy Furr
edit: I missed part of your comment when first responding... nobody "created" us, shiny. Most secular humanists and atheists come to the conclusion that religion is bullshit all by their lonesomes, usually in their childhood or teens.. you know, when rational thought starts to outweigh parental authority. While it's nice to have speakers defending reason with arguments we could only dream of formulating so eloquently - speakers who certainly helped some who were already in doubt to make up their minds - it's not as if one needs a prophet. Maybe one reason why you have the impression you're always debating Dawkins and Hitchens is because their arguments are some of the most salient against religion, arguments that have been made since the ancient Greeks btw.
>> ^shinyblurry:
I already told you, if you go to the minute mark that I provided you will find someone talking directly about it. If you don't want to do that, or you don't believe the person in the video, that's your problem. It doesn't change the fact of what Dawkins said.
As far as arguments, I have many. I never get that far with you though. Your idea of a rational debate is to quote contentious verses in Leviticus. If you want to talk about one trick ponies..
I don't want to generalize atheists but the fact is dawkins and hitchens created a lot of you, and I feel often times I am debating them instead of the person I am talking to. In any case, it doesn't matter..I was just somewhat amused that you seemed to think that atheists are never illogical or say anything stupid.
>> ^hpqp:
Pretty rich coming from someone whose whole argument boils down to "personal revelation nananana!!!" and "God/the Bible says it so ITS TRUE!!!" All your gross generalisations based on personal experience (which could very much be made up for all we know) are but chaff to the wind, shiny.
And no, I'm not going to sit through 1h20 to try to find something that you claim Dawkins said; it's your evidence, you provide it.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Yes, atheists actually do construct arguments which merely appeal to authority and engage of all sorts of logical fallacies, all the time. You seem to be under the illusion that atheists are in general more intelligent than the average person. I debate atheists all the time all over the internet and I can safely put that theory to rest for you. It's more that atheists are completely blinded by their certitude and think that everything they say is just so forceful and compelling, like they are the sole possessors of logic and reason in the world. After you speak to few hundred or so you start to see the group think they all share and that most of their ideas are originating from a Dawkins or a Hitchens. Many of you just parrot the things they say in their debates almost word for word.
As far as your evidence, it's buried somewhere in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0UIbd0eLxw
If you go to 1 hour 17 you'll find someone talking about it.
edit; I will admit I speak to some very bright people, people are people after all..but atheism is not an exclusive group of deep thinkers..if you think that you haven't been around the internet lately.
>> ^hpqp:
[citation needed]
This is not the first time you put words in Dawkins' mouth you know.
edit: and even if Dawkins, Hitchens and the FSM all got together to argue for the historicity of Jesus, they would have to bring compelling arguments to the table. Unlike some religious people, atheists don't just go "oh since Dawkins says it it must be true, no need to think/research for myself!!"
>> ^shinyblurry:
Even Dawkins admitted Jesus is a historical figure. There are virtually no historians who support that view, so scratch probably and insert "extremely unlikely".
>> ^hpqp:
Well, considering that the Jeebs is probably a fictional character altogether , it's not surprising that there is differences between the ways different authors imagined him to be.
http://religion.videosift.com/video/Lecture-Examining
-the-Existence-of-a-Historic
al-Jesus
>> ^messenger:
People in power usually do represent God in Jesus' parables. That's why this one seems so odd to me. Maybe I just haven't read enough of them to realize that Jesus himself preached violence against beings other than fig trees. (Mark 11: 12-14)>> ^hpqp:
That nobleman stands in for God/Jeebs in that parable. But you should ask shiny, for him we're all slaves to the all-powerful dictator, only some of us (that is the evil atheists) are rebellious against his power.

so by that logic, we need to do whatever a police officer asks/tells us to do simply because s/he has a uniform and a badge?

Not advocating for this guy's behavior, but rote obedience is not a good response either.

Know Your Rights.

>> ^A10anis:

I am against violence, but tell me, what were the police supposed to do, just stand there whilst he flatly refuses to do as asked? Maybe if he had done as they requested he would have saved himself a lot of trouble.

Not to defend el Jeebs, but that's St Paul talking.

edit: unless you're of the @shinyblurry school of Biblical scholarship, in which case every word - sorry, Word - in the Bible is God's.

>> ^jimnms:

>> ^bareboards2:
Have you ever heard such a complete lack of response to a joke?
I think it was because it wasn't accurate -- the big JC isn't responsible for sexism.
What is interesting is that Maher fixed it later by saying well, actually, it was Jesus's dad -- and that got a response.

Jesus wasn't a sexist?
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. (1 Tim 2:11-12)
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. ( Eph. 5:22-24)
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. ( 1 Cor. 14:34-35)

I'm not a Biblical scholar, as I said above. I know the Jesus from six years old Sunday School and what I have read in the liberal papers.

Jesus said all these things? Or did others say this about him? I honestly don't know.



>> ^jimnms:

>> ^bareboards2:
Have you ever heard such a complete lack of response to a joke?
I think it was because it wasn't accurate -- the big JC isn't responsible for sexism.
What is interesting is that Maher fixed it later by saying well, actually, it was Jesus's dad -- and that got a response.

Jesus wasn't a sexist?
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. (1 Tim 2:11-12)
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. ( Eph. 5:22-24)
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. ( 1 Cor. 14:34-35)

>> ^bareboards2:

Have you ever heard such a complete lack of response to a joke?
I think it was because it wasn't accurate -- the big JC isn't responsible for sexism.
What is interesting is that Maher fixed it later by saying well, actually, it was Jesus's dad -- and that got a response.


Jesus wasn't a sexist?

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. (1 Tim 2:11-12)

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. ( Eph. 5:22-24)

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. ( 1 Cor. 14:34-35)