Atheists - prove it.

Post Reply New Topic

For two hours the other night, I talked to a lifelong theist (I'm talking a picture of the effing last supper hanging on his wall)
who'd never even read the damned book. I've probably read a thousand books in my life- they supposedly live by one and haven't bothered to read it. A casual mention of some of the lovelies in the OT elicited this stunner:
"Oh, they never read passages like that in church...."

When asked why he worships a genocidal jealous little diva of a god and pretends his kiss@ss son is John Lennon:
"Cause I wanna."



Made all the more comical because, as I mentioned earlier, the very notion of "proof" has nothing to do with the scientific method openly-mocked in this thread, which reads as:

"All right, ATHEISTS, since y'all are so big on this needin a good reason to believe thang, convince me eatin frozen yogurt won't make me invisible and sparkly. Yeah, that's what I thought."

Likely the same level of basic gross ignorance that leads them to call evolution "only" a theory. Atheists potentially injuring themselves from the constant facepalming aside, the jokes on the theist.

Prove that god is a celebrated female singer now?

No, you don't understand the role of interpretation in your understanding of reality. As it stands, you have a set of facts, and you haven't excluded all non-theistic explanations in any sensible manner, nor have you really constructed a meaningful theistic hypothesis and tested it against a large set of background information. In short, you aren't being diligent about the matter, but rather you assert what you want to be true, and what subjectively appeals to you, but in reality there is actually no substance to your claims in as much as your statements are not statements of a truth-seeker, but rather you only seek to hammer what you believe you've experienced.

I don't find this compelling. I've experienced evil beyond both good and evil, the death of god, his existence, the breakdown of truth and meaning into dysteleology, and enough other absurdities that someone else's proposal means little to me. I don't even care about this stupidity at this point. Do you have deductive arguments? Otherwise, I don't really care whether you claim to have experienced God, UFOs or the wolfman, as people have claimed to experience all of that and more, and the likelihood that this kind of stuff is all true is just absurd given our background knowledge. So, provide something better than your God whose sole measure of morality is how many drunkards he chooses to cure of their psychological struggles.

I guess you have not studied Parthenogenesis, then. It occurs when an ovum spontaneously begins mitosis as if it had been fertilized, and because there are only 'X' chromosomes present, the resulting child is always female, and is an exact genetic duplicate of its mother. Thus, parthenogenesis does not explain the "virgin birth" of the man known as Jesus.

Selective abuse of scientific knowledge to preach the word of your god is one of the many reasons that the Dark Ages lasted so long.

I and several others have pointed out countless times that positive experiences following religious conversion represent a psychological mechanism at work, not a magic sky man playing puppet.

Wow. Your beliefs in a. a god b. an intervening god c. an intervening god who concerns himself with drunkards whilst ignoring famine and massacres didn't make you at all susceptible, did it?

You mean about not a shred of empirical evidence for god existing? How have you as-yet provided some? Do you know what "empirical" means?

...you believe that god exists, and that he helps you, therefore that's "proof" to you that he does? Lulz. Redundancy is redundant.

I think you're also confused about what "religious" means.

'Tis true. Science requires that real "evidence" be reproducible, and you've yet to cite something objective whereby I might "experience" god for myself, and even explain to me how you can be sure it is an intervening micromanaging god who cured you of addiction versus your OWN pre-existing BELIEF in one.

See above.
I guess all the people who've died in agony at the hands of others just didn't "investigate" hard enough, eh?
Or maybe it's only because it wasn't the bottle they were facing?

Last edited by Bethie on 08 May 2011, 11:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Is that bitter sarcasm I sense? Parthengensis is being researched in the field of human stem cells. Why you waiting you time replying to me when you got 2.2 billion Christians to talk to?

No. It is bitter sarcasm that you imagine.

The resulting cells are always the same gender as their parent cells - always.

They are not posting here; you are.

And very well done, too.


I agree. But you argue with the misconception that God is the only spirit about. Satan is another one. Could God have good reason for allowing Satan to do certain things to humankind and the earth? (See Job)



If you find a dead bird outside your house, you can assume it likely died of natural causes. This is the simplest explanation. However, any number of things could've happened. The bird might have hit your window, been attacked by a cat or struck by lightning! Occam's Razor is not the end-all-be-all. It's a guideline.



I agree. No sense at all. I have had this discussion in length with AngelRho. This doesn't disprove the God of Abraham, who said he was One God.


"Not one of them can by any means redeem even a brother."
Psalm 49:7
Jesus was necessary, as a sinless man, to take the place of Adam, a sinless man and adopt the human race as his children.

Jesus himself state that not everyone calling him Lord would be his followers. (Matthew 7:21)



God does not threated eternal torment. This is a creation of the medieval Church. Those who do not follow Him will simply die and cease to exist. (Ezekiel 18:4)

The parts of Deuteronomy that you mention are not threats, they are warnings. God is the loving parent who warns his children not to play in the street. He won't kill them if they do, but they might die.

The "genocide" you mentioned was of the Canaanites. These were a people who sacrificed their own children to pagan gods. Should he have let them co-exist with the Israelites and maybe let them get into these practices as well?

Usually it's the pwned who are bitter, not the ones doing it.

Sorry am not an Evertonian!
If you can't take it then don't give it!

but it proves that he is not - and can not be - omnipotent as stated in the bible.

thus...

"god is omnipotent" is a completely false statement.

what else in religions are false statements then?

please make me a list.... a complete list.

Such is the nature of trolls.

We're going to be here a very, very long time while the list is being compiled.

Please provide evidence for the existance of Abram/Abraham, and please provide validation for the evidence.

You should bow out now, then.

Bringing up scientific arguments which refute your own assertions is just lulzy.

No I don't make this error. Unless you are now promoted dualistic polytheism, Satan's existence isn't relevant. It doesn't matter if there are THOUSANDS of spirits going about, or MILLIONS, if only one of them is all-powerful and all-knowing, then this one would still have the ability to in practice actualize anything. You haven't actually contested a premise as well, in an argument that claims to be deductive, so.... you missed the point.

Secondly, I've seen Job. No real justification given. Job was tortured on a bet, which.... makes no sense unless this loving God of yours is to be considered to play games with our lives for petty reasons. In fact, not even God gives a good reason for the sufferings Job underwent, instead just saying "I'm so MIGHTY so STFU"... which... doesn't really show us that God is just, loving, or any other quality normally attributed to God.


Right, but we ought to follow the guideline, so the point that it is only a guideline is silly. The best possibility is always the epistemic question, otherwise the mere possibility of an undead Elvis stalking the earth would be a credible approach.


It disproves nearly every bit of Christian theology for the past 2000 years though. Once again, if God is guiding this group of people to know and understand him, why the hell is he letting them get this wrong for so long? That makes no sense, as he could *easily* prevent this. Why doesn't he if he truly wants his people to know him, and love him how he is, and not y'know, worship a false idol or something?


And.... that is meaningful? Why the crucifix? Why is it so important? Why did Christian theology adopt that as a symbol if all he needed to do was be Adam? Even further, why is that even necessary? Why did God actually need to do this. Don't give me a set of scriptures, give me a logical reason, preferably of a deductive sort.

I mean, let's just face it: I said "Christ's death on the cross makes no ethical sense. ", and no answer is really given, but the importance and centrality of this in the life of Jesus Christ is a very very early doctrine, and one where ethical sense is needed, particularly if this is a fulfillment of some substantive standard, which Paul and others represent it as being.


FAIL!! !! !! !

My comment had NOTHING to do with the possible existence of false Christians, it had everything to do with our inability to make a distinction between the two categories, and to really show that there is divine action here, when scripture suggests the existence of divine actions.

In fact, I literally summed up what I said as "The transformation of the church by the Holy Spirit seems not to have occurred. ", false Christians are compatible, but what I say is going on, isn't, and the extensive nature of the problem isn't so easily resolved by "false Christians" as nobody seems to know who the real ones are.


Except that it is not. The problem is that NT theology does talk about fires, torments, and so on and so forth in a manner that does not suggest the kind of result of Ezekiel. Even further, the assumption that all scriptures make the same claims is not proven, you're assuming it, even though scripture has clear contradictions, even to the point where many of the supposed "fulfillments of prophecy" in the NT aren't real. (Mary didn't have to be a virgin as a simple one. But also Matthew's use of Hosea 11:1 as prophecy is a poor reading of the scripture)


Warnings?? The passage literally proclaims all the horrible things God will do to these people. Just read:

Deu 28:20-22 "The LORD will send on you curses, confusion, and frustration in all that you undertake to do, until you are destroyed and perish quickly on account of the evil of your deeds, because you have forsaken me. (21) The LORD will make the pestilence stick to you until he has consumed you off the land that you are entering to take possession of it. (22) The LORD will strike you with wasting disease and with fever, inflammation and fiery heat, and with drought and with blight and with mildew. They shall pursue you until you perish.

Deu 28:24-28 The LORD will make the rain of your land powder. From heaven dust shall come down on you until you are destroyed. (25) "The LORD will cause you to be defeated before your enemies. You shall go out one way against them and flee seven ways before them. And you shall be a horror to all the kingdoms of the earth. (26) And your dead body shall be food for all birds of the air and for the beasts of the earth, and there shall be no one to frighten them away. (27) The LORD will strike you with the boils of Egypt, and with tumors and scabs and itch, of which you cannot be healed. (28) The LORD will strike you with madness and blindness and confusion of mind,

Deu 28:35-37 The LORD will strike you on the knees and on the legs with grievous boils of which you cannot be healed, from the sole of your foot to the crown of your head. (36) "The LORD will bring you and your king whom you set over you to a nation that neither you nor your fathers have known. And there you shall serve other gods of wood and stone. (37) And you shall become a horror, a proverb, and a byword among all the peoples where the LORD will lead you away.

Deu 28:48-50 therefore you shall serve your enemies whom the LORD will send against you, in hunger and thirst, in nakedness, and lacking everything. And he will put a yoke of iron on your neck until he has destroyed you. (49) The LORD will bring a nation against you from far away, from the end of the earth, swooping down like the eagle, a nation whose language you do not understand, (50) a hard-faced nation who shall not respect the old or show mercy to the young.

Deu 28:59-61 then the LORD will bring on you and your offspring extraordinary afflictions, afflictions severe and lasting, and sicknesses grievous and lasting. (60) And he will bring upon you again all the diseases of Egypt, of which you were afraid, and they shall cling to you. (61) Every sickness also and every affliction that is not recorded in the book of this law, the LORD will bring upon you, until you are destroyed.

Deu 28:63-65 And as the LORD took delight in doing you good and multiplying you, so the LORD will take delight in bringing ruin upon you and destroying you. And you shall be plucked off the land that you are entering to take possession of it. (64) "And the LORD will scatter you among all peoples, from one end of the earth to the other, and there you shall serve other gods of wood and stone, which neither you nor your fathers have known. (65) And among these nations you shall find no respite, and there shall be no resting place for the sole of your foot, but the LORD will give you there a trembling heart and failing eyes and a languishing soul.

Deu 28:68 And the LORD will bring you back in ships to Egypt, a journey that I promised that you should never make again; and there you shall offer yourselves for sale to your enemies as male and female slaves, but there will be no buyer."

If you are going to say that these are only warnings of what will happen, not claims of a God's will to harm these people, either you are insane, incapable of reading, or an outright liar, and you can take your pick as any of them show that you are enough of a disgusting creature to no longer be worth my time as ANY HUMAN BEING can see that God intended to horrifyingly hurt all of these people. This isn't even some special translation that I am using, but it's just the ESV, and other translations say the same thing, whether they are the KJV or JPS.

However, if you want to tell me that these tortures are loving parenting, I have no idea what you want to call good parenting, and I get every feeling that if you are serious, if you have a child, I would need to call CPS on you to protect said child. The abuses are obvious.


Did an all-powerful God need genocide to end certain practices? The mere suggestion as if genocide, an option that modern civilizations all reject and shun as outside the realms of what is reasonable or even acceptable, is the best option for a God with powers and wisdom beyond that which is available to any nation is just insane. Are you saying that God could not have revealed himself, confronted their minds to change this? Are you saying that God could not have only had some people killed and the rest inducted into Israeli society? I mean, you can present mere possibilities all day, but is this *reasonable* given everything I know about the world to think is sensible?

Even further, does this answer the hardening of Pharaoh's heart? The text clearly states at one of the points that God hardened Pharaoh's heart so that he might torment the Egyptian people further to show his glory. Does this answer the flood in Genesis? God clearly committed what is by some metrics the largest genocide ever if he did this, and if genocide is something so savage and immoral that we Western nations cannot accept it, how can we say that God is below that standard of competence and morality? It makes no sense, because if we petty earthlings can do without, why not an all-powerful, all-knowing God?

------
Also, I still had a g and h. You reaffirmed Adam, and Adam is really really not compatible as the father of mankind given the nature of evolutionary processes involving mankind. H then goes to show that in order for your faith to succeed, you have to either show that I am suppressing knowledge, or that your apologetics just blow my mojo out of the water, and either way is kind of insane. After all, nothing you've done is anything but an effort to blunt my arguments, and even then the effort to blunt isn't that strong.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 09 May 2011, 12:35 am, edited 1 time in total.