Hey I was reading vince’s post about God not existing and I wanted to make a post but didn’t know how so I did this instead.

Ok, first of all the points he made go here.

Now for my points and every single one that refers to me is 100% true if not more than that amount.

1st: I have devoted my entire life until now by living by the Bible as best I can. By this I mean that even if someone killed my brother then I would not try and kill them just make them feel what I felt without killing anyone. However I have got nothing back, not a single bit of love for what I have done from God. Therefore God is not following the commandment of loving thy neighbour. Also since apparently Jesus is God then Jesus is breaking nearly all the rules that he taught us.

2nd: God can’t have created everything because if he did then he is non-existent because he created everything but he couldn’t have created himself because he wasn’t in existence to create himself so he did not create everything he is not the one and only God like he apparently said he was because if something created him then that would make that thing an even more powerful god. Take that whoever said God created everything.

3rd: There is no real evidence that God does exist.

4th: If God made the commandment not to kill then he should not have brought killers into existence or at least make it so that you couldn’t delliberatly kill a person.

Take that Jesus and all you followers of God!

:~>

Have some cake and a tin foil hat

RATZO - 08 October 2008 12:11 PM

1st: I have devoted my entire life until now by living by the Bible as best I can. By this I mean that even if someone killed my brother then I would not try and kill them just make them feel what I felt without killing anyone. However I have got nothing back, not a single bit of love for what I have done from God. Therefore God is not following the commandment of loving thy neighbour. Also since apparently Jesus is God then Jesus is breaking nearly all the rules that he taught us.

Well, apparently you’re alive, you got enough education to read and write, you have access to technology. . .you consider all of that to be “nothing”?  And assuming that there is a God, what would you consider to be proof of his loving you?  Especially considering that the Bible says several times that the benefits of God’s love are shown after you have died?

Assumptions you made in this “proof”:
1.  You have truly lived your life in a manner that God would approve of.
2.  Nothing good has ever happened to you.
3.  You can somehow tell that nothing bad was kept from happening to you.
4.  There is a contract requiring God to reward you in some specific way during your life.
5.  Any commandments God gives apply equally to God.
6.  Being loved by somebody automatically means all will go well for you from your own viewpoint.

2nd: God can’t have created everything because if he did then he is non-existent because he created everything but he couldn’t have created himself because he wasn’t in existence to create himself so he did not create everything he is not the one and only God like he apparently said he was because if something created him then that would make that thing an even more powerful god. Take that whoever said God created everything.

That’s one of the oldest theological paradoxes around.  There are several millennia worth of replies to it, both pro- and anti-religious.  I’ll leave it to you to look for them.

3rd: There is no real evidence that God does exist.

There is no real evidence that God does not exist.

Until one or the other of those statements no longer applies, they’re both pretty much irrelevant as far as proving anything.

4th: If God made the commandment not to kill then he should not have brought killers into existence or at least make it so that you couldn’t delliberatly kill a person.

If the idea is to have people follow you of their own free will, then what’s the point of not letting them make their own choices?

Assumptions you made in this bit of your “proof”:
1.  You can accurately follow the thought process of a supposedly immaterial omnipotent omniscient ancient alien entity.
2.  God actually made an all-inclusive commandment about not killing anyone, and never intended for any killing.

Really, all of your points are very, very old ones that have been debated time and time again.  Go pick up some theology books or find some theology websites and you can read some of it yourself.  Whether you accept the conclusions the people make is up to you, of course, but each of your proofs has been addressed somewhere.

I would just like to point out that not all atheists are this ridiculously stupid or irritating. This seems like a case of a believer trying to discredit atheists by saying things they think we would say. (That was a convoluted sentence. Sorry.)

Especially that last phrase. Seriously?

Snowy - 08 October 2008 03:00 PM

I would just like to point out that not all atheists are this ridiculously stupid or irritating. This seems like a case of a believer trying to discredit atheists by saying things they think we would say. (That was a convoluted sentence. Sorry.)

Especially that last phrase. Seriously?

That’s certainly possible.  It can be impossible to tell sometimes, especially since there are so many people who really are atheists and who would write something like that.  Just as there are so many Christians (or Jews or Muslims or Zoroastrians or whatever) who would write something like that but from the opposite viewpoint.

And don’t worry, convoluted sentences of the nature of the sentence that you above referred to as convoluted, while indeed not being nonconvoluted and being a sentence and thus being correctly not misidentified as a convoluted sentence (since a convoluted sentence is, of course, a sentence that is convoluted; otherwise it would be a nonconvoluted sentence or a convoluted nonsentence and thus could only be not a convoluted sentence), are a common enough form of convolution on this Forum on which the occasional convoluted sentence (that is, a sentence that is convoluted in nature) occurs, especially when they are not lacking in their presence and when their absence is not occurring to any marked degree, whereupon the person who is not refraining from avoiding their prevention can accomplish much that isn’t not.

Accipiter - 08 October 2008 03:15 PM

And don’t worry, convoluted sentences of the nature of the sentence that you above referred to as convoluted, while indeed not being nonconvoluted and being a sentence and thus being correctly not misidentified as a convoluted sentence (since a convoluted sentence is, of course, a sentence that is convoluted; otherwise it would be a nonconvoluted sentence or a convoluted nonsentence and thus could only be not a convoluted sentence), are a common enough form of convolution on this Forum on which the occasional convoluted sentence (that is, a sentence that is convoluted in nature) occurs, especially when they are not lacking in their presence and when their absence is not occurring to any marked degree, whereupon the person who is not refraining from avoiding their prevention can accomplish much that isn’t not.

I’m really glad you cleared that up.

And just for the record, I’m agnostic.  And I have yet to see proof either way that compels me to believe one way over the other.  (Though I lean slightly more toward atheism just because of personal preference.)

Apathetic agnostic. I don’t know, and I don’t care.

But yes.. Stupid Levels are off the meter. Sounds to me like a generic troll.

Oh and someone said I was faking being an aetheist. I am an aetheist but the difference between me and you is that I am a more commited aetheist.

Call me a fanatic but this is the price of true commitment and freedom from moral bonds so go to your fake hell.

Um, who are you talking to here?  Pretty much everyone here is either nonreligious or nonargumentative about their religion.  You’re the loony who came in here looking for a fight.  A fight with, apparently, with no real argument* or target.  That’s why you’re being made fun of - you’re flame bait!

*As an example of your argumental failures, I would like to point out that you just proudly proclaimed being completely amoral.  What was your point again, exactly?  Or are you just arguing with the wind?

Also, please remember that spell-check is your friend.

Wackjob.  *clears throat*

I could use a lot of these same generic arguments to “prove” a number of point about anyone.

I’m really confused about the part where he’s acknowledging someone else as being an atheist, then condemning them to a false Hell for it.  It’s like running on a treadmill - lots of effort, but he’s not actually going anywhere.