Christianity

[attofishpi]

Check out this snippet, and pay especially attention to the three premises highlighted in blue that precede the conclusion:

Where did those assumptions come from? Idiocy surely that one would attribute all loving with an entity that has warned of hell.

Prey do tell where in the buy_bull God is declared as ALL loving.

In Christianity, the Bible teaches that "God is love" (1 John 4:8) and that God's love for humanity is demonstrated through the sacrifice of his son, Jesus Christ (John 3:16). The Bible also teaches that God's love is unconditional and that nothing can separate us from his love (Romans 8:38-39).

It ain't unconditional love though is it BigMike?

..and it is not rendering God as ALL loving...one would be rather a short of sight theist to believe it so, expecially based on OT accounts.. duh.

[BigMike]

Where did those assumptions come from? Idiocy surely that one would attribute all loving with an entity that has warned of hell.

Prey do tell where in the buy_bull God is declared as ALL loving.

In Christianity, the Bible teaches that "God is love" (1 John 4:8) and that God's love for humanity is demonstrated through the sacrifice of his son, Jesus Christ (John 3:16). The Bible also teaches that God's love is unconditional and that nothing can separate us from his love (Romans 8:38-39).

It ain't unconditional love though is it BigMike?

..and it is not rendering God as ALL loving...one would be rather a short of sight theist to believe it so, expecially based on OT accounts.. duh.

It seems like you might have overlooked the fact that I'm a very firm atheist, like really, really firm. I was just mentioning some of the reasons why I don't believe in the existence of any gods. Please don't ask me to justify any of the stuff in the Bible - I find it all pretty nonsensical.

[attofishpi]

In Christianity, the Bible teaches that "God is love" (1 John 4:8) and that God's love for humanity is demonstrated through the sacrifice of his son, Jesus Christ (John 3:16). The Bible also teaches that God's love is unconditional and that nothing can separate us from his love (Romans 8:38-39).

It ain't unconditional love though is it BigMike?

..and it is not rendering God as ALL loving...one would be rather a short of sight theist to believe it so, expecially based on OT accounts.. duh.

It seems like you might have overlooked the fact that I'm a very firm atheist, like really, really firm.

No, I didn't overlook it. And that firmness renders you the type of person that becomes irrational when confronted with alternate considerations. (not willing to consider, stubbornly biased).

I was just mentioning some of the reasons why I don't believe in the existence of any gods. Please don't ask me to justify any of the stuff in the Bible - I find it all pretty nonsensical.

You state things that I see as assumptions (pertaining to Christianity) - that is ok for the standard muppet evangelists that believe all their ""Christian"" friends with their bigotry etc...but when it comes to asking them, and theists that preach their bollocks to provide actual scripture to support their claims...it usually surprises these theists, and atheists get upset too...generally, there is not a leg to stand on.

Reality is a convoluted apparition of the truth.

Reality is nonsensical once you have gnosis.

Getting back to that tree.

BARK up the Tree of KNOW_LEDGE SAP (fool) LEAVE (as the leaves do) ....ya TWIG BIgMike?

If a man's best friend is a DOG - GOD is man's worst enemy.



A man's best friend?

We're all stuck
in a bitches trip
too scared to step
in case we slip
who is the reaper
that reaps our souls
grandfather time
with worn out soles
look on the bright side
it's suicide
test me test it
take the trip
you hypocrite
you want to know
so have a go
analyse your mind
as it tests you
two and fro
see a therapist
the_rapist
of your mind
knowing little
and far more blind
as you know more
the six hundred
three score
and six more
you ate from the tree
did cock your leg and pee
took the piss out of
our God
knowing a man's best friend
is a doG
so here now
here is the key
who is a sinner's
worst enemy?

www.androcies.com

[BigMike]

Well, that's certainly a unique perspective on things! It seems like you've got a real beef with God and dogs, huh? As for me, I prefer to focus on the positive things in life, like enjoying a good bark with my furry friends in the park. Who knows, maybe you just need a little more puppy love in your life!

[attofishpi]

Woof!

[Alexis Jacobi]

In Hinduism, the Bhagavad Gita teaches that God is all-loving and that he is present in all beings. Hindus believe that God's love is the source of all creation and that he is constantly working for the benefit of all living beings.

The story or ‘picture’ presented through the Bhagavad Gita and Vishnu-lore is tremendously more complex than your summary. Additionally, the ‘religion of Krishna’ is a refinement of thousands of years of prior conceptions.

It is true that the ‘Atman’ concept is part-and-parcel of the Vedic religions though.

However, the story as to how we ended up in a semi-chaotic semi-perfected world is similar in some sense to that of The Fall. Personally, I’ve determined that both stories are related though the Vedic one is much more ‘philosophically’ expressed. But no less fantastic.

All attempts to explain Existence can only fall into bizarre speculations where the imagination takes over the process. This I think is true even with our own Creation Story of a Big Bang.

It explains little and yet dominates the explanation sphere totally.

It seems to reduce to ‘something unbelievable and absolutely strange happened’ ….

…. and then All This.

[Alexis Jacobi]

What draws my attention are ‘explanatory systems’ — the hermeneutics of all explanation systems.

An explanatory system, to operate well and fully, must present itself as absolute and ultimate. If an ES es not ultimate it presupposes another that could be presented that would have more ‘explanatory authority’.

So Big Mike, if the world and all existence did not appear when the Cosmic Rat nibbled the Primal Seed, then how the heck did all of this come to be?

Our own science-perspective presents us with an apparent explanation which actually has no explanatory power.

So can No-Explanation function as Explanation?

[Immanuel Can]

I can't help thinking that this sort of thing is directly at odds with what a Christian attitude is supposed to be. This is confrontational, and, seemingly, intentionally offensive.

Not at all.

What a Christian is supposed to do, is to treat people with respect, but to prefer truth over lies. This is exactly what one should do: be kind to Atheists, since they are people made in the image of God, and utterly ruthless in freeing them from the fatal delusions Atheism.

As Christians see it, there is no "loving" or "kind" response that allows another person, who is valuable, to swallow lies that are toxic to them.

Without a relationship to God, people are lost. But Atheism teaches that there is no hope for people, and counsels them to give up on knowing God.

Thus, a Christian's true responsibility is clear: kindness to the person, and vigorous, uncompromising opposition of the lie.

[Immanuel Can]

...the statement that "atheism is certainly amoral" is actually not entirely accurate. While atheism itself is simply the lack of belief in a deity or deities, it doesn't necessarily mean that atheists are inherently amoral or lack a moral compass.

Check the statement. I didn't say, or imply, a single thing about "Atheists" there. My indictment was reserved for Atheism.

But it's true. If you think otherwise, it can clearly be demonstrated. All you have to do is fill out the following possible argument:

P1: There is no God. (The basic claim of Atheism)
P2:____________________________________ (some second rational premise)
C: Therefore, [insert moral imperative here, such as "Nobody should murder," or "It's wrong to lie," or whatever you choose.]

But you can't do it. There is absolutely nothing one can logical justify that bridges from P1 to any moral conclusion. And you know who pointed this out first? David Hume, the Atheist.

So I'm just plain right about that.

In fact, many atheists...

There it is!

Shift in terms. I said "Atheism," you said "Atheists." I talked about the false ideology, and you converted it (accidentally, I hope) to an indictment of the morality of the people involved.

Not legit. Sneaky, if you meant to do it. But the fault is evident, either way. And I already covered it. For I pointed out that many Atheists are perfectly nice folks who are simply irrationally committed to the irrational doctrine of Atheism and don't even try to derive their morals from it. (In fact, they can't, because Atheism has no moral implications of its own, as Atheists never fail to note.)

Atheism is amoral. That's the claim. Not Atheists, Atheism. As for Atheists, some are moral, some maybe not...I can't say how they personally behave. But I can say for sure that no moral or good feature of their conduct is derived from Atheism; and Atheists often say the same, because they argue Atheism has no moral implications, too.

[Immanuel Can]

An 'atheist' can live as well and possibly much better than a victim of bad-thinking and bad-perceiving Christian projection.

I refer you to my message to Big Mike, above.

You've made the same error he made, and it needs the same correction.

[Immanuel Can]

Never said.

Yes, you have. The instance I noted before is no longer coming up in the Search (perhaps you found it ). In it you said: Atheists are not immoral; Atheists are amoral. Sound like you?

Nope. I always say, "Atheism is amoral." And I say it again, now. About Atheists, I say that often they are inconsistent with the amorality of their creed. But I do not accuse them of being amoral, unless they take their Atheism to heart.

Refer to my message to Harbal or to Big Mike, for the correct answer.

[Immanuel Can]

However, for Atheism, there isn't even the potential of evidence. So that puts Theism quite a step ahead of Atheism.

So what's the evidence for theism...

It's so widely available, I can't imagine you've even raised the question. But you have a computer, so I'll let you find out. I have already listed dozens of types of such arguments myself, have even argued many of them at length, and I'm weary of going over them for people who are so behind the argument they don't even know that they exist.

I'll leave you to do your research. I'm certain you can easily find out.

[Immanuel Can]

All the versions of [the argument for the problem of evil] I've found don't make a lot of sense.

My condolences on the atrophying of your powers of comprehension.

Oh, I understand what they say: but it's the arguments that make no sense. I find it quite amazing people can make them...but they do.

So do you know a better argument?

No. That's the best I know of.

Wow.

[BigMike]

In the words of George W. Bush: "That was some weird shit."

[Immanuel Can]

The argument here is that the concept of a deity is logically inconsistent or contradictory, and therefore cannot exist. It's a type of proof called "reductio ad absurdum." One common example of this is the problem of evil. If a deity is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving, why would there be evil and suffering in the world? If the deity is all-powerful, it would have the ability to stop evil; if it is all-knowing, it would be aware of the evil; and if it is all-loving, it would want to stop the evil. Yet, evil and suffering still exist. This is a logical inconsistency in the concept of a deity.

Yeah, this is an old and lame one. It requires us to think that if we have to ask "why would there be evil and suffering in the world," and don't know the answer, then there can't be one. It's like people expect to drink the Pacific Ocean or to span the stars, or else they're going to deny the possibility of oceans and universes.

An omniscient God is going to know the reason for all that happens. An all-loving one is only going to allow suffering if there is sufficient reason for Him to do so, and an all-powerful one is going to be able to manage all the involved variables perfectly. So you can be sure that IF there's a God, He's got good reasons...and also that you, not being omniscient, are going to fall considerably short of knowing them, unless He tells you some of them. Even He will not be able to tell you them all -- not because of His limitations, but because of ours. You can't get the ocean into a teaspoon.

So even on its own terms, the above objection fails. It assumes that it understands what omniscience, omnipotence and goodness "should" do, and understands it from the limited, fallible, perspectival, small viewpoint of a mere human being...or else there can be no answer.

Not buying it. I don't think you should, either.