GOD IS DEAD

You know you're losing the debate badly if all you can do is shout invectives. You're responses to Stile have bordered on "la-la-la-la" and putting your fingers in your ears.Questioning someone's reading comprehension and mental health as an argument against their statements is really quite bad form. Grow up, agobot, grow up.

Logically, God isn't made up untill further notice, anymore than he isn't made-up untill further notice.I can't ignore logic itself, which teaches me that the IPU is known to be false, whereas God is not known to be false.There's just no getting around the fact that any reasonable person can see that the IPU is an invention for arguments' sake, which immediately REEKS of loaded spin.I have shown the errors.1. Composition. (They are not equivalent despite your protests)
2. It is vacuously true, ONLY.At this stage it is best to agree to disagree. By all means have the final word, put all of your persuasive skills into it, but essentially, you are unable to change the facts for the convenience of atheism.

Mike, yes the IPU is made up, but part of the point of making up the IPU is to point out the absurdity of believing in things that we can't detect. One of those thing(s) is/are god(s). If you don't like the IPU, then how about any of the thousand plus others gods that aren't your god. Are all the gods made up except yours or are all gods just made up?Edited by kjsimons, : No reason given.

Unless, of course, minority or "defeated" rights are protected. As to having to conform to orders, shouldn't the finns have given up against Russia (twice!)? Certainly weaker than the mighty bear. Oh, they won. Or shouldn't have France just simply complied with Hitler. You know, completely scrap the resistance? After all, it really wasn't until 1943 that Germany was seen as the weaker party. But then, its almost never who's stronger who wins.Your description may have had relevance a while ago but hopefully not any longer. (By the way, I'm not sure I'd use Kosovo and South Ossetia as examples here, largely because they are multiple party examples that don't conform neatly to your "strong man always wins" argument).Your match is ridiculous.

Hi. But we don't believe in things we can detect. Are you promoting the fact that any religious or spiritual endeavour is silly? That would be arrogant. Neither. I fail to see the dichotomy.I see it like this, (would you believe it :rolleyes;All god are unproven objectively, including mine.Handwaving them all away as equally irrelevant is not logical, as they are, as I have proven, not equal, by any means. But also - one might be true.Here's a third possibility. God forbid we observe it. One of them might be true, and reveal a historically significant difference/s to the others. Now guess who that is? Bible-God! No doubt about it! If the whole bible is observed, there is simply nothing else like it.

Wait, you mean god is the son of an unwed woman? Oh this is interesting indeed. If God is a bastard, and if god is Christ, and is god is the father of god, that means this: Christ is an illegitimate son of an illegitimate son which raises the question over who's god's parents are? Did christians know they are following a bastard child? Just shows you the hypocrisy of christianity--preach against out-of-wedlock childbirths but praise their bastard savior. Hm.Oh, forgot this. You're dumb, agobot. Since you're calling at least one person this I figured its only fair to insult you as well.

I wouldn't go so far as to call all spiritual endeavours silly, but religion is an invention of man, to think otherwise is silly. It's not arrogant to be able to discern that fact. Please point out the error in my logic then. Where have you ever proven anything on this board?Your bible portrays an evil god in my opinion. It says right in there that he's a jealous god, he orders the deaths of thousands of innocent people, and don't even get me get started on what he did to poor Job and his family. Your god doesn't deserve to be worshipped!

Does that mean that ~80% of humans are simply afraid of Pascal's wager and the other ~20% aren't?

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

What does this mean? What's the point? That we shouldn't conform to God without a fight? If so, I am in, I don't like what God does to this world, although i have no idea how you think we should be fighting God. With missiles and subs?Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Well, for someone who has blamed others for reading comprehension problems, you're not quite up to speed, are you?I was lambasting the idea that the stronger party wins and forces its interests over the defeated. And that the stronger party always wins.

If morals are relative, then your opinion of the bible, is itself, just an individual's self-righteous morals.If there is no God, why is it wrong to say that Geoffrey Dahmer's morals were in any way wrong?Jack the Ripper believes he did right. Who are you to deny it was right, when universally there is no right or wrong? I demand you apologise to Jack immediately, for being politically incorrect, and arrogantly assuming that only your morals are the correct ones.Sacrifice a bull to Jack the Ripper, and he will consider you forgiven.-- Your opinions of my God are not new, nor do they mean anything to me. You are not holy, or perfect. I only listen to the one who is without sin, for only the one who has no sin, is able to preach what is righteous. --

If i had to draw a picture of you, Rahvin and Stile, just by the content of your last posts here on EvC, you'd be 3 boys running down the street, holding a slogan "WE DON"T NEED GOD" and shouting around - "Listen to us fools, God is not important, we are the greatest thing since sliced bread and we have evidence". This statement started the whole argument. What is a higher goal for someone will not be for others. But out of the 3 posts of the creationists that took part in the discussion, all of them claimed that God is higher than anything else they can imagine. That's all i was interested in. You don't have to come in and explain what should be higher to someone when none of that affects you in any way. Reading comprehension should have told you by now a few hundred times, that I wasn't interested in guys answers, who think God is an unnecessary deity. Clearly my questions were directed to devoted believers, not atheists.

That's what i understood as well. But you failed to answer - you being the weaker party, how would you win against God?

There is one more slogan - the pinnacle of human wisdom - "What God thinks is not important!"

Why should any devoted theist care what 3 atheists( you, kuresu and Stile) think about what's subjective and objective? You think God and faith should be objective? Where do you get this? Of the few replies from theists in this topic none answered that peace is a higher purpose to them than God, so why should they care about your point of view about what's subjective or not?