Absurdities Of Religion

Dear dreykop;

I'm saying the source text didn't have contradictions, which is the only definitive way to cite contradictions.

Yours truly;
orntlekh CheskiChips.

I don't have the time or resources for that & I'm not taking your word for it.
Contradictions are only part of the problem.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough with my satire. If there is an omnipotent god who wants me to know it exists, it's not my responsibility. It's the god who should inform me. If it wants me to know what was originally written in the Holy Babble, it should inform me. Otherwise it doesn't want me to know.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
*************
M*W: I agree. If there was a god, and the Jewish people were the chosen, then one would think that we'd all be speaking Hebrew. Wouldn't he/she/it?

The fact that I want to know as much as possible about religion, you'd think a god would have had me speaking Hebrew.

Fact is, I took Hebrew lessons for a time when I lived in Germany. I just want to be able to read the original and the truth. I have a question, though, even if I learned the Hebrew language, how could this prove it was actually the truth?

I really know the god of the Holy Babble cannot exist because it's too contradictory.
I really know that if an omnipotent god exists & wants me to know, it's not up to me to find out.
I really know I couldn't be happy for eternity if others are suffering.
I really know making or letting someone suffer for eternity is as sicko sadistic as can be.
I really know the Holy Babble is the worst moral authority I can imagine.
I really know that if we require a cause for the universe, we must require a cause for that also.
I really know requiring worship is very immature.
========
 
I don't have the time or resources for that & I'm not taking your word for it.
Contradictions are only part of the problem.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough with my satire. If there is an omnipotent god who wants me to know it exists, it's not my responsibility. It's the god who should inform me. If it wants me to know what was originally written in the Holy Babble, it should inform me. Otherwise it doesn't want me to know.
So everyone who wishes you would 'get' something - I mean people who wish this - assume it is only their responsibility to get you to 'get' it? And they always use ALL their skills to get you to get these things?

There could be no possible reason for them not meeting you THE WHOLE way.
 
So everyone who wishes you would 'get' something - I mean people who wish this - assume it is only their responsibility to get you to 'get' it? And they always use ALL their skills to get you to get these things?

There could be no possible reason for them not meeting you THE WHOLE way.

Is this a joke?
 
There could be no possible reason for them not meeting you THE WHOLE way.

Them who?

I thought the point was quite clear. If God wanted to tell us something, he'd tell us, and not rely on distorted hand me down fables.

Which God would that be anyway, the God of the OT, or the different God that JC describes, 'cos they certainly are not the same.
 
Because he knows how a God would act if one existed. Though he does not believe one does, he thinks he knows what is possible were one to be.

It really is quite a claim. I would put it right up there with any theist claim.

A theist claims what is.
And he is claiming to know what a God would have to be like if one existed.
 
So you know how a God would act if there was one. Interesting.

Ah, are you on some 'God works in mysterious ways' cop out?

God allegedly made man in his own image. I'm a man. If I want someone to know something, I tell them. Ergo, it's reasonable to assume God should tell people also.

How does that fly, pilgrim?

Now, you try and explain why, if God wanted someone to know something, he wouldn't tell them!
 
Ah, are you on some 'God works in mysterious ways' cop out?
No. I am pointing out that you are making a strong claim that God would act in certain ways.

God allegedly made man in his own image. I'm a man. If I want someone to know something, I tell them. Ergo, it's reasonable to assume God should tell people also.
I will put forward at least one example where humans do not use all their power to 'get a message across to someone'. I will not be doing this as an explanation for what God is doing. I use the example to point out that your proof is weak.

Earlier Stranger mentioned that God was omnipotent. Iow, he could get that information inside us regardless of any resistence or stupidity on our parts due to God's omnipotence.

In the context of the argument, which you took up, this assumes that God will always use all of his power to 'get information into people's minds (or hearts'.

I see examples around me where people do not do this. Sometimes they wait for others to arrive at conclusions after, for example, one stab at explaining to them. Sometimes they want the others to learn for themselves and feel miffed they can't get the obvious - I notice this pattern in marriages quite a lot. In teaching situations sometimes teachers present problem contexts or written out problems and do not explain how to get to the solution or even how to go about getting all the necessary information - this is very common in PBL, problem based learning.

I also know that I personally do not use all of my power and skills in all situations where I want other people would 'get' something.

Hence I see enough situations with humans, to be NOT SO SURE that God might have motivations or other wishes that mean that God does not use all of his omnipotence in all situations in relation to all specifics.

Notice very carefully what he said here:
Maybe I wasn't clear enough with my satire. If there is an omnipotent god who wants me to know it exists, it's not my responsibility. It's the god who should inform me. If it wants me to know what was originally written in the Holy Babble, it should inform me. Otherwise it doesn't want me to know.
(my emphasis) You are joining a line where he is making this case. This reminds me of many mundane situations where people believe it is someone else's responsibility to, as I said above in response to him, meet them the Whole way, rather than half way. I think many people refuse to do this. They often see the other person, in a wide variety of contexts, as being resistant and showing no willingness to go go half way. In these contexts people often do not use all of their power and skills to convince or explain to the other person. Even though they wish the other person could get it. (this is one possible analogy that opens the door to God not necessarily acting in the way you think God must. I actually believe there are other reasons involved, but they do not fit with a Christian context at all, me not being Christian.)

You seem sure that God must use all of his power in every situation. This is a strong claim to authority on your part. (Are you going to retract, by the way, your claims to authority over the meaning of the word 'atheist'? or, at least, admit that some of your claims about the history of the word's use were made up?)
 
Last edited:
Stranger : It rained in Pittsburgh this morning.
Simon : Can you show any evidence it snowed in Houston last night?

If you really cannot understand what I said to you try reading my response to Phlogiston above. I made no argument like this.
You are both claiming that God must act in certain ways if God exists, despite examples around you where people do not use all their power to explain things to other people. As one possible problem with your proof.
 
That doesn't seem very reasonable.

What if God really gets off on watching us struggle?
Sure, an OT God could certainly have that attitude. Not sure how many Christians and Jews are willing to take that line, but to me the OT would leave open that possibility.
 
*************
M*W: I agree. If there was a god, and the Jewish people were the chosen, then one would think that we'd all be speaking Hebrew. Wouldn't he/she/it?

The fact that I want to know as much as possible about religion, you'd think a god would have had me speaking Hebrew.

Fact is, I took Hebrew lessons for a time when I lived in Germany. I just want to be able to read the original and the truth. I have a question, though, even if I learned the Hebrew language, how could this prove it was actually the truth?

Truth is in the conception. A christian believes that everything came into being in six days, which is utter nonsense but to God a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like a day. Don't get hung up on the number to God a thousand years is like 15 minutes and a day, 10,000 years, he isn't bound by time. There's many things about christianity that are utterly ridiculous but don't forget it was written by man, God's stupidest creation. The greatest stupidity is that a loving God would condemn a whole world for eating an apple. There's not enough room to explain it all to you and I would encounter a whole birrage of criticism and attack. God's name is not Jehovah, yehweh, Allah, Poobah or anything else that this society has come up with and the Chist's name was not Jesus and his last name certainly isn't Christ which is why the christian god is a useless god, the Islamic god is an evil god, and no other god even warrants commenting on.
 
OK, Simon, so you were using a cop out argument.
That was lazy. And certainly not using all your powers and skills to convince me of some truth. Another mundane example.
1) I pointed out non-mysterious alternative explantions. I pointed out situations where people do not 'tell'. In fact it is getting vastly more popular as a pedogogical method not to tell, but rather to place children, and adults at university level, in situations where they must find answers themselves.
2) You are making the claim that God, if there was one, would act like you. Back that one up.

I notice that you make claims
1) atheism is a word that meant people who lack a belief in God but then recently the fundies changed the meaning
2) if there was a God this is how he would act.

as if you are an authority on these things. What you think is obvious does not need backing up, even if, in the former case, relevent authorities disagree with your view of things: Dictionaries, etymologists, etc.

Now you want to say exactly how God must act if God exists.

I do not accept you as an authority and I find your laziness and lack of candor about your own mistakes make discussing things with you worthless. And if you come up with excuses for what I am calling your laziness, notice how they back up my claim that your assumptions about God's necessary process are NOT backed up by human behavior, even yours.

You are on ignore.
 
Last edited:
On ignore because you have to bury your head in the sand, Simon.

You are vague when you want to be, and pedantic when it suits you.

Prove your pro position, or resign the debate. The ball is in your court.
 
Back
Top