theists answer every question with "God did", etc....you never object to notions like those?
It depends, but not really. If you weren't intending to end a conversation with "god did it" you wouldn't be a theist and hence we wouldn't be discussing religious issues here and now. I myself will use the bible and the 'god did this' stance when debating with theists
because it's what they understand and how they view the world. This in turn is what leads to the problems because after some poking they begin to realise that they don't know the first thing about their own god. I find some debates challenging - god/religion is not one of them.
So I guess that must mean you're ok with atheists stereotyping theists....but not ok with theists stereotyping atheists..right?
Without sounding rude but I don't really care who does what. We live once, I generally don't have the time to care about such triviality. You can say whatever you want to say but I will point it out when you make an inaccurate statement.
Lots of different religious texts...........
Such as?
It would be good if you actually quoted the source (you know the Book, Chapter, etc...), I don't know whether you've taken it out of context or not, or if you're just making shit up...all of your above quotes are very vague
And you dare accuse me of not reading religious scripture...
Gen 11:5, Exod 34:5, Numb 11:25, Numb 12:5, John 6:51 etc
Also you ignore all other parts of the Bible which clearly say God is not someguy in the sky, like these:
"Hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto: whom no man hath seen, nor can see" (1 Timothy 6:16).
Nothing in that sentence implies that this god is not a guy in the sky. He dwells in the light, (the sun perhaps which.. well is in the "sky" so to speak). Given that he's in the sun it's quite obvious that no man can see him, (when you look at the sun you go blind)..
The question here is.. are they talking about the sun itself? No man can approach or look at it.. Sounds very much like the sun to me.
Ok, you're bound to argue against that but I would ask that for just a moment you give it some thought.. What if you've based all your life, all that energy, all your focus on nothing more than a big ball of fire? It seems so pointless.
"One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all" (Eph 4.6)
It goes on to say.. 'When it says
'he went up', it must mean that he had
gone down to the deepest levels of the earth..'
Further to which, I didn't "ignore" anything, I used intelligence to come to an answer out of contradiction.
If this god is everywhere then he cannot move. In saying, he can't go up or down. He loses his omnipresence on the very basis that he can go up and down - and, because he consistently comes down on a cloud, it stands to reason that this non-omnipresent being lives up in the sky.
Its funny, atheists like you seem to ignore anyting contrary to their "God is some guy in the sky idea", almost as if just to preserve and uphold their atheistic faith....
1) I didn't "ignore" anything.
2) Whether there's a god in the sky, under the bed, down the toilet or everywhere is utterly irrelevant to "upholding atheistic belief". If anything, the sky man idea has come from the religious themselves.. They often use the terms "our father up in heaven", (which implies that he lives up in the sky), "jesus came down from heaven", "jesus ascended to heaven" etc etc etc.. They all imply that god dwells up in the sky. Even when religious people are praying they tend to look skyward. Hell, in your very next statement you even tell me he lives in the sky:
the Father who is in heaven...
See? The evidence to suggest that "heaven" is in the sky: Not only did jesus ascend, (go up), to heaven, not only does the new jerusalem come down from heaven, but also dozens if not hundreds of other statements that show 'heaven' is up in the sky, or indeed is the sky, without room for disagreement. In Revelations: 'but fire rained
down on them from heaven', 'then I saw an angel coming
down from heaven', etc etc etc.
Well its very simple, you see the flying banana argument was created soley for the purpose of ridiculing a faithful theist.
Inaccurate. That's like saying the christian god was created just to piss off the jews, (the christians take the jews god for their own, and that god of the jews ends up being killed by the jews).
You cannot substantiate the claim in either case. It is entirely plausible, (given the nature of the discussion), that the flying banana zapped some mystical telepathic something or other into my brain and forced me to mention him.
The
only way you can substantiate your claim is if you're omniscient. In the meantime you just need to have faith - that's all the flying banana demands. Believe it for no good reason.. well, to give you a good reason: believe it because if you don't you'll burn for eternity.
Prove it. They might not want to do it while you're watching, but they can. In either case, this is an omnipotent banana... It can do whatever the hell it wants.
and the flying banana has never been described as being within you
What kind of an argument is that? That something needs to have been written about by ancient shepherds to be true? Further to which, the banana has no desire to be "within you".. Why would it want to be stuck up 6 billion bumholes simultaneously? (and that's just the humans.. it doesn't take animals into account).
