That's right, the really smart people choose Cthulhu! Only a madman would want to watch all humanity being destroyed.
Do atheists indocrinate their children into their belief system?
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
Yes! Another believer! We must organize, I believe we should force all children to read the book of the dead, force them to understand their coming doom!
Here an article on the children's rendition of the holy book of the dead:
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/UnBooks:My_First_Necronomicon
Here an article on the children's rendition of the holy book of the dead:
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/UnBooks:My_First_Necronomicon
Ganymede
Valued Senior Member
Free to believe?
I accept nature, as evidence of God, and the fate of that creature is in accordance with nature. I hope that answers your question.
Now,I would like you to answer my questions.
Thanks in advance.
Jan.
The same reason as why the existence of spaghetti can't be considered as evidence for there being a flying spaghetti monster.
Frankly I find your question daft.
That would probably vary depending upon what god it is. What would you consider as evidence for the existence of the flying spaghetti monster? Whatever your answer is going to be is probably quite similar to what I would say - then again, maybe not judging from your earlier question. You must believe in all kinds of shit. Well Loch Ness exists, the Loch Ness monster must therefore also exist! Pfft.
SnakeLord,
What reason is that?
You have no choice but to, such is the nature of your dogma.
Let's stick with the God, the god of all scriptures.
I'll not bother with the rest of your rant, if you don't mind, as we both know it is just a diversion tactic.
Jan.
What reason is that?
You have no choice but to, such is the nature of your dogma.
Let's stick with the God, the god of all scriptures.
I'll not bother with the rest of your rant, if you don't mind, as we both know it is just a diversion tactic.
Jan.
Do you think there really is such a thing as "the god of all scriptures"?
I think this is something you'll learn about in a more appropriate setting.. like school for example.
:bugeye: You're being silly. Apparently, given your statements, you do regard spaghetti as evidence for the existence of the flying spaghetti monster. Frankly there's nothing left to say.
Sorry, which one is that? The god of all scriptures? They're all different lol.
Actually not at all. You avoiding it is an example of a diversion tactic. Tell me Jan, what would you consider evidence for the existence of the flying spaghetti monster? Hmmm?
It is a maggot infested brain. Please stop quoting it.
SnakeLord,
I take it you don't have a reason then?
If you want to avoid answering my questions to you, just say so.
In what way?
Outside of ,explicit, atheist diversionary tactics, I don't know what a FSM is, nor have I heard of it, or read of it.
Jan.
I take it you don't have a reason then?
If you want to avoid answering my questions to you, just say so.
In what way?
Outside of ,explicit, atheist diversionary tactics, I don't know what a FSM is, nor have I heard of it, or read of it.
Jan.
If you can't grasp it then there's little worth saying on a forum post. Once again I can only suggest you find a more appropriate place. Basically you are telling me that the existence of spaghetti is evidence for the existence of the flying spaghetti monster. What in your mind thinks that's valid?
That depends on the gods in question.
Not an answer to the question. Something existing or not is not dependant upon you having read about it. Once again: What would you consider evidence for the existence of the flying spaghetti monster?
Jan Ardena,
I recommend you read the book:
http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Problem-...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206892315&sr=1-1
Its by a former minister and theologian who lost his faith after years of trying in vain to answer the question of why god allows suffering.
I recommend you read the book:
http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Problem-...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206892315&sr=1-1
Its by a former minister and theologian who lost his faith after years of trying in vain to answer the question of why god allows suffering.
no not at all, your evidence for design is things like.
Ebola virus: hemorrhagic fever.
Sars: severe acute respirtory syndrome.
Aids: acquired immunodeficiency syndrome
Cancer: malignant neoplasm.
Malaria: plasmodium falciparum.
Parasites and protozoans: like the cestoda: tapeworm that can grow up to six metres, within the human body, or trematode: flatworms(flukes)
A being who sustains itself only by killing, sometimes in extremely cruel ways to completely harmless sentient beings is an imperfection that calls for a explanation.
A world free of such evil, one that does not involve having the kinds of beings that are obliged to kill for survival, this is the sort of world a loving creator would create.
don't you think.
see above answer.Jan Ardena said:
No doubt that with enough imagination and willingness to fill in the blanks, one can reconcile any two scriptures that claim to speak about God, however different they might be - even if one describes God as a wrathful and revengeful creator, and another as a passive bystander.
But IMO, this speaks more of such an interpreter's willingness to reconcile these scriptures than it does of their common origin or their common meaning and intent.
Theistic scriptures strike me as too versatile to be all about the same God.
If all scriptures that claim to speak about God are to be taken into consideration, then, given their versatility, what is the use in them? "Anything goes" does not strike me as a correct attitude toward understanding God. One might as well do nothing.
Some people suggest that one must weed out what does not belong, figure out which scriptures or passages thereof truly speak about God, and which do not.
But I would not assume myself competent to judge which scriptures or which passages truly speak about God, and which do not.
Better to err on the side of caution.
SnakeLord,
That is a cop-out, you know it, and I know it.
You have no reason for your dogmatic attitutude other than and emotional dislike to God or the concept of God. Period.
Don't you get bored of spouting this tired old diversion? I know I would.
*yawn*
A world where everything has the characteristics of to some degree or other of the said spagetti monster?
How's that?
Jan.
That is a cop-out, you know it, and I know it.
You have no reason for your dogmatic attitutude other than and emotional dislike to God or the concept of God. Period.
Don't you get bored of spouting this tired old diversion? I know I would.
*yawn*
A world where everything has the characteristics of to some degree or other of the said spagetti monster?
How's that?
Jan.
greenberg,
Imagination and willingness, are two very important factors for human beings.
Why would you think that God has only I type of character?
Then state what you actually think, and let's see if there is any difference between your method and "such an interpreter".
What do you mean?
All the scriptures speak about God, not claim to.
And what do you mean by versatility?
Do you agree that all scriptures say God is the cause of everything? If you do, then what do you mean by versatile?
Some people do, some people don't. Some people like chips, but don't like mash, and vice versa. What do you think? That is what intersests me in this conversation.
You create a problem, then you judge your position by what you create. Doesn't that strike you as odd? Are you pretending to be humble?.
You mean sit on the fence?
Jan.
Imagination and willingness, are two very important factors for human beings.
Why would you think that God has only I type of character?
Then state what you actually think, and let's see if there is any difference between your method and "such an interpreter".
What do you mean?
All the scriptures speak about God, not claim to.
And what do you mean by versatility?
Do you agree that all scriptures say God is the cause of everything? If you do, then what do you mean by versatile?
Some people do, some people don't. Some people like chips, but don't like mash, and vice versa. What do you think? That is what intersests me in this conversation.
You create a problem, then you judge your position by what you create. Doesn't that strike you as odd? Are you pretending to be humble?.
You mean sit on the fence?
Jan.