Last edited:
One for the theists..
- Thread starter SnakeLord
- Start date
I doubt you'll get any coherent answers from theists on this one, or any other similar questions in which the "goalposts" of their cults tenets have been moved. It simply does not follow with their childhood indoctrinations, hence it is completely foreign ground for them to cover.
Many of the posts here already made by theists have demonstrated that.
Best to err on the side of caution There is no fine line between right and wrong, a few hundred years from now people may look at some post here and say 'i cant believe people believed that stuff' and there is a 50-50 chance of which posts they will be. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoraptor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoraptor
Last edited:
I can't answer any more religious questions. I get infracted/warned just about every time.
PM me if you want my answer.And perhaps others should not try to start sh!t and get me in trouble for responding. They know the game...
if I wasn't I'd only be eight years old. (sits waiting for all the snide remarks, lol)Were you around for the Piltdown Chicken?
assuming that the tentative arguments that rests on a dawkinian foundation are not tentative ......
:shrug:
orleander already did in the 2nd post
Eh?
Needless to say the question was not targetted at atheists, (it's why the thread title is: "one for the theists". Check out the last word.
But how does an atheist saying he'd believe in an entity if it made an announcement, (which was not the point of the question), give any indication that the question is loaded? Perhaps we have a different understanding of what a 'loaded question' is so please explain in your own words. Thanks.
"The question is loaded because........."
Needless to say the question was not targetted at atheists, (it's why the thread title is: "one for the theists". Check out the last word.
But how does an atheist saying he'd believe in an entity if it made an announcement, (which was not the point of the question), give any indication that the question is loaded? Perhaps we have a different understanding of what a 'loaded question' is so please explain in your own words. Thanks.
"The question is loaded because........."
(it is just like your other thread)
would you marry the most intelligent and beautiful woman in the world even if she was actually dumb and ugly?
:scratchin:
That makes no goddamn sense LG. In the other thread it's "would you still worship god if there was no heaven. This is not a question of contradictions or a paradox (beautiful and ugly).
God can still be present, benificent and super good, but there's no reward. No afterlife. No reason other than is it still the right thing to do?
once again, heaven exists for much grander reasons than just to facilitate our enjoyment
working with a corrupted definition of a beautiful woman is just as plausible as working with a corrupted definition of god
:shrug:
What corrupted definition is that then? The only definition that could come into question here, and perhaps it is my mistake, is in thinking god has the ability and the power to stop people from going to heaven or hell and to indeed do away with those places, (for human inhabitance), if he felt like it.
It seems therefore that you are espousing god has no such ability. "But.. if god did away with hell where would he live?" Lol, you gotta do better than that.
so you would prefer to sacrifice one corrupted definition for another?
if you did away with hell, it would raise issues about how would god implement will in this world (ever heard of a state of social order that doesn't have recourse to punishment?)
*************I can't answer any more religious questions. I get infracted/warned just about every time.
And perhaps others should not try to start sh!t and get me in trouble for responding. They know the game...
M*W: Sandy, whoever you are, sciforums is no game. This website offers the serious business of telling the truth. Its only rival is the lying bible, and you seem to follow those lies. I am totally surprised that you have lasted this long on the site, since you, and the likes of you (LG, Photizo, Woody, etc.), perpetuate those lies (unwittingly, I suppose). But that goes to show the rest of us that you all are religious zombies being controlled by an invisible supernatural creator being. No matter whose picture you use as avatar, you show your stupidity and gullibility. It's really ashame you chose Christie Brinkley as your personal avatar. I give her more credulity than what you pretend to have. Your whole persona is fake, and I suspect your faith is a sham, too. No one can be as stupid as you seem to be!
*************
M*W's Friendly Atheist Quote of the Day:
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration--courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and, above all, love of the truth? ~ H.L. Mencken
here's another quote from Mencken (1943) regarding negros, to give you some indication of his other notions of veneration
"It is impossible to talk anything resembling discretion or judgment to a colored woman"
Last edited:
Ok, the question is simply this...
"Taking away all the incentives, both positive and negative, would you still choose to worship your god?"
The honest answer would obviously be...
"No!"
But in honestly answering such a question a Christian would be admitting to the fact that their love for their god is conditional.
The question therefore, although quite good and amusing, is really a trap. Still it exposes an Achilles heel in their philosophy, not that they'd ever be willing to admit it.
I myself faced this question 10 years ago when, as a Christian, I realized god was not listening to my prayers. I really wasn't asking for much (from god's point of view), just pain relief. When I got no relief from what I can only describe as the most intensely painful experience in my life, it occurred to me what a fool I had been for praying in the first place.
I've been an atheist ever since.
"Taking away all the incentives, both positive and negative, would you still choose to worship your god?"
The honest answer would obviously be...
"No!"
But in honestly answering such a question a Christian would be admitting to the fact that their love for their god is conditional.
The question therefore, although quite good and amusing, is really a trap. Still it exposes an Achilles heel in their philosophy, not that they'd ever be willing to admit it.
I myself faced this question 10 years ago when, as a Christian, I realized god was not listening to my prayers. I really wasn't asking for much (from god's point of view), just pain relief. When I got no relief from what I can only describe as the most intensely painful experience in my life, it occurred to me what a fool I had been for praying in the first place.
I've been an atheist ever since.