Do atheists believe we can not know if there is a God?

[Bango Skank]

Yes.

Aaaand.......?

And what?

No I didn't.

Oh, im so sorry. I thought that saying "That's a good point." you were agreeing them.

No.

You know what...Fuck you, you little trolling piece of shit.

 

[thenexttodie]

Well You think that if a person is sick or if a baby is sick than maybe instead of loving them and caring for them, we should kill them. Right? You believe unborn babies should maybe sometimes be killed too, maybe all the time, it doesn't matter to you. And you also believe that if someone is suicidal, it maybe best to let that person kill himself.

What the hell are you on? Whatever you are taking, it is not actually giving you the psychic power to read minds because this is not remotely close to anything I may believe.

Ok. You just said that nothing I said was true about what you believe. I realize it would take some courage now on your part to honestly give an answer for these. But lets go through them 1 by 1.

#1) Do you believe it is, at least,sometimes ok to kill unborn babies?

#2) Do you believe it is sometimes ok to kill sick people or sick babies after they are born?

#3) Do you believe it is sometimes ok to let suicidal people kill themselves?
[/quote]

 

[MarsCydonia]

Ok. You just said that nothing I said was true about what you believe. I realize it would take some courage now on your part to honestly give an answer for these. But lets go through them 1 by 1.

#1) Do you believe it is, at least,sometimes ok to kill unborn babies?

#2) Do you believe it is sometimes ok to kill sick people or sick babies after they are born?

#3) Do you believe it is sometimes ok to let suicidal people kill themselves?

Before you ask questions, are you not able to realize that you never answered this one:
I still do not see how this contradicts the point about god, if he "cares about us", being a horrible caretaker.

Seriously, why can't you answer this one?

Do you understand how a conversation work? Or are you just trolling again?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

God not intending - nor wanting - people perform human sacrifice as a means of worship does not mean that he didn't foresee it.

Kindest regards,

James

That's a good point. If you would like to engage in a formal debate on whether or not the God of the Bible, is omniscient, we can do so stating now. On this forum! Lets, say 3 or 4 posts each over the next 3 days. If you would like to start now you can, or I can start tomorrow. Omniscient will be defined as; knowing everything, all the time, including every single detail of every possible future event.

Are you interested?

Rather than a debate, why not just start a thread on it?

It depends on the title. For example, "Is God Omniscient?" would depend on one's views, whereas "According to the Bible, is God omniscient?" would limit it to what the Bible says, though again it depends on how individuals interpret the verses relevant to this.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[thenexttodie]

It depends on the title. For example, "Is God Omniscient?" would depend on one's views, whereas "According to the Bible, is God omniscient?" would limit it to what the Bible says, though again it depends on how individuals interpret the verses relevant to this.

Kindest regards,

James

Well if the Bible contains truth and someone somehow misinterprets it, than it can be shown that this person has made an error. Mormons, Jehoveh Witness, Clavinist generally always lose every debate against other Christians.

 

[thenexttodie]

If you do not want to debate me, then find any Calvinist who will and I will win.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I would argue it doesn't contain truth - assuming you mean "The Word of God".

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Grumpy Santa]

Well if the Bible contains truth and someone somehow misinterprets it, than it can be shown that this person has made an error. Mormons, Jehoveh Witness, Clavinist generally always lose every debate against other Christians.

You're going to have to define what you mean by "truth" here. While the bible may contain some things that are true, so does a Steven King novel. It also contains a crapton of things that are false. Nothing precludes a work of fiction from containing facts.

If you're talking about a broader "divine truth" type of level then no, that hasn't been demostrated to be factual at all.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Well if the Bible contains truth and someone somehow misinterprets it, than it can be shown that this person has made an error. Mormons, Jehoveh Witness, Clavinist generally always lose every debate against other Christians.

By that logic, all christians are wrong, because no Christian has ever won a debate against me.

The outcome of a debate isn't a metric for veracity.

 

[Prolescum]

thenexttodie, which of these paths would you like to take?

1) If you continue provoking other members with inane, pointless waffle, as appears in this and several other threads, you will receive a series of progressively longer periods with no posting privileges. This is your current direction.

2) Engage in serious discussion earnestly from today, and you can become a valued member of a small discussion community. When I say earnest, I mean that you should avoid disingenuous and dishonest behaviour, intentionally provoking ire instead of widening or concluding the conversations; I mean assume the bona fides of your fellow members and approach them likewise. This is where you should head from today.

You don't have to agree with a single person, but understand that this forum exists to foment discussion, not fucking about because you're bored.

Everyone else, I would plead to your better natures when responding hereon in. We're happy to receive reports.

 

[thenexttodie]

thenexttodie, which of these paths would you like to take?

1) If you continue provoking other members with inane, pointless waffle, as appears in this and several other threads, you will receive a series of progressively longer periods with no posting privileges. This is your current direction.

Understood. I will try to change this.

 

[thenexttodie]

Oh, im so sorry. I thought that saying "That's a good point." you were agreeing them.

No.

You know what...Fuck you, you little trolling piece of shit.

Sorry. When I said you made a good point, I was agreeing with your wariness in accepting a generic prophecy as evidence of God or someone claiming to know God or someone claiming he is God. But I think I also pointed out the what we have in the case of Abraham and his son is seems to be the only instance we have of God actually asking someone to kill his son for a sacrifice. Even though, as you pointed out, child sacrifice might have been a common event during that time. Or before that time. Or after that time.

Do you understand what I mean?

 

[Looncall]

Well "empirical evidence" depends on our ability to gather, correctly interpret and apply data.

Ah, the 'interpretations' canard. Never far away.

There's only one interpretation that matters, namely the one that is consistently in accord with observations and survives tests that could potentially falsify it.

Well the Ptolemaic Model worked quite well even though it was based on a completely inaccurate idea of our solar system. It took us over 1000 years to completely refute it.

So, suppose I'm the ruler of the universe, and I want to convey to my creation - specifically to my chosen species, the most important aspect of the entire enterprise, and for which the universe was created - my message, telling them all of the important things they need to know - how I want them to behave, what it's all about, where they can put their penises and what position I wish them to adopt while engaging in this practice, how they're to treat each other - the rules of the game. What, given all of the above, and given that I'm supposed to have perfect, infallible knowledge of the entirety of the universe including all of space and time and the thoughts of every entity within it, is the best plan I can come up with?

I know, I'll use a book, ambiguous...

I disagree that the bible is ambiguous. In fact, it is so clear and redundant that even atheists (even I think some on this forum) argue that the account Jesus could not have been factual because it fits to well with the old testament.

It's obvious that the Jesus myth was cobbled together so as to agree with the old testament.Indeed, the bible has "propaganda" written all over it.