God doesn't seem to exist!

Post Reply New Topic

Mmmm. An Article of Faith that God doesn't exist is vastly less rational than Pascal's Wager.

He does not seem to exist my friend you have wasted your life, your time and your feelings on a being that does not seem to exist and you have allowed yourself to be a slave to a book giving up your free will to this imaginary being!

He does not seem to exist my friend you have wasted your life, your time and your feelings on a being that does not seem to exist and you have allowed yourself to be a slave to a book giving up your free will to this imaginary being!The Bible is full of BS and has contradicted itself time and time again,can your god create a rock so heavy he cannot lift?Sometimes there has to be that person to tell the kids there is no Santa Clause or Easter Bunny and that is all a lie and I will catch hate for it but the truth sets one free!

Otaku's back!! ! Welcome back.

AspieOtaku, there is nothing here in this Shermer clip that I have not come across countless times before. He seems to think that simply because the manner in which belief in God came about can be explained via recourse to a naturalistic explanation, that there is therefore nothing to the idea. This is known, I believe, as the genetic fallacy. That's his first mistake among many that he makes here. It just gets worse from there.

By the way, why is there only M. Shermer in this clip presenting his 'sceptical' - I put the word in inverted commas because he is not a true sceptic at all, but a debunker - view of the matter? I saw John Lennox, a well-known theist, in the audience, so presumably he was to argue for the existence of God, and yet we do not see this here. So much for the impartiality that so many atheists believe they have. Come on, be brave, and link to a John Lennox clip. Shall I do it instead?

AspieOtaku, there is nothing here in this Shermer clip that I have not come across countless times before. He seems to think that simply because the manner in which belief in God came about can be explained via recourse to a naturalistic explanation, that there is therefore nothing to the idea. This is known, I believe, as the genetic fallacy. That's his first mistake among many that he makes here. It just gets worse from there.

By the way, why is there only M. Shermer in this clip presenting his 'sceptical' - I put the word in inverted commas because he is not a true sceptic at all, but a debunker - view of the matter? I saw John Lennox, a well-known theist, in the audience, so presumably he was to argue for the existence of God, and yet we do not see this here. So much for the impartiality that so many atheists believe they have. Come on, be brave, and link to a John Lennox clip. Shall I do it instead?

Why do I keep getting double posts?! What's wrong with this contraption?

God Almighty, talk about being arrogant and deluded, not to mention insulting as well!

Hmmm, you say that he "does not seem to exist". Are you not sure? If so, then why are you saying that we have "wasted our lives"?!?! Who are you to make this assessment on our behalf?! If you are not sure about the existence of God, then maybe you will come to the realisation that it exists after all, and if that ever happens - though I'm not counting on it - you will feel awfully foolish and contrite.

AspieOtaku, it is quite clear to me that you are simply well out of your league when it comes to discussing God, so perhaps you should stick to those discussions here at W.P. that are more to your talents. You know, like the fashion choices of the Kardashians, or whether or not Britney Spears can actually sing.

In this clip R. Dawkins makes the claim that between 40 and 45 percent of Americans believe the Earth to be a mere 6,000 years old. Now, whether that is true or not doesn't really matter, because this belief itself is not found in the Bible, and is therefore not what those who consider themselves to be 'true Christians' should believe anyway. The claim itself dates from, if I recall correctly, the 16th century Bishop Ussher, who used a rather obscure and convoluted method to come up with this figure. There are many Americans who also believe that the statement, 'God helps those who help themselves' is also found in the Bible. It isn't, and yet this statement is used to justify oppressing the poor that both the New and Old Testaments tell us we should sympathise and empathise with, whilst denouncing the rich for their evil ways (ex. Epistle of James).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTXN5nOstRs

Judgy much, lol.

Leaving aside the part where you apparently decide what "true christians" should believe, do you think there are any christians, whether they believe this or not, who do not consider themselves "true christians"?

Also, does the reverse hold true? If "true christians" should not believe things that are not in the bible, must they believe everything that is?

Yes, I'm very judgemental. That's a good thing most of the time. Besides, I don't like being told that I have "wasted my life", by a complete stranger who knows nothing about my life, and simply because he/she happens to believe that I, and others who share this belief, believe in something that he/she does not truly understand in the first place (in this case, God). "BS", "Santa Clause", "the Easter Bunny" - idiotic strawmen, insults and stupidity is what I see here in comments such as these.

Last edited by Lintar on 19 Jun 2015, 10:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Maybe I shouldn't have used the expression 'true Christians' here, but the fact remains that the belief that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago simply isn't biblically-based. Christians, or at least people who like to refer to themselves as such, should know this. If they don't then it proves they haven't read Genesis.

No.

Why not? God cannot do this because there are many other things that, due to their logical incoherence and/or the manner in which we choose to define specific concepts, no being no matter how powerful could ever accomplish. I suppose you also think that omniscience and omnipotence entail being able to make 2+2 equal 157, or the creation of "square circles", or "invisible, purple cars". Anything that is inherently self-contradictory cannot exist, in any possible world, by definition. All you are doing here is making noise, using words to confuse the simple, whilst at the same time failing to grasp the basic point that questions such as these are are utterly meaningless to begin with. The manner in which we use language to clarify or define ideas ensures that our definitions of these concepts will place severe limitations on how we should use them, and so to ask a question like, "Can God create a square circle?" merely reveals the ignorance of the concepts of circles and squares by the one asking the question.

You're right in that the figure itself does not appear in the bible, but aren't Usshers calculations based on the geneologies found in the Old Testament? The ones that allegedly go all the way back to Adam? I mean, I'm not defending the idea that the world is 6000 years old, but it seems to me that the problem is the application of a somewhat scientific approach to a book with a strenuous relationship to reality. The Primate of All Ireland ( ), it seems to me, built his house on shifting sands.

“An omnipotent god can create a being whose acts are known only to itself.

An omniscient god cannot do this.

It would appear, then, that no god can be both omnipotent and omniscient.”
― Richard R. LA Croix

(sorry for double post, edit timer expired before I dug up the quote)