Every deity I've ever heard referenced is impossible. If one or many do exist, their names and desires are unknown to humanity.

Occam's Razor does away with all gods for which there is no good evidence, which is all of them that I've ever heard of. Except those gods which are mere redefinitions, such as 'god is love', in which case, Why not just call it love? We have a perfectly good word for it already. What do the letters g-o-d get you?

So, in either case, the god either 'probably doesn't exist because of lack of evidence' or 'is a redundant word we don't need, and so we might as well ditch it anyway.'

 Typically, any deity with an "omni" quality can be disqualified for logical reasons.  That's one of the easiest ways to disprove specific deities.  Also, for obvious reasons, any deity whose description includes internal contradiction cannot exist as described.  

Part of the problem with disproving specific deities, however, is that you need an established worldview from which to operate, and most theists will not agree to that worldview, so you're pretty much preaching to the choir.

I'm more sure that Yahwah does exist than I am that I do... Apparently we disagree. The poster didn't even include Yahweh in his list; I think your response demonstrates the reliability of the Bible when it tells us of how unbelievers are enemies of God. You attacked Yahweh and He wasn't even mentioned my friend, I wonder just how much you hate your Creator.

Well Loc, you have misunderstood your terms bud. You seem to be using the word theist almost synonomously with Christian... anyone who believes in a god is a theist.

Also, the Hindu faith has at least 300,000,000 gods, and the men of the Mormon church all hope to become gods one day themselves, so that about 10,000,000 more.

I think you need a few more zeros behind your estimation.

The one true God, namely the triune God of the Bible is a unique God as well, He is the true God.

This is a funny comment seeing as how you're atheistic perspective of existence can't possibly account for the abstract laws of logic. Your use of logic is not logical.
 

Grace and peace,

No, I'm just really fucking certain that Yahweh doesn't exist.   

That wasn't posted to your comment, it was posted to his. It is entirely reasonable to be certain of oneself. It is insane to be more sure of a god or gods than oneself.

I flat out reject your statement. You're conscience bears witness to His existence and you are without excuse in acknowledging His hand in creation. You make a good show now, but it will be a strange sight to see you bow the knee to Jesus one day. Unfortunately for you my friend the supernatural Creator of this universe doesn't need your permission to be Lord. I lack a belief in atheists, only I have proof that they don't exist in Romans chapter one.

Seems odd that he left out Yahweh since He is so certainly eliminated, no?

Truth has a ring to it doesn't it?

You walk a fine line of being materially 'certain' of eliminating an immaterial God and being naturally 'certain' of eliminating a supernatural God.

I would say good luck with that, but I'll pray for you instead Sapient.

Grace and peace,

Cute.

Not any more than any other god.

I have no reason to believe a god had anything to do with creating existence.  There exists no scientific proof of such a thing, and in fact based on research from the Miller-Urey experiments and other findings from abiogenesis, I believe that acknowledging a god had a hand in creation would make me look ignorant, in the way that most of us are viewing you.

That will be strange considering there is no Jesus.

And Papa Smurf doesn't need my permission to visit Gargamel.  The invisible pink unicorns on my roof don't need my permission to remain invisible.  God is in good company with other make pretend entities.

You're an idiot.

Ah, well, it's similar to what I already said in the other thread.

We can't "prove" that logic works in the way you define these terms. 

It just seems to work. That's it. Fin.

I have my Bible right next to me, so let's take a look. It's New International Version though, so you probably don't like it.

"(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written in their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)" Romans 2:14-15 

Let me see if I understand this. People follow the morals of the Bible without knowing them. This proves that the morals have been placed in them?   

Well, it doesn't have to be dichotomy. It's a promise and a threat, right? 

exwhatever wrote:

My very favorite aspect of the fundamentalist christian's programming is his/her devotion to what can only be described as a passive-aggressive like phoniness.

Sure, you'll suffer eternal torture for eternity... but it's really your own fault.....  A brilliant dark example of the human experience of manipulation if only such nonsense weren't actually believed in and even worse promoted.

"Taketh care"...  I'm so sure you want us all to take care.. and throw in that smiley face for a glimpse into what you really wish to happen.  Like history hasn't provided a horrifying and very clear picture of that already.

"Speaking Truth"..... Say did you know there are pills that will make your penis grow larger?  "It's real science".... I just watched the commercial.. it's true !!

And here's my favorite......."in love".  Love provides such a convenient camouflage for hatred, prejudice and even genocide.  Selling love to disguise the real product being sold...."ignorance" and "hate".. Is there anything more reprehensible ?

Well, ex-whatever.. You can take your phony love and stick it where the sun don't shine, because in my many years of experience in christian high schools, christian colleges, countless days in church, revivals, faith healings, etc.. this one thing has always seemed to reveal itself as fact....

You can always count on the most religious person in the room to also be the most morally bankrupt and the most bloodthirsty......  Guaranteed ! 

"You make me wonder if it's possible for a Christian to come here and explain and defend their position in a way you would consider worthy of your time. "

If one can, they have yet to do so. No offense.

"I apologize if I did anything personally that offended you, that was not my objective."

Perhaps it would do you well to know that we don't believe in gods. At ALL. Yet you go around insinuating that we do. If we continually insinuated that you don't believe in yahweh, but really believe in zues, would you not be insulted? And what, for that matter, will it take for you to accept that our lack of belief is fact? Do you believe that the few uncontacted tribes in South America know your god?

this will explain why you are wrong.

"Voilà! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of Fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished. However, this valorous visitation of a by-gone vexation, stands vivified and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin van-guarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition. The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose"

Im sure you understand now why you are wrong...... oh wait it doesn't matter what anyone rights you will just state they are wrong because you have god on your side or something

eXnihilO wrote:    

There's absolutely no need to blame "versions" of christianity that I or anyone else might have been exposed to.  We have YOU, eXnihilO.  So far you appear to be a perfect example.

Which brings me to this quote of yours above.  A careful look at history shows us that the most destructive force humans have ever experienced has really been their own ego.  The human ego unchecked or even worse, fed w/ less than constructive or manipulative ideology is responsible for our cruelest institutions and our most frightening atrocities.

So the applicable question here would be:  Does religious belief feed into or subvert the destructive human ego ?

There are millions of ex-christians across the globe, just as there are at least dozens across this forum. 

But they never had a "real" relationship with christ... not like YOU, eXnihilO...which means, in your own words, they were not "actual christians"...not like YOU, eXnihilO.

YOUR copy of the bible lends a supernatural enlightenment... mine is just words on paper. 

YOUR church preaches the word of the gospel as they were  meant to be preached.  Mine has failed me.. or perhaps I failed it.

YOU've been chosen by god.  I've been abandoned by him, by my own poor choices of course.

YOU understand "god" in ways that I or anyone else here could not possibly understand him.

YOU are a true christian... I never really understood the process.

YOU are a unique and special flower, eXnihilO.

There are thousands of examples throughout history of humans manufacturing "god-like" characters.  These are all man-made...but YOURS is divine !

There have been multiple hundreds of gods throughout history, all with a fervent and devoted belief...but YOURS is the true one, eXnihilO !  

Humans have manufactured gods out of fear.. to exploit and manipulate others..., etc.

but YOUR god is real, eXnihilo... and he (and it's always a "he" because every decent god has a wee-wee) brings LOVE... of course, unless you reject him.

Uh, yeah...  

I guess I'll just have to take your word for it right? I guess that's why so many people still believe all over the world...

I'm glad your still open to God proving Himself to you, that means your not 100% certain your right.

Look, I empathize with you as a former Christian hating atheist myself.

But you are confusing a man who is confident of having the truth with the arrogance and ego you have been mistreated by in the past.

I admit that without God I would have nothing and I would hate God just as much as you, it's not ME, ME, ME that is so grandiose, it's God, God, God who saved a wretch like myself.

Confidence, not pride my friend.

There is no credit to myself, it's God who motivates and empowers me and in the absence of His grace I would be nothing.

I'm proud of one thing, proud to admit that God is my savior and that without Him I would be nothing. If that is how pride is defined, I'm in.

Christians deal in absolutes.

Reality is subject to the Bible's authority, not the other way around.

You may find 2000 year old Jewish Rabbinical Old Testament commentary to be interesting... Their omission of confusion over some of their own writings is amazingly clarified in the New Testament revelation, namely how the NT reconciles all of the problem texts of the OT regarding a perceived plurality of persons within the Godhead...

A book of legends and mythology has only the authority a delusional person gives to it.

You clearly dodge the point the Bible is not as ancient as the mythology texts of other cultures. You dodge the point the Bible has incorporated these myths in many places.

So you are saying that you subscribe to Paulogy and accept his interpretations of Jewish theology as most of the NT is his writing.

As Jesus does not meet the definition and expectations of the Moshiach or as you will the messiah, how do you reconcile that the major prophets prophesied something Jesus was not and could not be?

Yes, I know, but reality doesn't.

Um, actually, no, no I don't.

It doesn't bother me. However, it does bother me that you insist that I hate you when I've already told you that I don't. It shows that you're really, really high up there on the religious scale. If the Christian God does exist, you'll be one of His first picks for heaven. 

I would, but my past experiences with prayer seem to show that it doesn't do anything. I might as well pray to a teapot.

Ah, okay, that makes sense. You don't have to respond to the first part of this post then.

After all, if reality contradicts the Bible, then it must be reality that's wrong, right?

Of course you reject Paulogy, Paulinity or Pauline theology as terms, this is a surprise somehow.

You as a Christian have rejected the prophesies of the Jews from all the major prophets such as this simple condensed list of prophecy:

All the Earth shall be at peace with one another after the Messiah has come no wars or hatred  -  Isaiah 2:4

The Jewish people will all return from exile from throughout all nations - Isaiah 11:11-12, Jeremiah 23:8, Jeremiah 30:3, Hosea 3:4-5,

All of the world will recognize the God of the Jews as the only true god and Judaism as the only true religion - Isaiah 2:3, Isaiah 11:10, Micah 4:2-3, Zechariah 14:9

Murder and robbery will no longer occur - Zephaniah 3:13

Did any of this occur with Jesus? No.

As I said, you have rejected Jewish belief that prophesied the messiah to be something other than what Jesus did. Jesus is a square peg into a round hole and does not fit into Jewish prophecy. Why would Isaiah, Jeremiah and Micah be wrong about what the god revealed to them. Perhaps your hero Paul had too much wine or had one too many epileptic seizures.

As to the fantasy rant in Revelation by John it was directed against Rome and the emperor, no more.

I think that during the dark ages the Catholic Church would have been more intentional about rewriting history assuming you are right about the fallings short of Jesus Christ when compared to Jewish prophecy… I believe you are holding contradictory positions here.

The truth of the matter is that all the prophecy about the Messiah either has been, is being, or will be fulfilled in Jesus.

The book of Revelation is addressed to, and I quote:

“the seven churches that are in Asia”

And…

"Write what you see in a book and send it to the seven churches, to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea."

Also,

"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches…”

This is hardly directed against Rome and the emperor my friend…

What gave you the idea that I don’t understand what the word atheist defines?

Philosophically, atheists tend to custom-define the term, but practically it doesn’t matter which way you define it.

You either live as though God is the Creator and supreme authority of your life or you don’t, it’s irrelevant as to how well you have philosophically defined your terms.

As for the hijackers… Those men were probably once little boys playing nicely with others and were loved by their family and others… I say that to avoid you accusing me as not caring as much as you do. They were men made in the image of God and death is always tragic. Were they evil men? Yes. Are we all evil men? Yes. The sad reality is that they were given over to their own desires due to their own hardening of their own heart… The only reason that you or I aren’t on the next hijacked airplane is because God in His mercy acts to constantly restrict us from doing the evil that we are all capable of.

Those with the Spirit of God are certainly more privileged than others in this respect, but it’s certainly not because we are any better than anyone else by nature or by our own doing, lest any of us boast for being saved… We simply serve as a mirror that deflects all the glory back to God for loving us so much.

No man is any better or worse than those hijackers. By nature we are all capable of such evil. It’s not a religious thing, it’s a sin thing, and buddy far more have fallen at the hands of atheist dictators that corrupt men pretending to be amongst the clergy…

At least when alleged Christians commit atrocities they are acting in direct conflict with what the Bible teaches. When the non-believer commits genocide, there are no moral feathers to ruffle to begin with, so they are acting perfectly in line with their worldview… this is a significant thing to note.

All the best,

*swipes beer off monitor*

... damn... does that sound just a little homoerotic to anyone else?

Excuse me, you don't even know why the people who began the worship of Yahweh, the supposed true God don't accept Jesus as their messiah? Could it be possible that you just worship and pray to your Bible and never even open it?

Why would the Catholic Church have anything to do with the reasons Jews think Jesus was just another Messiah wannabe. He was one of over a dozen in the 1st century CE.

I see no contradictory position here on my part. I consider Yahweh to be a Canaanite god sometimes called El, and even called Ba'al in some of the ancient Canaanite texts being just another god developed by unknowing people who were ignorant of reality.  You are the one that believe this mythical entity is something more than even those that created it to be. Your true god as far as I'm concerned is nothing more than the developed legend of ancient unknowing people in Palestine. Your belief is an additional morphing of that legend into even more perversity and distortion. And you don't even seem to know what the original belief system entailed.

I'm asking you why the Jews who developed the worship of the thunder and volcano god Yahweh misinterpreted their own scriptures, prophesies, and creative writing. It would be wrong apparently  for 100s and 100s of years if Christianity is true. Can you point to the place in the prophets and show where they misunderstood. What is it and when did it occur? If you don't know or can't figure it out. perhaps you are worshiping a false messiah. Maybe Judaism is correct, and your worship of Jesus is heresy

Was it Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Micah, or another that sent the Jews understanding in a direction that was incorrect? Or was it Ezra, the redactor priest? Do you even have a clue about what the Jews believe or are you just so wrapped in ecstasy in your beliefs you don't even consider there could be a problem?

As to Jesus fulfilling the prophecies of the Jewish prophets, so far he failed as described in the Gospels. Even if he was real, he died without ever bringing in the Kingdom of God as envisioned in Jewish scripture.

What is it you do, read the chapter headings in your Bible and never read the content? Or is it you just can't comprehend things that contradict your preconceived notions or the programming you received?

So what if the book is addressed to the 7 churches,  the rant is against Rome. Is this somehow beyond you?

The Rant John makes is so clearly against Rome you'd have to be completely oblivious to miss it.

He uses Babylon as a pseudonym for Rome. See chapter 17 and 18. The seven heads are representative of Rome. Rome is the whore. Rome was the one that killed their leader Jesus. Rome was the one supposedly persecuting the Jesus believers. How do you miss this? Are you so enthralled with John's bloody violent descriptions or what?

As to the bloody violence John in extreme detail wrote, clearly he was a vengeful hateful person to even envision such wanton destruction and gore. He was badly in need of psychiatric help, something certainly not available at the time.

“Could it be possible that you just worship and pray to your Bible and never even open it?”

Well, given the fact that I neither worship nor pray to a book, no.

“Why would the Catholic Church have anything to do with the reasons Jews think Jesus was just another Messiah wannabe.”

There is a nearly universal and general assumption on the part of atheists that the RCC had something to do with the altering of the historical Jesus, that was my point, it was in jest.

“He was one of over a dozen in the 1st century CE.”

I hear about this from non-believers but they never seem to produce as many with any amount of historically reliable evidence to support themselves, I wonder why there is none in your post…

“I'm asking you why the Jews misinterpreted their own scriptures, prophesies, and creative writing. It would be wrong apparently  for 100s and 100s of years if Christianity is true. Can you point to the place in the prophets and show where they misunderstood…”

They didn’t misinterpret the Scriptures, they misinterpreted Jesus in direct fulfillment of the prophets. The rejection of Jesus by the Jews was and continues to be confirmation of prophecy. They missed their Messiah.

“Was it Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Micah, or another that sent the Jews understanding in a direction that was incorrect? Or was it Ezra, the redactor priest? Do you even have a clue about what the Jews believe or are you just so wrapped in ecstasy in your beliefs you don't even consider there could be a problem?”

None of the above… You are beating down a straw man here, and man did you whoop him. There are no problems. The Bible is the Word of God, it’s perfect in it’s entirety, that is a point you  won’t move me from. I will gladly place my own mental health on trial before God’s word takes the stand.

“As to Jesus fulfilling the prophecies of the Jewish prophets, so far he failed as described in the Gospels. Even if he was real, he died without ever bringing in the Kingdom of God as envisioned in Jewish scripture.”

 We both know Jesus is real. You seemed to have ignored the book of Revelation in this respect.

“What is it you do, read the chapter headings in your Bible and never read the content? Or is it you just can't comprehend things that contradict your preconceived notions or the programming you received?”

I’m not sure I understand your concern, I only read your comment heading...

Kidding…

If by ‘can’t comprehend things that contradict your preconceived notions…’ you mean ‘refuse to believe that there is a contradiction within the Word of God’ then yes.

“So what if the book is addressed to the 7 churches,  the rant is against Rome. Is this somehow beyond you?

The Rant John makes is so clearly against Rome you'd have to be completely oblivious to miss it.

He uses Babylon as a pseudonym for Rome. See chapter 17 and 18. The seven heads are representative of Rome. Rome is the whore. Rome was the one that killed their leader Jesus. Rome was the one supposedly persecuting the Jesus believers. How do you miss this?”

I misunderstood your usage of ‘directed against.’ The entire book is clearly not against Rome. Portions of it may be, I grant you that, but what is your point?