God wants me to show believers that he doesn't exist.
Offline Surely if an all knowing god exists he knew that I would come into existence showing believers the flaws in his system, showing believers that the Abrahmic gods are impossible. If this god is all powerful he would've also been able to make sure I never came into existence, and this wouldn't have affected the free will of believers in the least. That argument aside, here's a more basic one for you...
Today, I was set to play a round of golf with my son. It rained. So instead of golfing I engaged several theists in a debate, recorded audio responses to irrational mail, worked in other back-end areas for RRS (try to avoid the easy joke), and edited a portion of a future show. Surely an all knowing god would've known that it was either golf or help end Religion. God chose to make it rain so that I would help end Religion, god wants me to end Religion.
Or maybe, just maybe... god doesn't exist. Think theists.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
- Login to post comments
Offline
The same reasons he wants us to choose whether to believe or not, are the same reasons he wants me to choose whether to disprove his existence or not. Seeing as how he's all powerful and all knowing, he could've taken me out of the equation without affecting free will, yet did nothing before he created humanity to stop me. Therefore he must want me to be doing this.
Taking you out of the equation would have been affecting free will, since (as I said on another board), the extent to which we are able to disobey God is the extent to which we have free will. Removing those who reject God's will from existence beforehand is removing a significant chunk of human free will. And He doesn't want you to be doing this, but He does want you to exist and have the choice of doing it or not. It's you who wants to do it, and God allows that.
Quote:Quote:Listen to our show this coming Friday when the Infidel Guy talks about this.
What time? And will it be saved so I can listen to it after the fact?
9 pm est. Look on our homepage for further details.
I have tickets to a baseball game on Friday night which probably goes to about ten, so I'll have to listen to it afterwards.
Quote:Quote:Quote:
there are more atheists in the world today than ever before.http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/atheism.html <--- there's the link
You didn't seriously mean that religion will only end in Great Britain, France and Scandinavia while continuing to exist in most other nations, did you?You didn't seriously mean that atheism is on the decline when there are more atheists in the world today then ever before, did you?
I said it was on the decline percentage-wise, not numbers-wise. Numbers-wise, pretty much all religions, and atheism, are growing, since human population is growing rapidly. But if you're saying that "statics show that religion will end one day" and "there are less and less believers in God on this planet every year", then you're wrong. Believers are, like atheists, increasing in numbers every year, and believers are also growing percentage-wise overall, though they are shrinking in specific areas.
You know, if the information from that text is accurate, the best chance of atheists to one day overtake religion isn't in trying to show religious people the "error of their beliefs", but in procreating to a greater extent than believers do. I have four kids myself. You better shoot for at least five.
David
- Login to post comments
Offline That moth story is so fucking stupid! 
Are you all-knowing and all-powerful, like that fake-ass fucking god you believe in? :roll:
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
- Login to post comments
Offline OOPS, DAVID I APOLOGIZE. I ACCIDENTLY EDITED YOUR POST ABOVE INSTEAD OF REPLYING. HERE IS THE PORTIONS OF YOUR POST THAT REMAIN WITH MY REPLIES.
The only thing which doesn't work is the "therefore" line in #5, especially since you admit that God may have had other motivations in making it rain. And I'm assuming it was supposed to end with "show believers he doesn't exist", right? Or am I now talking to an entirely different person?
Yes, I made an error in line 5, but you knew my intent. Just because god had other motivations doesn't remove what his motivations for me were.
An example to show you the flaw in your logic - last night I came home and saw that there was a moth hovering near my front door, attracted by the light inside my entranceway. I knew that if I opened the door, the moth would fly inside, but I didn't want to take the time to shoo it away or kill it, and neither did I want to wait outside for hours waiting for the moth to move on. So I went inside my house, and, yes, the moth flew in, just as I knew it would. Would you conclude that "therefore, I wanted the moth to be inside my house"?
You're not all powerful and not all knowing, bad example. Also you say you "knew" the moth wouldn't fly in your house, however this is not true... you may have thought it was a great possibility, but you didn't know.
Would someone else PLEASE go down to Yellow Number Five's last post and confirm that he is the one who originally (albeit sarcastically) wrote the words "Sure, natural disasters and the philosophical argument they lead us to, the Problem of Evil, certainly don't influence people's beliefs at all." Because Sapient clearly refuses to go check it out for himself, and thinks I'm lying when I point it out.
This is a strawman, not what I said, and more dishonesty on your part.
God sent the rain in order to get you to do those things you did that day, and also to write about it in the OP.
God wanted you to write the OP this so that I would see your post and get into a discussion with you, and eventually come to convince you that God DOES exist, and thus make you a believer.
Then your god is not all knowing. Surely he would've known that I would've seen right through your lack of honesty, and you wouldn't be able to convince me of his existence.
A ridiculous argument, you say? I agree.
No. I didn't say it was ridiculous. I do see your usage of yet another strawman though, lending even more credence to the notion that you aren't to be trusted.
I know because I used to be an atheist, myself.
Thanks Captain Obviousness of moot points, so was everyone else on Earth.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
- Login to post comments
Offline
Taking you out of the equation would have been affecting free will, since (as I said on another board), the extent to which we are able to disobey God is the extent to which we have free will.
Not true.
1. Without allowing me to come into existence there would have been no "will" of "me" to will. The unborn baby is not loosing his free will being unborn. If your argument were true than all sperm would be absent of free will.
2. If you're god is incapable of changing his plan so that I don't convince believers of his non-existence without affecting my free will, then he is not all powerful.
Removing those who reject God's will from existence beforehand is removing a significant chunk of human free will.
Therefore God removes free will everyday when people masturbate and kill hundreds of thousands of future humans.
It's you who wants to do it, and God allows that.
And if you're god is all knowning he knew I'd want to believe in him if he existed, and he knew that I wouldn't have the evidence to believe.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
- Login to post comments
Offline OOPS, DAVID I APOLOGIZE. I ACCIDENTLY EDITED YOUR POST ABOVE INSTEAD OF REPLYING. HERE IS THE PORTIONS OF YOUR POST THAT REMAIN WITH MY REPLIES.
If it makes you feel any better, I've done that a few times on another board that I'm a moderator on. It makes me feel really shitty when I do it. Don't feel bad though, a lot of mods do that by accident. 
-=Grim=-
No Nyarlathotep, Know Peace.
Know Nyarlathotep, No Peace.
- Login to post comments
Offline
You know, if the information from that text is accurate, the best chance of atheists to one day overtake religion isn't in trying to show religious people the "error of their beliefs", but in procreating to a greater extent than believers do. I have four kids myself. You better shoot for at least five.David
What makes you think that they won't convert to atheism?
Are you going to homeschool them?
Are you going to ban them from watching the discovery channel?
Will you tell your children not to be friends with atheist kids?
Your kids are growing up in a different world David...
and another thing... from the study that Brian posted...
It is interesting to note that Africa has the lowest atheism fraction... Could this MAYBE be attributed to education(or lack thereof)? I am from South africa (supposedly 1% atheism) And i can promise you that Atheist numbers here, especially among educated people, are skyrocketing.
The overwhelming majority atheists did not have atheist parents, they converted from a religion. More theists convert to atheism than vice versa(my observation). If this is indeed the case, it means that percentage wise, atheism must be on the increase.
'Religion is adolescent mythology' Jan Kritzinger
Religion will never be completely dead, but then again ppl believe in ghosts and aliens and the loch ness monster fgs...
- Login to post comments
Offline OOPS, DAVID I APOLOGIZE. I ACCIDENTLY EDITED YOUR POST ABOVE INSTEAD OF REPLYING. HERE IS THE PORTIONS OF YOUR POST THAT REMAIN WITH MY REPLIES.
No problem.
KingDavid8 wrote:
The only thing which doesn't work is the "therefore" line in #5, especially since you admit that God may have had other motivations in making it rain. And I'm assuming it was supposed to end with "show believers he doesn't exist", right? Or am I now talking to an entirely different person?Yes, I made an error in line 5, but you knew my intent. Just because god had other motivations doesn't remove what his motivations for me were.
But neither does it suggest any specific motivation for you. If God didn't care one way or the other whether you did all that stuff, but just wanted to water the grass in the area of the golf course, then His sending the rain had absolutely nothing to do with you. It wouldn't mean that He wasn't driving you to do those things.
Quote:An example to show you the flaw in your logic - last night I came home and saw that there was a moth hovering near my front door, attracted by the light inside my entranceway. I knew that if I opened the door, the moth would fly inside, but I didn't want to take the time to shoo it away or kill it, and neither did I want to wait outside for hours waiting for the moth to move on. So I went inside my house, and, yes, the moth flew in, just as I knew it would. Would you conclude that "therefore, I wanted the moth to be inside my house"?You're not all powerful and not all knowing, bad example. Also you say you "knew" the moth wouldn't fly in your house, however this is not true... you may have thought it was a great possibility, but you didn't know.
Let's say, completely hypothetically, that I did.
Quote:Would someone else PLEASE go down to Yellow Number Five's last post and confirm that he is the one who originally (albeit sarcastically) wrote the words "Sure, natural disasters and the philosophical argument they lead us to, the Problem of Evil, certainly don't influence people's beliefs at all." Because Sapient clearly refuses to go check it out for himself, and thinks I'm lying when I point it out.This is a strawman, not what I said, and more dishonesty on your part.
Here's the portion of the conversation I'm referring to:
KingDavid8: That was Yellow Number Five who said that, not me.Sapient: No he didn't make that claim, please stop being so intellectually dishonest.
If you weren't saying that Yellow Number Five didn't say it, then what were you saying?
Quote:
God sent the rain in order to get you to do those things you did that day, and also to write about it in the OP.
God wanted you to write the OP this so that I would see your post and get into a discussion with you, and eventually come to convince you that God DOES exist, and thus make you a believer.Then your god is not all knowing. Surely he would've known that I would've seen right through your lack of honesty, and you wouldn't be able to convince me of his existence.
Not yet, but maybe I will. The idea is at least less ridiculous than your belief that you can change the theological postion of billions of people and end religion altogether.
Quote:A ridiculous argument, you say? I agree.No. I didn't say it was ridiculous. I do see your usage of yet another strawman though, lending even more credence to the notion that you aren't to be trusted.
I was assuming you would think it was ridiculous. Was I wrong? Or do you think that my convincing you of God's existence is plausible?
David
- Login to post comments
Offline KingDavid8 wrote:
Taking you out of the equation would have been affecting free will, since (as I said on another board), the extent to which we are able to disobey God is the extent to which we have free will.Not true.
1. Without allowing me to come into existence there would have been no "will" of "me" to will. The unborn baby is not loosing his free will being unborn. If your argument were true than all sperm would be absent of free will.
I'm talking about the overall free will of mankind. Giving people two options, and then retroactively taking away anyone who chooses the option God doesn't like, is the same as not giving people any option at all.
And besides that, perhaps many non-believers are "in the equation" for other reasons. As I said earlier, I believe that God does what is best for mankind as a whole in the long run, and many non-Christians have done great things for mankind. Stopping them from being born would also take away all the good that they have done.
And on top of that, many non-believers have kids who end up becoming believers (even me - my mom's an atheist). Taking away those non-believers would also take away their believing kids.
2. If you're god is incapable of changing his plan so that I don't convince believers of his non-existence without affecting my free will, then he is not all powerful.
Sure he's capable of changing His plan, but that doesn't mean that He desires to do so.
Quote:Removing those who reject God's will from existence beforehand is removing a significant chunk of human free will.Therefore God removes free will everyday when people masturbate and kill hundreds of thousands of future humans.
Yeah, like each and every one of those sperm would have otherwise eventually become a human. Give me a break.
Quote:It's you who wants to do it, and God allows that.And if you're god is all knowning he knew I'd want to believe in him if he existed, and he knew that I wouldn't have the evidence to believe.
I seriously doubt that you want to believe in Him. If you want to convince me that you do, go answer the question I asked of you in the "Are You A True Christian?" thread.
David
- Login to post comments
Offline Someone else feel free to respond to those two posts from David above, I've had enough irrationality today. I'll get on it tommorrow if they haven't been addressed yet.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
- Login to post comments
Offline
The overwhelming majority atheists did not have atheist parents, they converted from a religion. More theists convert to atheism than vice versa(my observation). If this is indeed the case, it means that percentage wise, atheism must be on the increase.
Actually, statistics do show that people tend to get more religious, not less religious, as they age, at least here in the USA. This does fit my personal observation, though I agree that the plural of "personal observation" isn't "data". I do tend to hang around people who are a tad more religious than the norm, I'm sure.
There's a site here: http://www.trinity.edu/~mkearl/ger-relg.html
It shows religiosity by age for Americans. It doesn't give specific religions, just general qualifications such as "strongly religious", "somewhat", "not very" and "no affiliation" (which I assume includes atheists), and then breaks it down by age (the lowest age range is "18-29" and the highest is "80+". It shows, for example, that only 28% of 18-29 year olds are "strongly religious", but it gradually doubles to 56% for those aged 80+, while "no affiliation" gradually drops from 13% for the 18-29 year olds to 3% for the 80+. They also have a chart breaking it down by decade of birth, which shows that an increase in religiosity happens for each generation, so it's not just a case of one generation being less religious than the one before it. So unless people who are less religious just tend to die younger, statistics show that a shift towards religion tends to happen as we get older.
David
- Login to post comments
Offline the_avenging_bucket wrote:
The overwhelming majority atheists did not have atheist parents, they converted from a religion. More theists convert to atheism than vice versa(my observation). If this is indeed the case, it means that percentage wise, atheism must be on the increase.
Actually, statistics do show that people tend to get more religious, not less religious, as they age, at least here in the USA. This does fit my personal observation, though I agree that the plural of "personal observation" isn't "data". I do tend to hang around people who are a tad more religious than the norm, I'm sure.
There's a site here: http://www.trinity.edu/~mkearl/ger-relg.html
It shows religiosity by age for Americans. It doesn't give specific religions, just general qualifications such as "strongly religious", "somewhat", "not very" and "no affiliation" (which I assume includes atheists), and then breaks it down by age (the lowest age range is "18-29" and the highest is "80+"David
David, you just shot yourself in the foot, again.
I am sure the Data you have supplied is accurate.
BUT
from the first table:
the fact that older people are more religious DOES NOT necessarily indicate that people become more religious with age... indeed, a more reasonable conclusion would be that people are becoming less religious with every new generation that comes along... which makes perfect sense.
In order to show that people become more religious with age you would have to study a group of people from the same generation, for a total study duration of say 80 years, and then draw your conclusion.(this is in fact exactly what we see in the second table 
)
from the second table:
David, go back to the link you posted... you completely missread the second table which shows clearly the DECREASE IN RELIGIOSITY with every generation that passes... which means that my observation has been substantiated by YOUR data...
ROFLMFAO
Birth decade vs % strongly religious
pre 1900........59%
1900-09.........56%
1910-19.........49%
1920-29.........46%
1930-39.........43%
1940-49.........36%
1950-59.........33%
1960-69.........29%
Remember, this is from the data that YOU supplied!
yes, people do get more religious as they get older, but far more importantly, every generation is less religious than the one before.
- Login to post comments
Offline
David, you just shot yourself in the foot, again.
I am sure the Data you have supplied is accurate.
BUTfrom the first table:
the fact that older people are more religious DOES NOT necessarily indicate that people become more religious with age... indeed, a more reasonable conclusion would be that people are becoming less religious with every new generation that comes along... which makes perfect sense.
In order to show that people become more religious with age you would have to study a group of people from the same generation, for a total study duration of say 80 years, and then draw your conclusion.(this is in fact exactly what we see in the second table
from the second table:
David, go back to the link you posted... you completely missread the second table which shows clearly the DECREASE IN RELIGIOSITY with every generation that passes... which means that my observation has been substantiated by YOUR data...
ROFLMFAO
Except I wasn't arguing against your claim that there is a decrease in religiosity with every generation that passes. The claim of yours that I was responding to was the one that people more frequently convert from religiosity to non-religiosity, and the data I was providing shows the opposite, that people tend to get more religious as they get older, converting towards religion instead of away from it.
Birth decade vs % strongly religious
pre 1900........59%
1900-09.........56%
1910-19.........49%
1920-29.........46%
1930-39.........43%
1940-49.........36%
1950-59.........33%
1960-69.........29%Remember, this is from the data that YOU supplied!
How about presenting it fairly by including the ages of the individuals in the samples they're using? Then we see:
Birth decade / % strongly religious / Ages of sample population used
pre 1900...............59%.........................70+
1900-09................56%.........................60+
1910-19................49%.........................50+
1920-29................46%.........................40-79
1930-39................43%.........................30-69
1940-49................36%.........................18-59
1950-59................33%.........................18-49
1960-69................29%.........................18-39
Looking at this with the ages of the sample population included, we see that the 59% in pre-1900 included only people over seventy years old, gradually lowering to the point where the 29% in the 1960's included only people under forty, which backs up the point I was making, that younger people are less religious than older people.
The only way to use this table to fairly compare successive generations is if we use the same age ranges from one generation to the next.
For example, people in the 50-59 age range were "very religious" 46% of the time in the years 1910-1919, dropping to 40% in the years 1940-1949. That certainly is a drop, but it's not the 49% to 36% drop that's suggested by the way you presented the data above.
I was supplying that information to show you that people get more religious as they get older, which was the subject at hand. So how did I shoot myself in the foot? I wasn't claiming, or trying to prove, that every generation in America isn't less religious than the one before. I agree that it probably is, though that's not the same for every other country. I was just trying to show you that, according to that data, people get more religious as they get older. I did.
David
- Login to post comments
Offline
Looking at this with the ages of the sample population included, we see that the 59% in pre-1900 included only people over seventy years old, gradually lowering to the point where the 29% in the 1960's included only people under forty, which backs up the point I was making, that younger people are less religious than older people.
you cannot do that because they are from different generations and you yourself have acknowledged that there is a decrease in religiosity for every generation that passes.
For example, people in the 50-59 age range were "very religious" 46% of the time in the years 1910-1919, dropping to 40% in the years 1940-1949. That certainly is a drop, but it's not the 49% to 36% drop that's suggested by the way you presented the data above.
Good point, if you move accross the table horizontally, you see the derease in religiosity with every generation that passes (staying in the same age group) and, like you said, there is a decrease, for every age group!)
I was supplying that information to show you that people get more religious as they get older, which was the subject at hand.
no, the subject at hand was the increase/decrease in atheism.
Also note that study ends quite some time ago...The recent rate of conversion to atheism is increasing due to the numbers of atheists growing. It is becoming more socially acceptable, people understand what it is about, they know that love and morality have nothing to do with religion. Indeed, love is more genuine, and morality isn't warped, when you're an atheist.
When i became an atheist in 1997, i did not know a single person who was an atheist... not one...
Since then several of my friends, classmates, and co-workers have converted to atheism.
But its really pointless argueing... over the next ten years, things are going to change dramatically, i promise.
- Login to post comments
Offline Surely if an all knowing god exists he knew that I would come into existence showing believers the flaws in his system, showing believers that the Abrahmic gods are impossible. If this god is all powerful he would've also been able to make sure I never came into existence, and this wouldn't have affected the free will of believers in the least. That argument aside, here's a more basic one for you...Today, I was set to play a round of golf with my son. It rained. So instead of golfing I engaged several theists in a debate, recorded audio responses to irrational mail, worked in other back-end areas for RRS (try to avoid the easy joke), and edited a portion of a future show. Surely an all knowing god would've known that it was either golf or help end Religion. God chose to make it rain so that I would help end Religion, god wants me to end Religion.
Or maybe, just maybe... god doesn't exist. Think theists.
That's pretty easily debated by the fact that the Bible says pretty elicitly that god doesn't effect free will. Everyone has the right to choose whether they are going to believe or not. The church I used go to would always say "God want's people, not robots". He mourns those he looses but rejoices for those who get through, it's like the cream of the crop. You have a role in this world that you chose or came too on your own. Whether god exists or not has no bearing on your personal choices.
That is to say, if God exists, he let you choose to be an Athiest (and you're going to hell, bastard), if he doesn't, you choose to be an Athiest and you probably should look into Nihilism.
- Login to post comments
Offline Sapient wrote:Surely if an all knowing god exists he knew that I would come into existence showing believers the flaws in his system, showing believers that the Abrahmic gods are impossible. If this god is all powerful he would've also been able to make sure I never came into existence, and this wouldn't have affected the free will of believers in the least. That argument aside, here's a more basic one for you...Today, I was set to play a round of golf with my son. It rained. So instead of golfing I engaged several theists in a debate, recorded audio responses to irrational mail, worked in other back-end areas for RRS (try to avoid the easy joke), and edited a portion of a future show. Surely an all knowing god would've known that it was either golf or help end Religion. God chose to make it rain so that I would help end Religion, god wants me to end Religion.
Or maybe, just maybe... god doesn't exist. Think theists.
That's pretty easily debated by the fact that the Bible says pretty elicitly that god doesn't effect free will.
How would it have affected my free will if before God created everything, he made sure people like me didn't come to ever exist?
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
- Login to post comments
Offline Humanzy wrote:Sapient wrote:Surely if an all knowing god exists he knew that I would come into existence showing believers the flaws in his system, showing believers that the Abrahmic gods are impossible. If this god is all powerful he would've also been able to make sure I never came into existence, and this wouldn't have affected the free will of believers in the least. That argument aside, here's a more basic one for you...Today, I was set to play a round of golf with my son. It rained. So instead of golfing I engaged several theists in a debate, recorded audio responses to irrational mail, worked in other back-end areas for RRS (try to avoid the easy joke), and edited a portion of a future show. Surely an all knowing god would've known that it was either golf or help end Religion. God chose to make it rain so that I would help end Religion, god wants me to end Religion.
Or maybe, just maybe... god doesn't exist. Think theists.
That's pretty easily debated by the fact that the Bible says pretty elicitly that god doesn't effect free will.
How would it have affected my free will if before God created everything, he made sure people like me didn't come to ever exist?
He wanted people to choose him, not for robots that had no choice.
- Login to post comments
Offline Sapient wrote:Humanzy wrote:Sapient wrote:Surely if an all knowing god exists he knew that I would come into existence showing believers the flaws in his system, showing believers that the Abrahmic gods are impossible. If this god is all powerful he would've also been able to make sure I never came into existence, and this wouldn't have affected the free will of believers in the least. That argument aside, here's a more basic one for you...Today, I was set to play a round of golf with my son. It rained. So instead of golfing I engaged several theists in a debate, recorded audio responses to irrational mail, worked in other back-end areas for RRS (try to avoid the easy joke), and edited a portion of a future show. Surely an all knowing god would've known that it was either golf or help end Religion. God chose to make it rain so that I would help end Religion, god wants me to end Religion.
Or maybe, just maybe... god doesn't exist. Think theists.
That's pretty easily debated by the fact that the Bible says pretty elicitly that god doesn't effect free will.
How would it have affected my free will if before God created everything, he made sure people like me didn't come to ever exist?
He wanted people to choose him, not for robots that had no choice.
Great, now could you answer the question I asked, instead of saying what you already said?
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
- Login to post comments
Offline Humanzy wrote:Sapient wrote:Humanzy wrote:Sapient wrote:Surely if an all knowing god exists he knew that I would come into existence showing believers the flaws in his system, showing believers that the Abrahmic gods are impossible. If this god is all powerful he would've also been able to make sure I never came into existence, and this wouldn't have affected the free will of believers in the least. That argument aside, here's a more basic one for you...Today, I was set to play a round of golf with my son. It rained. So instead of golfing I engaged several theists in a debate, recorded audio responses to irrational mail, worked in other back-end areas for RRS (try to avoid the easy joke), and edited a portion of a future show. Surely an all knowing god would've known that it was either golf or help end Religion. God chose to make it rain so that I would help end Religion, god wants me to end Religion.
Or maybe, just maybe... god doesn't exist. Think theists.
That's pretty easily debated by the fact that the Bible says pretty elicitly that god doesn't effect free will.
How would it have affected my free will if before God created everything, he made sure people like me didn't come to ever exist?
He wanted people to choose him, not for robots that had no choice.
Great, now could you answer the question I asked, instead of saying what you already said?
Then there would be 'free will' would there?
- Login to post comments
Offline That answer was a question and was incoherent. So I'll just reask the question, and hopefully you'll get it this go around:
How would it have affected my free will if before God created everything, he made sure people like me didn't come to ever exist?
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
- Login to post comments
Offline
That is to say, if God exists, he let you choose to be an Athiest (and you're going to hell, bastard), if he doesn't, you choose to be an Athiest and you probably should look into Nihilism.
ah... christian love... there is nothing like it... :smt116
- Login to post comments
Offline That answer was a question and was incoherent. So I'll just reask the question, and hopefully you'll get it this go around:How would it have affected my free will if before God created everything, he made sure people like me didn't come to ever exist?
By the way I'm not Christian.
That was pretty obvious. If god made it so that only one group of people existed that would mean he stopped another from existed and free will wouldn't exist. Does that sound logical too you?
- Login to post comments
Offline The love... and now the very apparent dishonesty. Wow, just wow.
By the way I'm not Christian.
Wow, I think it's been a while since I've spotted such easy lies from a theist. Amazing. I'm, just flabbergasted. In the other thread you started today you asked to be deconverted, when asked what God you believe in you say "the Christian God."
That was pretty obvious. If god made it so that only one group of people existed that would mean he stopped another from existed and free will wouldn't exist. Does that sound logical too you?
It's not logical. If God never brings a certain type of person into existence, that certain type of person never existed to have lost free will. For all you know, God did exactly that. Something that doesn't exist, nor ever existed, would not be without free will. God knew what I would do, had the ability to pull me out of the equation without affecting anyones free will, but he didn't. So he must want me to show you how illogical and irrational your god belief is.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
- Login to post comments
Offline
It's not logical. If God never brings a certain type of person into existence, that certain type of person never existed to have lost free will. For all you know, God did exactly that. Something that doesn't exist, nor ever existed, would not be without free will. God knew what I would do, had the ability to pull me out of the equation without affecting anyones free will, but he didn't. So he must want me to show you how illogical and irrational your god belief is.
God didn't create athiests or create thiests, he created people and let them choose what they would believe.
- Login to post comments
Offline Sapient wrote:
It's not logical. If God never brings a certain type of person into existence, that certain type of person never existed to have lost free will. For all you know, God did exactly that. Something that doesn't exist, nor ever existed, would not be without free will. God knew what I would do, had the ability to pull me out of the equation without affecting anyones free will, but he didn't. So he must want me to show you how illogical and irrational your god belief is.God didn't create athiests or create thiests, he created people and let them choose what they would believe.
So God, OMNICIENT God, had no idea what people would believe?
Are you saying an all knowing God didn't know I would be an atheist?
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
- Login to post comments
Offline Humanzy wrote:Sapient wrote:
It's not logical. If God never brings a certain type of person into existence, that certain type of person never existed to have lost free will. For all you know, God did exactly that. Something that doesn't exist, nor ever existed, would not be without free will. God knew what I would do, had the ability to pull me out of the equation without affecting anyones free will, but he didn't. So he must want me to show you how illogical and irrational your god belief is.God didn't create athiests or create thiests, he created people and let them choose what they would believe.
So God, OMNICIENT God, had no idead what people would believe?
Possibly, you chose not to believe in him. That doesn't mean he doesn't exist unless you're a solipsist.
- Login to post comments
Offline
God didn't create athiests or create thiests, he created people and let them choose what they would believe.
Yes, Choose me or burn.... lol free will my ass.
Oh, and uh, btw, there is always the possibility that maybe, just maybe (snigger snigger), God doesn't exist.
- Login to post comments
Offline Yellow_Number_Five wrote:Humanzy wrote:Sapient wrote:
It's not logical. If God never brings a certain type of person into existence, that certain type of person never existed to have lost free will. For all you know, God did exactly that. Something that doesn't exist, nor ever existed, would not be without free will. God knew what I would do, had the ability to pull me out of the equation without affecting anyones free will, but he didn't. So he must want me to show you how illogical and irrational your god belief is.God didn't create athiests or create thiests, he created people and let them choose what they would believe.
So God, OMNICIENT God, had no idead what people would believe?
Possibly, you chose not to believe in him. That doesn't mean he doesn't exist unless you're a solipsist.
But God, if He is indeed all knowing, must have known what choice I would make.
Do you understand what omnicient means?
If God KNEW I would reject him before I was even born, he must since he is all knowing, what right does he have to punish me for being exactly what he knew I would be? For being exactly what he created me to be?
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
- Login to post comments
Offline Humanzy wrote:
God didn't create athiests or create thiests, he created people and let them choose what they would believe.Yes, Choose me or burn.... lol free will my ass.
Oh, and uh, btw, there is always the possibility that maybe, just maybe (snigger snigger), God doesn't exist.
Certainly, at which point, if I died and there wasn't a God, I'd cease to exist. In the mean time I will have followed morals set out by my religion (which isn't Christianity, I'll explain later) and feel, on my death bed, that I lead a pretty ok life. Slave to such horrible morals as "Thou shall not steal".
- Login to post comments
Offline In the mean time I will have followed morals set out by my religion (which isn't Christianity, I'll explain later) and feel, on my death bed, that I lead a pretty ok life. Slave to such horrible morals as "Thou shall not steal".
My time is important, if you want anymore of it, come clean with it. What religion are you? In the other thread you claim to want to be deconverted from Christianity, I don't have time for your dishonesty and insincerity under false pretenses. So come clean about the religion you are, especially as it is now very pertinent to the issue.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
- Login to post comments
Well Jesus Christ himself told you that religions today have it totally wrong :shock:
LOL! That's right. For those who aren't privy to the inside scoop, we actually hosted a man claiming to be Jesus Christ on a past show. Become a subscriber above or get it individually here.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
That's funny! That show was a bit hard to listen to, though! I didn't even try listening to the full length version!
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
I sometimes hear atheists say that when they see a theist trying to defend God's existence by using irrational arguments, it makes them just a little more sure that God does not exist.
I'll simply say that your argument above makes me just a little more sure that God exists.
David
How?
Wilson: "We were afraid that if you found out you solved a case with absolutely no medical evidence you'd think you were God." House: "God doesn't limp."
The argument in the OP is so illogical that I'm not even sure where to start. You're suggesting that if God sent the rain, then His only motivation was to drive you to end all religion - and that the only other option is that He does not exist. Do you really think that, if God exists, He chooses when and where to send rain based on this kind of criteria? That it's not about the cycles of nature (watering the grass, etc.), but about driving individuals to do this or that?
Secondly, you were set to golf with your son, and it got rained out, so you decided to work on the RR stuff, instead of, say, doing something ELSE with your son, like going to a movie or going bowling or whatever. Now, I don't know all of the factors, so maybe there really was no other viable option, but still - working on the RR stuff was YOUR decision, and you seem to be suggesting that it was God's in some way, that if He wants you to do such-and-such, He needs to make you do it, or if He doesn't want you to do such-and-such, He needs to stop you. That's ridiculous.
Besides that, do you really think you stand a chance in hell of "ending all religion"? Do you really see yourself as such a threat that God should never have made you? Really?
David
Regardless of motivations, he still sent the rains, right? Sent the rains in the form of Hurricane Katrina? Sent the rains that fall on the ocean to Indonesia in the form of a disasterous tsunami?
At one time, according to your magic book, he sent rains that drowned everything on earth, except one family and the animals they had on their boat, right?
So even if your god "just" sends the the rain, doesn't that give us a damn good basis to assess his supposedly omnipotent, omnicient and (are you kidding me?) benevolent character upon?
Perhaps, perhaps not. He still sends the rain.
"I shall destroy humankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth -- humankind, as well as animals, creeping things, and birds of the sky. For I am sorry that I have made them......Behold, I will bring a flood of waters on this earth to destroy every living thing under heaven. Everything on earth will die." - God
Luckily, Noah was only 600 years old when the Flood hit, so he was still limber enough to handle it. Otherwise, there would be nothing left.
Oh, and BTW, Noah, I know you were 600 and probably senile and all, but why couldn't you have left malria or HIV or ebola behind and took the unicorn instead. Just saying, man, prioritize.
Sure, natural disasters and the philosophical argument they lead us to, the Problem of Evil, certainly don't influence people's beliefs at all.
Before we address that, you need to address this:
Is God omnicient? Does he know all things?
Only your God knows, David. Only your God knows.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
When it comes to natural disasters, I don't pretend to know exactly what's going on on a more cosmic level, whether God specifically set out to cause it or whether it's a naturally-caused event that God simply let happen for whatever reason. I generally assume the latter, but not knowing for sure, and not always understanding why, it's not an issue I tend to debate much. But since it has nothing to do with the issue at hand - whether God specifically sent the rainstorm for the sole purpose of driving Nick to disprove God's existence, which I think any rational person wouldn't believe for a second, then it has nothing to do with this thread.
Yes, but I consider that story to be a parable, not history.
Assess away.
Okay, I just happen to feel that rain is more about getting water from place A to place B, not about getting people from place A to place B.
Sorry, but a rainstorm that causes people not play golf is hardly a "natural disaster". I'm talking about Nick's argument, and you're talking about something else. How about we deal with the subject at hand for now?
Yes (though I'll add that "knowing" doesn't equal "controlling"
. Now let's address Nick's argument.
So why is Nick pretending that he does, also?
David
No I'm not. Don't infer what I didn't even come close to saying... that my friend is illogical.
I believe I said... "maybe he doesn't exist."
No, you're being ridiculous as you're completely dismissing your gods foreknowledge. He knew that had I got rained out I would choose to end religion as my back up activity. He knew it before I even knew it, if he's all knowing.
Yes. But I think it's leaps and bounds more likely that I will die with religion still thriving on this planet, however we can make the world a slightly better place, and give it a try.
There are thousands of skeptics and those who fight against asinine concepts like Yahweh. God shouldn't have allowed any of those people to come into existence. However I never said that he shouldn't have allowed me to come into existence, I said he wants me to help end religious belief.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
scuse me David, I am not sure that Sapient was entirely serious...
this is the most important part of his original post:
I love this ever increasing notion that bible god didn't set nature into motion knowing everything it would do. That natural disasters are just a product of nature that he "let happen." This willful ignorance is typical of most Christians, who must clearly excuse god for his pure evil by ascribing such ridiculous ideas that this all knowing all powerful god is just allowing something to happen that he wasn't fully and 100% completely responsible for.
The amount of innocent blood on Gods hands is extreme, paled only in comparison to the amount of blood that believers so ignorantly release him from responsibility.
You should stop claiming something that was never said.
And we "rational" people consider the part with God, to be a parable.
Did you just make the ridiculous claim that the problem of evil doesn't influence peoples beliefs at all?
First of all it was my argument, Sapient. Second of all, you're the one who took us to this point in the conversation.
Obviously, knowing doesn't equal controlling. However if he's all powerful then he has the power to make his plans a certain way, which include not allowing me to come into existence to end religion (which he clearly must want in his plan).
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
You said "God chose to make it rain so that I would help end Religion". Yes, that comes awfully close to saying that if God sent the rain, then His motivation was to drive you to end all religion.
Yes, with the other option being the above, that God chose to make it rain so that you would help end all religion.
I'm not dismissing God's foreknowledge, I'm dismissing your suggestion that it's God's job to stop you from doing what you want to do.
Then you're an irrational person.
Do you really that, without religion, people won't find other reasons to oppress and kill each other? That non-religious people are always kind to their fellow man and religious people are always cruel to them? If so, you need to take the blinders off.
Why not? I believe that God loves mankind and does what is best for mankind as a whole in the long run (though not necessarily what is best for a certain individual or group at a certain time). Are you saying that people like you offer no benefit to mankind as a whole in the long run?
Yes, and I'm saying that's the kind of irrational argument that makes believers like me just a little more sure that God exists. That an individual does something naughty doesn't mean that God wants them to do it, just that He ALLOWS them to do it. God gave us free will, and doesn't revoke it any time someone decides to do something that He doesn't like.
David
Oops, I did confuse the writer of the OP. It was you, not Nick. All apologies. But you did say "God chose to make it rain so that I would help end Religion"
I'm rational, and I don't.
That was Yellow Number Five who said that, not me.
Again, apologies for confusing you and Nick. But I did not bring up natural disasters.
No, I think giving mankind free will to obey or disobey Him was definitely part of his plan. Would you really want to live if God made us all mindless robots capable only of doing what He wants?
David
That was his motivation as I contend, however I never contended it was his sole motivation.
I never said it was his job to stop me from what I want to do. I said God knew what I would do, and put me in a position to do it. God must want me to convince believers, that their god doesn't exist.
BEEP. Wrong. Thinking that there is no chance to end religion is what would be irrational. Leaving the possibility open, no matter how big the hill is to climb is the rational position. Sorry bub. You're in wishfulthinkingville right now. Especially considering the fact that statistics are on the side of "religion will end one day." There are less and less believers of God on this planet every year, statistically speaking.
Did I say that? NO. So don't infer that I did.
Did I say that? NO. So don't infer that I did.
Did I say that? NO. So don't infer that I did. Not only didn't I say it, it's the exact opposite of what I would've said.
Therefore showing all of us how you are willing to be dishonest with yourself to rationalize beliefs you have no evidence for.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Sorry David rational people don't have beliefs that aren't tenable.
No he didn't make that claim, please stop being so intellectually dishonest.
And in his plan he knew I would lack evidence to believe. He knew what type of evidence I would need to believe, and the same thing of other skeptics. He knew I would (as well as others) help show people that there isn't appropriate evidence to believe he exists, and that his holy text is so contradictory that his existence is a logical impossibility. He had the power to revise his plan before putting it into action without affecting peoples free will. If he didn't have the power to change his plan without affecting peoples free will, than he's not all powerful, and he isn't god. Therefore God must want non believers to exist, and he also must want some of them to show believers how he couldn't possibly exist.
I never said we are mindless robots, or made the argument. Stop inferring ridiculousness.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
I see. So in your original argument, you were admitting that God might have had other motivations for sending the rain, other than for driving you to disprove His existence - an admission that would have seriously weakened, if not outright invalidated, your argument.
And I'm dismissing that suggestion, because it's ludicrous.
On the contrary, atheism is in decline percentage-wise. While it may be growing in some areas, "worldwide atheism overall may be in decline. This is due to the demographic fact that highly religious nations have the highest birthrates in the world, and highly irreligious nations have the lowest birthrates in the world. As Norris and Inglehart [Norris, Pippa and Ronald Inglehart. 2004. Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide. Cambridge U. Press] observe, 'the world as a whole now has more people with traditional religious views than ever before - and they constitute a growing proportion of the world's population.' " Zuckerman, Phil. "Atheism: Contemporary Rates and Patterns ", chapter in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, ed. by Michael Martin, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK (2005)
I didn't infer it. I'm asking. Except add the word "think" between "really" and "that", please. My bad.
Again, I'm asking.
Good. Me, too. Which clearly explains why God didn't stop you from existing.
Sorry, but arguing that God, if He exists, must have caused the rain in order to get you to convince others of His non-existence is irrational, and when I see people using irrational arguments to justify their position, it does (for right or wrong) make it harder for me to agree with their position.
David
I agree. And since your belief that God, if He exists, must have sent the rain to drive you to disprove His existence, isn't tenable, you're not rational.
Tell me the time and date of the post where I said that.
Yellow Number Five said that in the post made at "Sun Jul 09, 2006 8:33 pm" (at least that's the time that it says for that post on my computer - I don't know if it changes based on one's time settings. Either way, it's the last post he/she made in this thread).
Correct. Giving people the choice to believe in Him means giving people the choice NOT to believe in Him, and giving those who do not believe in Him the ability to express that disbelief to others. That's what free will is about. Giving them "option A" or "option B" and then taking away "option B", isn't giving them a choice at all.
But you have to admit that it's impossible to prove that God "couldn't possibly exist". Even if you managed to disprove all major religions (good luck!), that wouldn't prove that God does not exist. It would just prove that no one understands Him. Which, to some extent, I believe, anyways.
I didn't infer that you believed it, and would in fact be amazed if you did. You said that God, if He existed, either should not have created you, or He must want you to end religion. But either possibility would mean a lack of free will, thus making us mindless robots programmed to do only what He wants.
Refusing to create non-believers would mean that God only wants believers, meaning God has no respect for our free will and choices, but only wants individuals who behave a certain way.
Or saying that God created you because He wants you to end religion means that you have no choice in being the way you are - that you are the way you are because God WANTS you to be the way you are, not because of any choices you made in your life. That would make you a mindless robot, programmed to do God's bidding, and I definitely doubt that you see yourself as a mindless robot. The fact that you don't believe is because you chose not to believe, not because God programmed you not to believe.
David
It does nothing to weaken or invalidate the argument that god had multiple motives and one of them was for me to show people how he doesn't exist.
The belief you hold in this god, that is bound to such ludicrous things is ludicrous. And yet it's reality. God must want nonbelievers to exist, and in my case he must want me to disprove his existence. Listen to our show this coming Friday when the Infidel Guy talks about this.
Whoa Whoa Whoa. Way to quote mine! And you speak of my irrationality? You have some nerve. Why not include the sentences leading up to that one? Here they are:
http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/atheism.html <--- there's the link
Call my argument irrational if you want, I don't care what dishonest fools call me. Most intellectuals would agree, when someone quote mines as attrociously as you just did, it makes it harder for honest intellectuals to agree with your position. Ok?
This whole exhange is more evidence to the Theory of Inherent Dishonesty in Theism.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Ok, let's see if you can understand this extremely trivial point, maybe grasp the concept of personal honesty a little.
Here is the rock solid logical form argument to back my very tenable position and expose your personal dishonesty:
1. The Christian God wants all men to know that he exists so that they can be saved and go to heaven.
2. The Christian God is all powerful, all knowing, and omnibenevolent
3. The Christian God knows what sufficient evidence he can provide to convince all men of his existence
4. Not all men are convinced of Gods existence
5. The Christian God chooses to not provide all men with sufficient evidence that he exists
6. Therefore the Christian God wants non-believers to exist
That logical argument would be the argument for non belief (from show 19), now, take that a step further.
1. The Christian God is all powerful, all knowing, and omnibenevolent
2. The Christian God knows what sufficient evidence he can provide to me to convince me of his existence
3. The Christian God knew that were it to rain I wouldn't have played golf and I would've showed others the flaws in his existence
4. The Christian God chose to make it rain on the day I was set to play golf.
5. Therefore the Christian God wants me to show believers he doesn't exist.
Go ahead, instead of calling me not rational or some variation of that, try proving the argument wrong. You have yet to do that.
Wow, you're so fucking dishonest it's disgusting. I didn't say you said something, I just corrected you on saying that Mike did. You can't even keep your lies straight, or maybe you can and this game of flipping the script is how you avoid reality.
Read between the lines, you just said he wants people to exist who show others how he doesn't exist. Thanks for making my point while trying to defeat it, good job. C'mon man, start being honest with yourself.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Yes, it completely does. Because if He had other motivations, then that means that He may care little, if at all, whether you attempt to prove His non-existence.
Yes, God does want non-believers to exist, because He wants us to choose whether to believe or not. But as far as God WANTING you to prove His non-existence, you'll need a much better argument than this if you want to convince anyone.
What time? And will it be saved so I can listen to it after the fact?
Yes, I said just before the quote that it is growing in some areas. But if, as you claim, statistics are on the side of "religion will end one day", then it needs to be statistically growing overall, not just in some areas. You didn't seriously mean that religion will only end in Great Britain, France and Scandinavia while continuing to exist in most other nations, did you?
Even though I started out conceding the point that the extended quote made? I specifically said just before giving the quote that it is growing in some areas, and you hit me with a quote showing - GASP - that it is growing in some areas. Gee, how dishonest of me to concede a point instead of quoting the part which says it.
What did I do that was dishonest? Dishonesty would mean that I was trying to hide or deny the fact that atheism is growing in some areas, which I clearly did not. I simply thought that, for brevity's sake (since the issue wasn't whether it was growing in one area, but whether the growth was on such a scale that it threatened to eliminate religion altogether), I would skip over the part irrelevant to the issue at hand. But not wanting to make it sound like I was denying its growth in some areas, I conceded that point at the get-go. I don't see how that's dishonest.
BTW, I'll respond to the other post later tonight. Heigh-ho, heigh-ho, it's off to work I go.
David
The same reasons he wants us to choose whether to believe or not, are the same reasons he wants me to choose whether to disprove his existence or not. Seeing as how he's all powerful and all knowing, he could've taken me out of the equation without affecting free will, yet did nothing before he created humanity to stop me. Therefore he must want me to be doing this.
9 pm est. Look on our homepage for further details.
You didn't seriously mean that religion will only end in Great Britain, France and Scandinavia while continuing to exist in most other nations, did you?
You didn't seriously mean that atheism is on the decline when there are more atheists in the world today then ever before, did you?
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient