Neither of you seem to get it. On Infidel Guy's website, I am battling Rayback's claims that Allah is our super hero. You, Caposkia, want to defend the claim that the Christian God of Jesus is our super hero.

I doubt either of you have any more evidence than navel lint, but that would be insulting navel lint. However since neither of you want to face me, what better train wreck to watch than a battle between imaginary sky friends?

What say you Cap? You cant pick off a godless kitten bbqer like me, but maybe you can convince an Allah lover that the real name is "Jesus". Or maybe this Jihad lover can convince you that you will get laid 72 fold?

If you both decide to take on this debate my god will be Orval Reddenboker (popcorn maker).

LETS GET READY TO RUMBLE!

I am giving everyone a link to a book that is a revolution in thought.  This was my father's work.  He mentioned God throughout the book, but as I said in my earlier posts, this god is not the god of the bible but the laws that are governing our universe.  I am sure there will be things people disagree with, especially his claim that the eyes are not a sense organ and why this important to know.  Empiricists want evidence and according to them he did not provide enough.  They think he only made assertions. 

His second discovery is very clear, yet the empiricists couldn't understand how reasoning and observation led him to the absolute proof that man's will is not free, without experimental evidence confirming this. 

His third discovery is not online but has to do with death and the fact that we are born again and again; but not the same individual.  This obviously does not come from the kind of evidence empiricists claim is the ONLY evidence that is credible.  This discovery has nothing to do with reincarnation or the afterlife of heaven and hell.  He came to this understanding through certain clues that allowed him to make these observations.  

I've been thinking about my stance on the psychology of religion and came across the fact that Christians will follow some parts of the Bible, but not other, Muslims will follow some of the Koran, but not all.

So I ask:

WHY do you think they do this? What prevents them from accepting others will wildly following others?

I have my own views of course, but I want others.

I was having a debate with mannyofmanynames about what is a coward. He believes that athiests are cowards that believe that religious indoctrination is a form of child abuse but don't advocate removing children from the homes of every parents that send their children to Sunday school.

In some cases, I would advocate for this. For example, if the parents refused to allow their children to learn any science. But if this were advocated in all cases, we couldn't win this battle. Plus I think the government would have to invade everyone's privacy to enforce such a law. My goal is to win the war against religous indoctrination. At this point, the best strategy is to argue our point and educate people.

To me, the 'coward' tag is an adolecent attempt to manipulate people. It's social preasure to behave in irrational ways so as not to be seen as weak. It seems that a person that doesn't do what he believes is right for fear of being percieved as a 'coward' would fit the definition of one.

But this issue raises a major flaw with the concept of faith. How is it possible for a Theist/'person of faith' to have any courage? If you really believe that every action you take will eventually lead to God giving you a reward and that you will not die but live forever in paradise, how could you have any courage unless you also have doubt? It seems that 'courage' is only necessary when a person lacks faith. Yet the theists try to tell us the opposite, that their faith gives them courage.

http://www.pbs.org/video/video/1092332047/program/979359652

Enjoy!

Here's a thread for discussing the Presuppositionalist vs. Stosis debate in the thread, Requesting a Debate on the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

Not that Stosis has formally accepted. But if he (or someone else) does, this is the thread in which to comment.

I can't help but be perplexed by the anger that exists between believers and non-believers.  And I also can't believe that there is no middle ground.  We all have faith in something, even if it is faith that we can accomplish something without anyone's help.  But what bothers me is the anger that exudes the atheists, almost as if they are superior.  Okay, I said it.  I believe atheists think are better, smarter, and definitely more in charge of their lives than religious folk who depend on a higher authority.  I posed this question in an earlier thread, and got no results.  So I will ask again, why should anyone be so strong in their beliefs that they would blame and crucify those who don't believe as they do?  I am sure you remember a time that you believed something, and it turned out to be wrong, so you changed your ideas.  This is an ongoing evolution, and I believe ideologies have a place in the history of mankind.  I really don't believe this website is healthy because is a defense of one's worldview which can never be used to change everyone's thoughts about life.  It only brings anger and hatred.  Challenge me, I need help to reconcile the two opposing views.

Intro

I would like to debate the soundness of the KCA. I will debate the first reasonably well-informed person - as determined by myself - to respond to this OP. The form of the argument that I intend to defend can be found at this link http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-smith1.html.

Teeth are pretty important structures for us. Without a good set of teeth it's pretty difficult to eat properly, and if you aren't eating properly you run into some pretty serious health issues.

So why did god give us such shitty teeth? We only get one permanent set, and it actually grows-in with a few too many members to fit within your jaw. Outside of what options a person now has through medical science, if your teeth wear down, you're pretty much screwed. Shark teeth constantly replace themselves; why the heck can't ours (question directed at theists. Biologists, please resist the urge to offer a scientfic explanation. )?

If God created man in his imagedid God suffer from dental issues of some sort? Why does it look like he screwed this one up so badly? 

Could anyone explain how an afterlife would stop someone from making another religion up once they got to heaven to worship another god even higher than god (all of the same arguments would seem to work)?

If all doubt, reason, and understanding was removed then why would it be called heaven?

Can there be any understanding of good/pleasure and evil/pain with no experiential contrast between the two to study?

What's so heavenly about absolute mind control over an empty husk?

What's the difference in purpose between a purposeless universe and one with a god (what do you live for when you live forever)?

Who'll start with the naked assertions first?