Post your tough questions for an Atheist/Agnostic.

Your question was irrelevant, if people didn't care, then they wouldn't try to proselytise at me and I wouldn't lack belief in their assertions. I wouldn't be an atheist if they didn't care what I thought and I don't care why they do, I care that they try to assert things without evidence. I answered the interesting question that you didn't ask mainly because of your 'vegan' snark which kind of discounted you from the realm of 'asking a serious question' almost immediately.

 

My question was why do atheists think other people care of they are atheist. I didn't say anything about anybody else. I think this question is extremely relevant. You're dodging it.

So you pick your philosophical positron based on what others think? Seems angsty to me.

Who, why?

Well vegans share something in common with atheists. They tell people about how vegan they are looking for either an argument with a non vegan that is pointless, or some sort of affirmation.

Switch the word vegan out with atheist and the statement is just as apt. Snarky or not it's true.

 

Yup, irrelevant questions and ongoing snark, you're not someone to have a serious conversation with so, I won't try. Enjoy.

 

Seems my question is far too tough for this thread. Not surprising.

 

Jesus was a heretic psychopath as were the assorted story tellers.

The statement: "Jesus saved you from the empty way of life handed you by your forefathers" (1 Peter 1:18 ) would be considered to be asinine by any religious Jew at that time because it says that Moses' laws were BS. They were of course but for the story teller to tell that to people who had been indoctrinated into that way of life would have gotten the story teller gutted and roasted in a flash.

The reality is that everyone is an atheist because all gods are imaginary. Even if you profess to believe in a favorite deity your imagine of him is different than everyone else's. Not one pope, priest, minister, or pastor has ever believed in Jesus because not one of them has ever had enough faith to do what he said they could do if they had faith and didn't doubt. The same is true for every other religion. Not one person really believes in any of it because they don't follow all of the doctrine. They pick and choose the parts that satisfy their delusions.

 

In no way would I wish to insult posters. I think since you accused me, it should be simple for you to prove I insulted atheists.

Give it a shot.

Apparently that is your excuse to taunt me and post things you claim I said. As I correctly say, the act of doing my talking for me is not a good idea.

 

Correction

 

When you argue your points, what do you believe / accept are your flaws? Weak points and irrelevant counter comments?

 

Really?...

That post contained as a minimum
One insult that atheists are closed minded
One insult atheists are intellectually immature
One insult telling atheists what they think

Really?

That post contained as a minimum
One insult of my posting style.
One insult that atheists are practically unable to communicate
One insult telling atheists what they think
One insult that atheists just don't get what you say

I make that seven insults over two posts but clearly, I am wrong because you don't insult.

 

My flaw is that I have debated theists on the internet for a long time so I almost know exactly what they will say before they even say it. If this was a chess game then I would be about 20 moves ahead of you and my weakness is that even knowing that I still try to engage. After all, one day, one of them might bring something new to the game.

 

Are you serious?

Frankly, I read much worse than that coming from atheists.

As I said, my commentary is not for the purpose of insults.

Are you They? Oh heck, when you talk that way, in your view you did not insult. At the least, if you think you got insulted, check with me. I am so honest and frank that I would tell any poster to their face if I am insulting them or taunting them.

I believe when i relate what I get from talking to atheists I am being honest, yet with no intent of malice.

Forums containing rhetoric and accusations such as I get do tend to get on my nerves.

 

We are seriously stupid?

And that is your flaw?

By the way, I am rusty today but I had a chess ranking at one point of over 2200. I note that when you taunt or insult, you fall back on denial. If you think I insulted, you go full force at accusing me of taunts or insults.

To you, why do I accept GOD?

 

Sounds like an idea that will bring only anger and hatred. But I'll play, and stay clear of anger and hatred.

You have probably heard this one before-
If indeed God is true (I only say if for you), what would you tell Him on your judgment day?

How is it you can have life, a conscience (you), everything that you see, from the birds to the bees, flowers to the trees, fishes of the seas, all the creepy crawlers, all the beasts of the field, stars in the heavens, sun and moon, and only think it is all a mere cosmic coincidence? As if your life has no meaning whatsoever?

We'll start with those two/three!

 

Literally none of those quotes address the issue. None. A few of the reasons why:

1) The Curse of Ham, or more accurately the Curse of Canaan, had absolutely nothing to do with war. At all. Ham saw his dad naked so God picked one of Ham's sons and cursed him and his descendants to generational slavery. This, incidentally, is the first time slavery is mentioned in the Bible, it occurs right after the global flood, and according to the Bible it was God's idea. That means God either invented slavery, and specifically hereditary slavery having nothing to do with war prisoners or criminals, or he reintroduced the idea after whipping it from the face of the earth.

2) The other incident I'm talking about is the genocide/infanticide of the Amalekites. Despite your attempt at a modern comparison, swords and spears are considerably easier to aim than weapons of mass destruction. God didn't tell the Israelites that it was okay if Amalekite children died as an untargeted consequence. He told them specifically to target children.

3) Your "war is hell" excuse not only confuses melee weapons with bombs, you are providing your own attempt at a "justification" that isn't found anywhere in the Bible. The justification that the God of the Bible gives for killing these children is that the distant ancestors of their parents attacked the distant ancestors of the Israelites while they were fleeing Egypt (Deut 25:17-19).

4) Saul, the person God told to kill all of these Amalekites, didn't follow through and he allowed some of them to survive. They didn't wipe out Israel. So obviously the "They had to kill all of them out of self defense" excuse doesn't hold. Saul was apparently both more wise and more moral than his God.

5) If the "they had to do it" excuse were true, God would have told the Israelites to do this sort of bare-earth warfare all of the time. This is one of the only times in the Bible God commands infanticide. In other wars, God tells the Israelites to spare children. The argument that it was a necessity is a farce.

6) God didn't only tell Saul to kill every man, woman, and child. He told them to kill all of their animals too. This was ritual and ancestral revenge (see previously cited verses), not a utilitarian calculation by a shrewd military leader.

7) You'll find that Christians on these boards have all sorts of excuses for these atrocities, no two of which seem to be the same, and none of which can be matched with the story presented.

You severely limit your God. He'll perform miracles to prove his greatness, but can't come up with a better way to go into war than what we practice today?

This isn't to say that I don't think that Christian thinkers have contributed significantly to philosophy. I've found a lot to like about Rudolph Otto, Reinhold Neibuhr, Paul Tillich, Richard Swinburne, etc. However, to hold up this sort of barbaric ignorance as the word of an all-powerful, all-knowing God who identifies himself with reason (logos) and compassion (agape)? That's a shame.

 

1- the snooty Jewish priests said Jesus was nutty too, so whose side you on, his or theirs?..
2- The word "God" is oldfashioned, try to think of him as an "alien intelligence", and Jesus as his front man who told us how to get to him, the trick is to simply like Jesus so that we mindmeld with him and our souls automatically fly to him through the 'Jesus Stargate" when our bodies die- "Let us fix our eyes on Jesus.." (Heb 12:2)

Jesus said-"Enter through the narrow gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it,but small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."(Matt 7:13)
Right Teal'c?

 

If God felt a primitive race (including its kids) should be culled out of the human race, I have no beef with that. You can always argue it out with him when you meet him..

 

Heck, most of them who did follow Jesus dumped him as soon as he told them that they had to become cannibals and vampires. But Joseph of Armithea hung in there and stole Jesus' corpse and had it for dinner. All he got out of it was a bad case of diarrhea.

 

There was no such guy as the Jewish historian Josephus. If anything he went by another alias because "J" words didn't exist at that time. It would be more credible to use his real alias instead of a fictional one.

 

I doubt such a demon exists. But if he does, I'll gladly flip him off on the way to whatever childishly ignorant punishment he has in store for those who express greater mental and moral capacities than he.

 

By that admission, I have shown that it was actually very simple to prove that you insulted atheists. I could accept that your commentary is not for the purposes of insults but it clearly does that so perhaps you should stop putting judgmental comments about atheists in your posts.

 

Again, I did not say anyone was stupid, did I? Why is that kind of thing your 'go to' tactic?

What I said was that I have debated theists on the internet for a long time so I almost know exactly what they will say before they even say it. My weakness is that I know exactly what is coming but, I continue to try to engage with theists. They are not necessarily stupid people and I did not say they were, I did however imply that they are not rationalising their faith with any new arguments.

By the way, I didn't just accuse you, I showed you that you did insult not just me but, atheists in general.

I am not going to guess at why you accept the existence of 'gods'; you tell me. All I can say is whether I can accept the same assertion on the same basis and if not, why I cannot.

 

The European Union is a bunch of pol-correct moral do-gooders and just look at the mess they've made of Europe, letting hordes of heathen "refugees" in..
That's the problem of blindly doing good without a thought for the consequences.

 

It has nothing to do with political correctness or even "thought for the consequences." As I've already demonstrated, the actions I'm criticizing in the Bible were actions taken as ritual, corporate punishment, not actions performed to bring about more desirable consequences. Plus, appealing to consequences doesn't work when discussing an omnipotent being. He's omnipotent. He can bring about those desirable consequences without racial slavery or mass infanticide.

 

I am positive I never intended to insult Athiests.

But why do you and I clash.

Examine my words and stack them against your own. Let me show you that if I thought as you think, I would yell you insulted non athiests.

Read your own words.

How many more times must I tell you my comments were not insults.

It is counterproductive to engage in insults.

 

I have this view.

You appear to believe you get to pass judgment on my commentary along with pretending my question, once more shown above, is some assertion. Truth be told it is a question is all it amounts to.

While I never mind having discussions with those who believe their commentary amounts to some on high discussion, my aim is to speak to my ideas so the other viewers get my drift and are able to discuss what I actually say.

For instance, this claim I insulted atheists is silly. I don't care how you presented my words, a quick question to me learns i know much better ways to insult than those claims by you.

I have used your own words that had I said those words, would get accused of insulting, only you will also, as I do, deny you insulted. I won't even judge you as insulting me though you said those words to me.

Is it that important to you to claim "gods" when as I discuss GOD, I never make GOD plural?

But due to your assertion of gods, I shall elaborate. While it is clear as i say GOD, I speak of but one,

May I claim there are many?

Definitely I could should I wish.

Just as parents have children, it would be wrong for me to assert either the parents or the children are not humans, a good case can be made that there is more than a sole god, but one GOD who produces other gods.

So it depends entirely on the definition of GOD vs gods, don't you think?

To be not only frank but blunt, I do not have a mission to convert atheists.

On the other hand, I have read so many atheists talk, I too know what they will claim prior to them making such claims

This is not my first rodeo.