John_Mann
Your attempts to reply to the nine observations in my OP are the best possible demonstration of the failure of theism to talk sense.
I will respond in detail later.
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
John_Mann
Your attempts to reply to the nine observations in my OP are the best possible demonstration of the failure of theism to talk sense.
I will respond in detail later.
by way of a general question: can a system of belief outlive the disintegration of its core ideas?
how and why??.
urge you to reflect, and post freely.. your thoughts are appreciated without bias..
SKD - I don't know think I have ever seen a new poster start so many threads so quickly without any introduction. Would you like to tell us a little about your self? Are you an ex-JW? Do you represent some other religious group? BK?
The small print reveals the real priorities of the organisation regarding child abuse.
If there is no mandatory reporting law they explain to the elders about the need for confidentiality. They don't discuss whether the accused might pose an ongoing threat to children and whether they have a moral duty to take action. The welfare of children is of no importance to them in comparison with protecting their reputation.
It's ironic that it is this very policy that is now destroying their reputation and their wealth.
hi, everyone.. i haven't posted here much in quite a while, but having just been laid low by injury, i'll likely be a frequent visitor for some time to come!.
two weeks ago, i was involved in a workplace accident that left me with my lower l.h.
leg fractured in three places (the tibia and fibular both broken clean through, plus another crack in the "neck" of the fibular for good measure!
Sorry to hear that. I hope you make a quick recovery. It will be better when you can get out and about more.
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
Would any consider this suggestion?
I might if I understood it.
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
The epitome of laziness John_Mann.
Anybody can post a link to twenty arguments for anything.
You have yet to address a single word in your 18 pages of dogma to the nine points in the OP.
Can we can safely assume you have no answer?
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
Is this still going on?
Page 18 and not one single response to any of the nine simple points in the OP
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
Pages and pages of irrational Roman Catholic dogma.
Believe the same things as John_Mann or spend eternity in hell. In all those pages not one word of evidence has been offered. Nothing but bald assertions based on the writings of church leaders who lived during the most superstitious period of human history.
These men were the same ones pulling humans apart on the rack for contradicting them. Thank god all their modern-day followers can do is repeat their ravings ad nauseum on an internet forum.
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
I regret that this thread has turned into a platform for the cruelty and inhumanity of Roman Catholic Dogma. Many of the assertions made above are beyond sensible consideration.
John_Mann it is clear that you have no interest and/or ability to the actual topic.
My OP consists of nine simple, common-sense observations.
They concern reasons that make me doubt the existence of the god of Jesus. They assume very little about specific doctrines other than the absolute basics of christian theism - a god of love who made the world and who desires a relationship with his creation.
Theism and reality cannot easily be reconciled. That is a problem for theism.
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
I worship the God who cares for physical suffering - John_Mann
But that flatly contradicts what you have been saying throughout this thread. Your excuse for why god allows millions to suffer and die in natural disasters is that physical suffering is of no consequence and that the only thing that really matters is the eternal soul.
If your god actually does care about physical suffering why does he cause it?
The god of Jesus created the world complete with moving and sticking tectonic plates. We know that continents have been on the move for millions of years. The omniscient god of Jesus knew about the growing pressures under the Indian Ocean during the centuries prior to the disaster. On the morning of the event he observed the Indo-Australian break free and begin to rebound. The omnipotent god of Jesus could have effortlessly dampened the rebound - he chose not to. He watched the wave of less than a metre rise to the surface. The god of Jesus who calmed the storm on Galilee could have quelled the wave and nobody would have known anything about it. No free will would have been infringed in any way. He failed to do so.
The god of Jesus knew that the wave would kill a quarter of a million people and cause suffering and harm millions more. He did nothing.
The god of Jesus did not permit the suffering of the Asian Tsunami - he caused it. He murdered them wilfully, deliberately and with malice aforethought. He made a world that was perfectly designed to kill its inhabitants and passively observed the consequences.