ITT: Bad quotes

because his son is not his son but human chose to bear the sin and became his son

in a preserve way torture was his price for god as father

Most enlightened societies have sexualized young boys.

That would be fine and dandy if theists didn't also claim benevolence and omnipotence which is obviously impossible considering the epicurean argument. If god is just another annoying neighbor or lying politician then fuck him wholeheartedly. Your faith is a fucking joke.

You'll grow up one day, lad.

Well, if you want to go into details, then antique societies have sexualized adolescents, not children you sick fuck. It's also quite funny how you seem to go against christian moral in rationalizing pedophilia through appeal to authority. Truly a good goy. Have a taste of His flesh and a sip of His blood, bubbale.

K

Truth is not relative to your beliefs. Whether something makes sense or not, whether something is logical or not, true or not - it doesn't matter if you're an atheist or a Christian when you think about such a problem, there is only one truth.

Consider this, if you will. When you ask why someone does a thing - it is true you don't know his mind, his motives. That does NOT mean you cannot make judgements about his actions. If your neighbor kills a man, would you answer "Oh, we can't peer into their minds, so we'll never know for certain why he did it"? Would you say, "It is best to assume he acted righteously, and that his actions were necessary"?

No. You would demand an answer, and if he couldn't provide one, you would condemn him. Yet when we ask the same of God, to explain to us, to share with us a reason why, and do not receive an answer, we do not condemn God. We fault ourselves and backtrack and say, "God's motives cannot be understood by man". We rely on our ignorance to justify our willful ignorance. It is not wise nor correct nor does it lead us closer to the truth.

Coming from me (), someone who lacks any sort of faith, I would like to say that your attitude is helpful to no one, and with it you only push people who disagree with us farther from being able to see our position and relate to us. Shame on you.

Nice ad antiquitatem. Come back to argue when you are less retarded.

>you only push people farther away from irrational bullshit that has no unique function in modern world, baka
Oh no, I feel so bad for you.

I never asked for nor want your sympathy, but thanks

if you don't immediately see that quote as inane, bad propaganda, you're utterly retarded

literally stop being dumb, you people are a fucking travesty

>You would demand an answer, and if he couldn't provide one, you would condemn him.

So you condemn him for not providing an answer, or for his action?

>from an objective point of view
>ideological bias is objective

>another naive poltard gets assblasted by basic logic applied to christian mythology

>these are the people who bitch about muh allegories
yikes

You first ask for an explanation, and then consider if it is valid and reasonable. Following my analogy, your neighbor is not condemned until he is asked why he killed the man. If he says in self defense, and facts support him, then he is not condemned. If God is asked, for instance, why innocent children suffer starvation and death - and his only form of answer, his holy book, does not provide one - then, for his action, I condemn him.

This post was meant to be addressed to

There is no logical reason to believe in the christian god.

I don't care how many fedora memes you post, this is utterly true. believing in the christian god is really as asinine as believing in thor.

now, it may be possible that our universe has a creator, but it's something we know utterly nothing about. and even if it did have a creator, that doesn't necessarily imply that creator is omniscient.

If you aim to sway the minds of others, do not put on a megaphone the boiled down version of your ideology. Talk specific points and refute specific claims, no person of faith will give a comment like this a second thought after they read it.

How far god would need to go for you to question his actions? If he fucked you in the mouth and then shit on your chest, would you say - "well... he works in mysterious ways"?

If Merkel would sacrifice her doughter to let her forgive the Poles starting WW2 but the doughter was actually the same as mother and she wouldn't really die, but fly to nazi heaven... Would you say this shit's retarded or that Merkel works in mysterious ways?

What I'm getting at is, problem with christianity is often beyond believing something without proof. It's getting away with illogical bullshit. Belief without proof is one level of mental sloppiness. Not being triggered by contradictions of the bible is inability to reason.

>implying a 'person of faith' is willing or able to comprehend logical arguments
>implying this comment was directed at christfags and not the doubtful
top yourself cultist

Why couldn't they think about how they'd respond to that claim?

If nothing else it could push them to question if they can come up with any kind of material proof for their beliefs

Some ideologies are objectively better than others so yes.

>>implying a 'person of faith' is willing or able to comprehend logical arguments
You're not better nor smarter than every person of faith like you think. In different circumstances, you would likely be a person of faith, and the same is likely true for me.
I didn't say they couldn't, but rather they most likely wouldn't. You do not challenge a fundamental belief system by knocking out the cornerstone, you chip away from the top.

Read jung

Kill yourself

Gee. Dawkins, presupposing that that had happened, don't you think experiencing human suffering and fucking coming back from death is an important part of the narrative you're omitting?

Atheists pat themselves on the back too much when this is considered a lucid point about religion. Bad quote indeed

The point of the specific argument you're responding to (which is far from the only one atheists present) is that god's behavior is inconsistent with the traits that christians attribute (as facts) to him. I wouldn't expect Bono to be a serial killer but it doesn't undermine my worldview if he is because while I know with 100% certainty that he does exist I don't know with 100% certainty that he's not a serial killer. Christians "know", in the same way they "know" he exists, that their god is benevolent. Because of this they can and should be pressed to explain how they rationalize that in light of his behavior (or lack thereof). If they can't they should question their faith.

>christfags and not the doubtful
Not the guy, but those sets overlap.

I am simply asking for a logical reason to believe in the christian god.

there is not one. there is not a single good reason.

I don't really get your point, if God is omniscient, he already knows what it is like to experience human suffering. And yes, Christ's resurrection is an important part of the Christian story, but how does that affect the moral argument Dawkins presents?

You didn't really ask for a reason to believe anything, you just made some claims. I was only suggesting that if you were making those claims to try and affect others, there is a better way to do it.

Read Lane Craig

knowing and experiencing are different. I could say that because God is omnipotent, he willed himself to experience terrible human suffering as a gesture of love and forgiveness to human kind (which is what happened)

Faith is a strange thing. It's a knowing beyond knowing. It's "the evidence of things unlooked for, the belief in things not seen."

I know, and don't know why I know, but I do. That's faith. That is the whole story of the Bible. It's the thread that unites the Old and New Testaments. It's the push and pull: faith in God, and then God rewards faith. I can't tell you why, exactly, I believe, only that I do. And I believe that my faith will be rewarded, in the end.

>You do not challenge a fundamental belief system by knocking out the cornerstone, you chip away from the top.

Regardless of how well thought out and approachable the arguments are, I'm sure a comments section on a b& thread in this shitty corner of the internet is hardly the place to propagate that information. There is plenty of low barrier to entry criticisms of theism widely available on the internet online. Honestly I don't think atheists have a responsibility to proselytize at all and they certainly don't on a Veeky Forums thread as argumentative and memey as this one.

let's also consider how patently funny an atheist positing a moral argument against the Christian God is

shit, "ethics is illusory" is a quote from the Dawk himself

Neither you nor Dawkins understands Christianity. Jesus didn't need to die on the cross. God is omnipotent, so He could have forgiven our sins some other way. He just chose this way, and the fact that we don't know why or how doesn't actually affect the belief that Jesus died for our sins. To draw a tangible comparison, you may not know why or how the universe exists, but that doesn't have any bearing on your belief that it exists

>but how does that affect the moral argument Dawkins presents?
Because jesus is god so its not like god is letting an innocent bystander suffer in place of him?

Even though he is an atheist, he seems to have cultivated a massive cult of personality surrounding himself that resembles a religion

Okay. So we could say that is what God did. That still does not address the issue that Dawkins talks about in his quote. Why would he need to do it?

I never said anyone had to do anything. I only said if your objective is to turn someone's opinion, this is a more effective way to do it. Plus, there is no such thing as a forum where it is inappropriate to not criticize

Sorry, but I don't think your comment has anything to do with the problem. Dawkins asks why it was necessary for Christ to suffer and die for man to be forgiven of sins. It has nothing to do with a bystander suffering or the fact that Jesus is God.

I don't want to turn this into a muh ideology meme discussion but if you can't come up with any tangible evidence for what you believe I don't see how you can refuse to question those beliefs. If you "don't know why you know" do you have any way to be sure that haven't just been tricked by societal pressures or whatever? And if not I think faith alone is an insufficient justification for refusing to at least consider this as a possibility.

>he willed himself to experience terrible human suffering as a gesture of love and forgiveness to human kind
Didn't asked for it and would only make me feel miserable. I am bad because god had to suffered for me and now I owe him.
How is needless suffering a gesture of love anyway?

>I never said anyone had to do anything. I only said if your objective is to turn someone's opinion, this is a more effective way to do it. Plus, there is no such thing as a forum where it is inappropriate to not criticize
Point taken and I guess I agree with you if they first post you responded to was actually trying to change minds. It struck me more as a rhetorical meme statement than the start of a serious discussion/debate

try actually reading Christian texts instead of doing stoner philosophy based on the superficial aspects of Christianity to which you are privy.

>He just chose this way, and the fact that we don't know why
have you read the Bible?
If not you should try it. Paradise Lost might help too.

>Jesus died for our sins
How did he die if he still exists? That's not how you die, that's how you fake death.

>God is omnipotent, so He could have forgiven our sins some other way. He just chose this way, and the fact that we don't know why or how doesn't actually affect the belief that Jesus died for our sins.
That's pretty weak, my dude. The sacrifice of Jesus for Man's sins is based on primitive ideas of sacrifice being necessary to appease an angry God and/or Jesus's disciples doing damage control after their prophet got BTFO.

Please consider that your comment here does not address the question nor answer it, nor my criticism of it. And for the record, I am thoroughly acquainted with the Bible and have read it many times, being seriously educated in it since childhood.

People are sheep. But it's better when they follow someone that says: "think for yourself".

>moral argument
You questioned the morality of the situation you retard.
>reasons why this had to happen
┐(￣ヮ￣)┌

It probably was that I'm just on a personal crusade right now in this thread

Yes, I questioned the morality of it. What was your answer to my question again, if you will? Or just point me to your answer?

>reasons why this had to happen ┐(￣ヮ￣)┌
Sorry, I fail to see the humor or irony. I'm all ears if you can explain it to me

It comes from the idea, which is somewhat wrong, that God is perfect. They are arguing, if God is so perfect, why does he do these seemingly imperfect things.

i cant force you to open your heart and mind to Jesus, only you have that power. Consider giving him a chance to work in you.

Sorry, meant to reply to

I will seriously consider your position, if you will seriously consider me. I will think on the value and merit of faith if you will consider the criticisms against it.

Ugh
>Or just point me to your answer?
K, Dawkins basically questions the morality of god sending his son to suffer for us. However, Jesus is god so basically god is doing the suffering himself. Therefore it is not immoral (idk, i don't really believe in morality)
>Sorry, I fail to see the humor or irony
There really was not humor i guess. You google it. Theologians have formed different reasons for it. If you think i know, sorry senpai. You can ask god when you die if he's real.

I have bleeding Eucharists and weeping statues and the very voice of God on my side, to be fair. People are healed of incurable diseases and the Sun dances in the sky.

But all these are window dressing. They don't get at the true core of what it means to believe in God. That's a matter for the depths of the heart. That's where we find "The peace of Christ, which surpasses all understanding." That's God's greatest gift, but also his most ubiquitous one. He gives it to all who believe.

And, I suppose, that's why I believe so strongly. I have, in the past, questioned my beliefs. I've challenged them. Those questions have always been answered with that same peace. It's like the gentle calm after a storm at sea. From it, I know that God is with me, and I haven't been abandoned.

That's just me, of course. Every person is different. Different people have different experiences. I can only attest what I've experienced as an individual. I only know how God has revealed himself to me, and also to others in ways that leave evidence.

(idk, i don't really believe in morality) Okay. Well I encourage you to think about what it is you believe more. Because saying you do not believe in morality is saying that you do not believe is right and wrong, or good and evil. And if you don't believe in that then I have a hard time understanding your faith in the Christian God. Just think about my criticisms and try to search yourself for some better answers.

Fair enough. You believe in God, then, because of your personal experience. Thats a bit different than faith. You can call it faith if you want, but faith by definition is believing something without a reason. I guess the only thing I have to say to that, is that a God that reveals himself to some people, and not to others, is no God I will willingly worship. My heart and mind are open. If God willed it, he could reveal himself to me in a way that would make me believe. I know exactly what it would take. But he hasn't, and I doubt he ever will. And that kind of God, who will send me to hell when there is another way, is no God for me.

Im a Christian? When did I say that? Damn, i guess you learn something new every day. I was just pointing out the flaw in Dawkins' fedora shit that you are too retarded to think critically about.

I wouldn't call it different from faith. I'd say that it's a faith which has been rewarded.

But for the reward, the faith has to come first. The reward follows the faith, not the other way around.

I guess I understand what you're saying. It's somewhat frustrating that it puts you into a position that is basically above argument but I'm willing to agree to disagree.

You: "Because jesus is god"

said in this comment Thats the defintion of being a Christian, friend.

I don't see how it isn't different. Faith is believing without a reason to believe. So do you believe regardless of your experience, or because of it? It can't be both.

I was merely stated it in the christian sense. I never stated i believed in the myth and even showed i was at least agnostic about it here >if hes real
But i hope you at least see the flaw in dawkin's statement in that regard, buddy

I don't see it, and don't think you ever gave me a reason to.

atheism is somehow more infantile than satanism

Im interested now. What is the moral problem then?

That God should require himself by tortured for the sins of humans to be forgiven by himself. Why must Christ suffer and die for our sins to be forgiven?

Oh i see. I thought you were trying to say that god's suicide mission was somehow morally objectable like Dawkin was, as he seemed portray jesus as not god, thus god condemning an innocent person for no real reason. This was your "moral" bit I read earlier that I was arguing against.

I have. Unless you buy into the superdeterminism worldview (I don't know anyone who does in practice, and it's an equivalent if not greater leap of faith than believing in some higher order than the natural one), Christian theology (not the kind you'd gather from a cursory reading of the New Testament) is the only thing that makes sense.

Can a theist please give me empirical proof of God's existence.

>empirical
read up on epistemology

have fun fumbling blindly though the world if the only knowledge you're certain of (within a 95% Confidence Interval) are Jeopardy! factoids. That is, if you're actually an empiricist and don't just claim to be one.

Somewhere In Alabama, someone is typing
>LOGICAL POSITIVISM

> fine and dandy if theists didn't also claim benevolence and omnipotence

Ahh yes, I had the same thot when I read that explanation. Bc that is the difference btw God and our neighbor (our neighbor cannot end suffering at his whim).

But then I realized the retort to this, you forgot one thing: omniscience! You can't claim to know if ending suffering would actually be in our best interest! You only assume it would while also admitting you don't know everything. While god, if the theists are to be believed, has the better perspective on how to use his powers and whether he should end suffering, because he can know the outcome of doing this.

To an atheist, this is an absurd point, perhaps. As an agnositc, I find it a fair point, though I will admit it is a rather disappointing and unsatisfactory answer to the question of why an all powerful god doesn't just end suffering (bc maybe me need suffering u don't know bc ur not omniscient... hmmm yeah, not liking the answer but i must yield to the logic)

Stop it. It's Maryland.

Stop trying to be Tyler. Everyone knows my name.

lol, the only correct response

also, are there any comedies, either book or movies, about such a character as this? I think it would make for a bretty funny character study of such an individual (a true empiricist)

user, I completely agree with you. And it really is a play with words. Atheist vs theists is a lot like that and they think they mean the same thing, when their heads are so different they can't understand the meaning of the others words.

I'll give you this image to illustratemy point. I also think this is true to political debates and frankly almost all debates.

This is the equivalent of asking "Why didn't Socrates just escape prison when he had the chance?"

ITT: People accurately meeting OP's requested topic

lmao XDxddxxxDdd Good one user!11!!!11

Well, why didn't he just forgive them?

Fuck OP and fuck you. Fuck you twice if you are OP.

>oh no thread derailed mommy thread derailed!

mad

Because God is perfectly just. Being perfectly just means He NEVER lets sin slide. Ever. All sin is punished. Do something bad? You get punished. So how do you reconcile that with the fact Humans are incapable of living an entire life without sinning tens of thousands of times? Have someone bear the burden and pay the price for them.

this isn't a bad quote tho.

>No argument

wow its fucking nothing

So if I go kill you and your whole family, all the judge has to do is appoint some innocent child to suffer for me, or better yet, suffer himself. Great answer pal.