# What is the best argument against Theism?



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 7, 2013)

I would like to get an opinion from both Atheist and Theist.
As a Christian I would have to say pain and suffering.  It is one of the most difficult issues to defend, because it is both personal and intense but also universal.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 8, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I would like to get an opinion from both Atheist and Theist.
> As a Christian I would have to say pain and suffering.  It is one of the most difficult issues to defend, because it is both personal and intense but also universal.



Are you using pain & suffering to defend or against theism?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 8, 2013)

Pain and suffering is more of a hobble to Christianity than theism as a whole.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 8, 2013)

I agree SFD, definitely pain and suffering.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 8, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Pain and suffering is more of a hobble to Christianity than theism as a whole.



So what's the best argument?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 8, 2013)

It's one of a thousand is a good start... With many of those looking almost identical. Most people here have agreed (feel free to disagree) that they'd follow another religion if they were born in another country or another time. You could hear the good word of this god, but you'd still follow your own good god. That's because none of them have a good argument... They only sound, feel and smell good to you because it's been fed to you your whole life and everyone else (at least close by) is doing it.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 8, 2013)

The problem of evil is only a problem if a person gives himself the authority to define evil.  Predes folks have no issue with that one.

I'm not a predes thinker, so it does make it difficult to try and "justify" the nature of existence.....however, I accept that it is not mine to justify.

I would think lack of concrete evidence is a big detriment to believers, even though we view creation as more than enough evidence, the problem is that we cannot prove it is "creation."


----------



## bullethead (Jul 8, 2013)

Ethics, Logic, Physics, Immorality, History, Metaphysical, Evidence, Evil, Reality,etc.

But since gods do not play by any of those rules or on any of our levels (when convenient) then there really is no way to argue against invisible made up super beings or the people that worship them. In order to believe in such things reality has to be overlooked and the argument is over before it starts.

It is like trying to play Army or Cowboys and Indians when I was younger around the time Star Wars came out. There was always some neighborhood kid that was unfazed by PLAY gunfire because he walked around with an invisible force shield surrounding him. Get the drop on him from behind a wall and yell Blam-Blam as he is oblivious to your presence somehow he escaped the ambush unfazed yelling "my force shield was on" yet the other kids would clutch their chest and fall. Pretty soon that kid was sitting in his yard playing with his invisible friend because no one wanted to bother with his knack for constantly skirting the rules.

PS, the kid is now an undertaker and realizes how well the force shield works in real life.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 8, 2013)

You're not a predes, he is a predes, they believe in baptism of the a holy ghost, that person doesn't. 

There are not only 1000 different named religions, there are a 10 times that many different beliefs about the same bible from people that all call themselves christians. It's all up to how each person interprets it and each one of them interprets it differently. Those people have it wrong because they speak in tongues, the others have it wrong because they don't...


----------



## bullethead (Jul 8, 2013)

Good reads both for and against:
http://humanknowledge.net/Philosophy/Metaphysics/Theology/ChristianityIndex.html


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 8, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Ethics, Logic, Physics, Immorality, History, Metaphysical, Evidence, Evil, Reality,etc.
> 
> But since gods do not play by any of those rules or on any of our levels (when convenient) then there really is no way to argue against invisible made up super beings or the people that worship them. In order to believe in such things reality has to be overlooked and the argument is over before it starts.
> 
> ...



Bullet could you narrow it down to the best one in your opinion.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 8, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> It's one of a thousand is a good start... With many of those looking almost identical. Most people here have agreed (feel free to disagree) that they'd follow another religion if they were born in another country or another time. You could hear the good word of this god, but you'd still follow your own good god. That's because none of them have a good argument... They only sound, feel and smell good to you because it's been fed to you your whole life and everyone else (at least close by) is doing it.



Not being sarcastic at all, but you believe that's the best argument against Theism?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 8, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Bullet could you narrow it down to the best one in your opinion.



No not really. None stand out any better than the rest and I am thinking of more. I have said it in other posts and I stand by it....these discussions rarely are a "this or that" easy fix. In order to even talk about one specific thing most times fifty other things that tie into it must be covered to lay the groundwork for the discussion at hand.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 8, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Pain and suffering is more of a hobble to Christianity than theism as a whole.



You are correct.  Sometimes when I phrase a question I don't take into account how other religions view their God/Gods.  Please consider this question as implying Theistically to the God of the Bible.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 8, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Not being sarcastic at all, but you believe that's the best argument against Theism?



I agree with BH... There is no one best argument. They all go together. There is no one piece that makes me not believe. But the fact that there are thousands of different beliefs in gods makes christianity itself less significant.

Again, I can't put a finger on the best... but one that's up there for me is along the lines of pain and suffering, but less specific. God is love, yet shows the opposite behaviors of what the bible says love is.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 8, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Again, I can't put a finger on the best... but one that's up there for me is along the lines of pain and suffering, but less specific. God is love, yet shows the opposite behaviors of what the bible says love is.



That would only be an argument against the concept of a loving God, not the existence of a god.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 8, 2013)

You're right. SFD clarified the god in the bible. When I see an argument for a specific god that contradicts itself in a base characteristic like that, it makes it less credible for me.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 8, 2013)

In a practical sense, the best argument against theism is how it makes people act and think.  Philosophically, I'm not opposed to considering a 'god' as theoretical model, but less so than I consider warp engines.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 9, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> In a practical sense, the best argument against theism is how it makes people act and think. .



How so?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 9, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> You're right. SFD clarified the god in the bible. When I see an argument for a specific god that contradicts itself in a base characteristic like that, it makes it less credible for me.



How does God contradict himself?


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 9, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> In a practical sense, the best argument against theism is how it makes people act and think.  Philosophically, I'm not opposed to considering a 'god' as theoretical model, but less so than I consider warp engines.



This is so freaking true. But I could wonder if one's politics don't warp one's God. Or if one's dogma does not warp the devine.

"Yee shall know them by their fruits" should perhaps be an adage to consider a society's false or true God perhaps--but it does not follow to deny for one false, or erroniously appreaciated, denies the true. Or the field of a herder of swine does not mean there is not a field belonging to a shepard of sheep.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 10, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> How does God contradict himself?



We can have a whole 20 page thread on 1 Corinthians Chapter 13.

Love is patient and not easily angered - God threw Adam and Eve out. God turned lots wife in to a pillar of salt for turning around.

Love does not envy - It's commandment number 1 - Thou shall have no other god's before me.  

Keeps no records of wrong - umm... yeah...


God really seems loving... or god IS love?? Riiiight...


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 10, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> We can have a whole 20 page thread on 1 Corinthians Chapter 13.
> 
> Love is patient and not easily angered - God threw Adam and Eve out. God turned lots wife in to a pillar of salt for turning around.
> 
> ...



Where in 1st Corinthians does it say "If you love someone, there should be no consequences for their actions?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 10, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> We can have a whole 20 page thread on 1 Corinthians Chapter 13.
> 
> Love is patient and not easily angered - God threw Adam and Eve out. God turned lots wife in to a pillar of salt for turning around.
> 
> Love does not envy - It's commandment number 1 - Thou shall have no other god's before me.



Where do you find that the first commandment is due to envy?  You don't.  It's just another falsity you spout to justify your rebellion, and like all your arguments it fails the truth test and falls flat on its face.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 10, 2013)

keeps no records of wrong.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 10, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Where do you find that the first commandment is due to envy?  You don't.  It's just another falsity you spout to justify your rebellion, and like all your arguments it fails the truth test and falls flat on its face.



Unfortunately, there is NO truth test for this stuff.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 10, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Unfortunately, there is NO truth test for this stuff.



Actually that is a lie also.  Do you just make this stuff up, type it, and expect it to be credible?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 10, 2013)

Truth test for any god? There is a truth test for your god? Please create a thread with this test.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 10, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Where in 1st Corinthians does it say "If you love someone, there should be no consequences for their actions?



Keeps no record of wrong was in response to this.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 10, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Where do you find that the first commandment is due to envy?  You don't.  It's just another falsity you spout to justify your rebellion, and like all your arguments it fails the truth test and falls flat on its face.



Fine, you don't like that one? Exodus 34:14 "... is a jealous god." If I've got the spirit of the word envy wrong, and it doesn't mean jealous, please enlighten me. Did I take something too literally?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 10, 2013)

Literal interpretation is zealous


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 10, 2013)

So the bible was translated incorrectly? Because I have seen many translations that use JEALOUS. And maybe one that used zealous.

http://biblehub.com/exodus/34-14.htm

And wait, now you're using the word INTERPRETATION. So not only are we dealing with possible issues of direct translation, but we've also got issues with interpretation in the mix.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 10, 2013)

The bible says DAY, but means millions of years. It says JEALOUS but really means zealous. 

Jealous and zealous mean very different things. They are spelled similarly in English.. I'm not too sure about the language it was originally written in, but due to the differences in meanings it wasn't a small mistake or typo. It completely changes the verse.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 10, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Keeps no record of wrong was in response to this.





> He came to my desk with a quivering lip,
> the lesson was done.
> “Have you a new sheet for me, dear teacher?
> I’ve spoiled this one.”
> ...


Author unknown


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 10, 2013)

It doesn't say keeps no record of wrong as long as you accept that it can or as long as anything. There are no qualifiers. It keeps no record of wrong. And if I get sent to he11 like you say I will it will be due to your god keeping a record of wrong.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 10, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> It doesn't say keeps no record of wrong as long as you accept that it can or as long as anything.


There are myriad bible verses saying a believers sins are "washed away" 



> There are no qualifiers. It keeps no record of wrong. And if I get sent to he11 like you say I will it will be due to your god keeping a record of wrong.



If you go to hel1, it will be because of the consequences of your sin.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 10, 2013)

There is a difference in "keeping a record of wrong" and using it to throw it up into another's face when they do something else wrong and having a consequence for sin.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 10, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> The bible says DAY, but means millions of years. It says JEALOUS but really means zealous.
> 
> Jealous and zealous mean very different things. They are spelled similarly in English.. I'm not too sure about the language it was originally written in, but due to the differences in meanings it wasn't a small mistake or typo. It completely changes the verse.



You know, you continue to make unfounded assertions that don't stand the test of truth or reason.  You started with the assertion God contradicts himself and used a lie as evidence.  You were called on it to which you make another assertion that we can't know the truth which is an absurd statement and again you were called on it.  You then provide another bad example to support your original assertion, but this time when you are called on it, you flee to a different assertion altogether. This in fact is your modus operandi.  You just move from one absurd assertion to another as they go down in flames when confronted with truth and reason.  It's a fools errand on my behalf to attempt to reason with one who has no regard either reason or truth.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 10, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> There is a difference in "keeping a record of wrong" and using it to throw it up into another's face when they do something else wrong and having a consequence for sin.



I believe that you think my wrong will be "thrown in my face" when I am at the pearly gate... and I will not be allowed to enter. I see that 100% as keeping a record from wrong. It's just that it's allowed because it's from the big man.

I understand you see it differently.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 10, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I understand you see it differently.



As should you, because they are in fact two different things.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 10, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You know, you continue to make unfounded assertions that don't stand the test of truth or reason.  You started with the assertion God contradicts himself and used a lie as evidence.  You were called on it to which you make another assertion that we can't know the truth which is an absurd statement and again you were called on it.  You then provide another bad example to support your original assertion, but this time when you are called on it, you flee to a different assertion altogether. This in fact is your modus operandi.  You just move from one absurd assertion to another as they go down in flames when confronted with truth and reason.  It's a fools errand on my behalf to attempt to reason with one who has no regard either reason or truth.



So tell me what the truth test is for your god. I asked for that.

I never saw my own assertions going down in flames. I just provided you with a different one because you didn't like the first one. Which will go on forever because you won't ever consider openly.. But that's ok, you were trained to do that. You're just obeying.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 10, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> As should you, because they are in fact two different things.



Not fact. Opinion based on perspective. While I agree that I gave you my opinion from my perspective.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 13, 2013)

The origins of religion. The origins of sacrifice. Religion was invented to fill a need. People wanted answers.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 14, 2013)

660griz said:


> The origins of religion. The origins of sacrifice. Religion was invented to fill a need. People wanted answers.



I agree God fills a need, and that He provides answers.  Those are arguments for God, not against


----------



## bullethead (Jul 14, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I agree God fills a need, and that He provides answers.  Those are arguments for God, not against



Those are arguments to why gods were invented. Not proof of any god.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 14, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Those are arguments to why gods were invented.



Some gods, yes.  The Christian God, no.  There's a huge difference.



bullethead said:


> Not proof of any god.



Nor against, which is the point of the OP.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 14, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Some gods, yes.  The Christian God, no.  There's a huge difference.
> 
> 
> 
> Nor against, which is the point of the OP.



Don't hold back, let us all know the difference.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 14, 2013)

At some point tens if not hundreds of thousands of years ago someone died and their child mourned their passing like has happened with most deaths. Someone (like most people do) still talked to their past loved one or family member long after they were gone. At some time I am sure they felt like that parent was watching out for them even though they were gone. The idea I'm sure was felt by many that had loved ones pass. For thousands of years while people gathered stories were told  and shared about how they felt the person was still with them and that snowballed into how their "Father" was watching over them and that snowballed into an "Ultimate Father" and so on and so on until enough people in relatively recent times (last 5000-6000 years) started putting it all into a religion type setting. It evolved over time just like everything else has.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 14, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Don't hold back, let us all know the difference.



Pretty sure every rational adult has a preschool understanding of the differences between the God of Christianity and the Pantheistic gods.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 14, 2013)

bullethead said:


> At some point tens if not hundreds of thousands of years ago someone died and their child mourned their passing like has happened with most deaths. Someone (like most people do) still talked to their past loved one or family member long after they were gone. At some time I am sure they felt like that parent was watching out for them even though they were gone. The idea I'm sure was felt by many that had loved ones pass. For thousands of years while people gathered stories were told  and shared about how they felt the person was still with them and that snowballed into how their "Father" was watching over them and that snowballed into an "Ultimate Father" and so on and so on until enough people in relatively recent times (last 5000-6000 years) started putting it all into a religion type setting. It evolved over time just like everything else has.



What is this supposed to be?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 14, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> What is this supposed to be?



I found this inscribed on papyrus in a cave when I was over in the former Persia. It was dated to be over 5000 years old. It was written in a substance unknown to mankind. I can only assume since it is designed that some sort of intelligent designer made it. I call him/she/it.. Ogd


----------



## bullethead (Jul 14, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Pretty sure every rational adult has a preschool understanding of the differences between the God of Christianity and the Pantheistic gods.



Yeah, that's why I asked you what you think.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jul 14, 2013)

Man created God. 
Interesting. 
If man is simply "molecules in a meaningless universe" we should have never known meaning, the lack of it, or all the reasons modern man has said as to why we needed to create a God to meet them. 
A finite being should never have acknowledged the infinite otherwise.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 14, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> Man created God.
> Interesting.
> If man is simply "molecules in a meaningless universe" we should have never known meaning, the lack of it, or all the reasons modern man has said as to why we needed to create a God to meet them.
> A finite being should never have acknowledged the infinite otherwise.



There is nothing that proves otherwise.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 15, 2013)

bullethead said:


> There is nothing that proves otherwise.


Except a reasonable explanation, which ddd just gave.....


ddd-shooter said:


> Man created God.
> Interesting.
> If man is simply "molecules in a meaningless universe" we should have never known meaning, the lack of it, or all the reasons modern man has said as to why we needed to create a God to meet them.
> A finite being should never have acknowledged the infinite otherwise.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 15, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Except a reasonable explanation, which ddd just gave.....



string we all get the fact that you are so easily swayed and impressed by such explanations. Stuff like that used to be enough for me at one time also.
That explanation does not do anything but open the door for any and every God conjured up in the minds of man.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 15, 2013)

bullethead said:


> There is nothing that proves otherwise.



God, by definition, cannot be created.  A more accurate statement would be that man created the god concept.  And, such a claim is only accurate if God's existence is not reality.

At most, it would be just a decent guess.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 15, 2013)

bullethead said:


> string we all get the fact that you are so easily swayed and impressed by such explanations. Stuff like that used to be enough for me at one time also.


Stuff like..... logic? Reason?
Give a logical, reasonable explanation of why what ddd said is false.


> That explanation does not do anything but open the door for any and every God conjured up in the minds of man.


So you accept that the logic in the argument shows evidence of God(Maybe not a specific God, but God none the less)is that correct?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 15, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Stuff like..... logic? Reason?
> Give a logical, reasonable explanation of why what ddd said is false.


String, it is no more logical or reasonable than anything else that has been for or against, therefore it sits in the pile with all the others. If it contained some incredible new verifiable information to take the statement to the next level by backing it up with facts, then he's onto something.



stringmusic said:


> So you accept that the logic in the argument shows evidence of God(Maybe not a specific God, but God none the less)is that correct?



No I do not accept the logic because the logic does not stand out in any way.. It is just one of a bunch of different scenarios in which anyone can insert whatever creature they want in there in order to make it fit. That logic paints with a wide brush and is a one size fits all.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 15, 2013)

bullethead said:


> At some point tens if not hundreds of thousands of years ago someone died and their child mourned their passing like has happened with most deaths. Someone (like most people do) still talked to their past loved one or family member long after they were gone. At some time I am sure they felt like that parent was watching out for them even though they were gone. The idea I'm sure was felt by many that had loved ones pass. For thousands of years while people gathered stories were told  and shared about how they felt the person was still with them and that snowballed into how their "Father" was watching over them and that snowballed into an "Ultimate Father" and so on and so on until enough people in relatively recent times (last 5000-6000 years) started putting it all into a religion type setting. It evolved over time just like everything else has.



Now YOU have it all figured out???


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 15, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> Man created God.
> Interesting.
> If man is simply "molecules in a meaningless universe" we should have never known meaning, the lack of it, or all the reasons modern man has said as to why we needed to create a God to meet them.
> A finite being should never have acknowledged the infinite otherwise.



It doesn't make sense to you, so it's not true?? 


See String?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 15, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> Man created God.
> Interesting.
> If man is simply "molecules in a meaningless universe" we should have never known meaning, the lack of it, or all the reasons modern man has said as to why we needed to create a God to meet them.
> A finite being should never have acknowledged the infinite otherwise.



Humans came up with the number zero. A quantity measure to measure nothing. If we can understand the concept of nothing, then we can understand a concept of infinite. Or is it only by the grace of god we understand zero?


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 15, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Humans came up with the number zero. A quantity measure to measure nothing.



Did humans invent 0, or did zero exist and humans discovered it?


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 15, 2013)

bullethead said:


> String, it is no more logical or reasonable than anything else that has been for or against, therefore it sits in the pile with all the others. If it contained some incredible new verifiable information to take the statement to the next level by backing it up with facts, then he's onto something.
> 
> 
> 
> No I do not accept the logic because the logic does not stand out in any way.. It is just one of a bunch of different scenarios in which anyone can insert whatever creature they want in there in order to make it fit. That logic paints with a wide brush and is a one size fits all.


If ddd's comment is so refutable, let's hear you refute it with an equally sound argument. Or at least point out where the fallacy in his logic is, or where he is being unreasonable.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 15, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Did humans invent 0, or did zero exist and humans discovered it?



Good point. We didn't really discover it. We figured out a way to understand it.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 15, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> It doesn't make sense to you, so it's not true??
> 
> 
> See String?



See what?

Where does he say that he doesn't understand something? He made an assertion based on logic and reason about what humans would be like if we were mere  "molecules in a meaningless universe" and you nor bullet can show it to be false.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 15, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Stuff like..... logic? Reason?
> Give a logical, reasonable explanation of why what ddd said is false.
> 
> So you accept that the logic in the argument shows evidence of God(Maybe not a specific God, but God none the less)is that correct?



String there is logic and reason on both sides. In my opinion most of that logic and reason resides on the side of of non-believers.
I was taught that God is all powerful, all knowing and capable of anything. He is eternal and the creator of creation. With those credentials I expect all powerful proof.

We have two sides. One argues that there is something, the other side says until there is evidence of that something then we have to say it does not exist.
That is reasonable and logical.

We then get into pointing out things and claiming they are evidence or works of some God. Well that is fine except the actual first primary mover, the subject, the GOD has to be proven to exist first before we can give it credit for anything else. There are lots of examples of things that exist. The only missing thing in every single discussion on here is the God. The one entity that supposedly wants us to know him is absent. It would be logical to expect more from the best. It is logical and reasonable to think that evidence of such an entity would stand out head and shoulders to the most hard core doubters, not the believers. String, through logic and reason, I have no evidence to sway my current thoughts into thinking there is such an entity as you say there is.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 15, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> Man created God.
> Interesting.
> If man is simply "molecules in a meaningless universe" we should have never known meaning, the lack of it, or all the reasons modern man has said as to why we needed to create a God to meet them.
> A finite being should never have acknowledged the infinite otherwise.



So are you saying WE are not finite? Or we wouldn't be able to understand the infinite unless SOMETHING... Not a creature or being necessarily. Just SOMETHING was infinite. I'd say do we really understand anything infinite? It's just a concept, no?


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 15, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Good point. We didn't really discover it. We figured out a way to understand it.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 15, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> See what?
> 
> Where does he say that he doesn't understand something? He made an assertion based on logic and reason about what humans would be like if we were mere  "molecules in a meaningless universe" and you nor bullet can show it to be false.



He doesn't understand the logic or reason in us not knowing meaning without a god, so it's not true! 

I don't like it, so it's not true!


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 15, 2013)

JB0704 said:


>



I am open to understanding that I didn't make a good point


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 15, 2013)

bullethead said:


> String there is logic and reason on both sides. In my opinion most of that logic and reason resides on the side of of non-believers.
> I was taught that God is all powerful, all knowing and capable of anything. He is eternal and the creator of creation. With those credentials I expect all powerful proof.
> 
> We have two sides. One argues that there is something, the other side says until there is evidence of that something then we have to say it does not exist.
> ...


Great post.

Now, let's get down to business.....


stringmusic said:


> If ddd's comment is so refutable, let's hear you refute it with an equally sound argument. Or at least point out where the fallacy in his logic is, or where he is being unreasonable.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 15, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> He doesn't understand the logic or reason in us not knowing meaning without a god, so it's not true!


He didn't say he doesn't understand, he gave a reasonable assertion as to why we wouldn't have ever known meaning. 



> I don't like it, so it's not true!


He never said he didn't like it and neither have I. You're just making stuff up now.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 15, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Great post.
> 
> Now, let's get down to business.....





> Originally Posted by stringmusic View Post
> If ddd's comment is so refutable, let's hear you refute it with an equally sound argument. Or at least point out where the fallacy in his logic is, or where he is being unreasonable.



In order for me to go along with ddd, he is going to have to show me God. He is going to have to use evidence worthy of such a God to convince me that a God exists in order to then whittle down the nitty gritty of all the other stuff.
Prove God a God exists and we can go further.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 15, 2013)

bullethead said:


> In order for me to go along with ddd, he is going to have to show me God. He is going to have to use evidence worthy of such a God to convince me that a God exists in order to then whittle down the nitty gritty of all the other stuff.
> Prove God a God exists and we can go further.



He made no assertion of God in the post. He made his conclusion based on God not existing.

So, we are still at square one with you refuting this post that by your own assertion is so easily refutable.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 15, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> Man created God.
> Interesting.
> If man is simply "molecules in a meaningless universe" we should have never known meaning, the lack of it, or all the reasons modern man has said as to why we needed to create a God to meet them.



He says that if we weren't created by his god, we wouldn't know MEANING. Why is that? How is it that we wouldn't know MEANING at work, MEANING to our families. Meaning to ANYTHING? It is the meaning to our families, their meaning to us, that can cause us to come up with life after death. That is all the explanation I need. 




ddd-shooter said:


> A finite being should never have acknowledged the infinite otherwise.



Why is that? Because you like that answer?

There you go String.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 15, 2013)

The Duck Billed Platypus. Or, proof that God smoked dope.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 15, 2013)

660griz said:


> The Duck Billed Platypus. Or, proof that God smoked dope.



The platypus is definitely proof that God has a sense of humor.  Not sure how dope fits in the piucture, though.....


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 15, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> The platypus is definitely proof that God has a sense of humor.


Where did you get this piece of information?


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 15, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> He says that if we weren't created by his god, we wouldn't know MEANING. Why is that? How is it that we wouldn't know MEANING at work, MEANING to our families. Meaning to ANYTHING? It is the meaning to our families, their meaning to us, that can cause us to come up with life after death. That is all the explanation I need.


You're creating a whole new argument. DDD never asserted what your saying he did. You only know that because you know he is a believer.

P.S., I think he's talking about inherent meaning, not relative meaning, big difference. 






> Why is that? Because you like that answer?


Because it's logical.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 15, 2013)

You're saying there must be inherent meaning in order to think of it? So there must be unicorns, dragons, Santa Claus or the tooth fairy in order to think of them?


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 15, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Where did you get this piece of information?



You caught me.  It's conjecture.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 15, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> You're creating a whole new argument.



Hey, when you can't offer a reasonable and logical defence of your position just change the subject, continually make ludicrously false analogies and when all else fails deny the obvious, move to next subject, repeat as necessary. Atheist Apologetics 101. Guess you missed last week.  He put on a seminar using these tactics.  It's pointless.  Reasonable discussion is wasted on unreasonable people.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 15, 2013)

See post 81 as further evidence.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 15, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Hey, when you can't offer a reasonable and logical defence of your position just change the subject, continually make ludicrously false analogies and when all else fails deny the obvious, move to next subject, repeat as necessary. Atheist Apologetics 101. Guess you missed last week.  He put on a seminar using these tactics.  It's pointless.  Reasonable discussion is wasted on unreasonable people.



There are times when some decent discussion goes on in here, but the way you describe it is what goes on about 95% of the time.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 15, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Hey, when you can't offer a reasonable and logical defence of your position just change the subject, continually make ludicrously false analogies and when all else fails deny the obvious, move to next subject, repeat as necessary. Atheist Apologetics 101. Guess you missed last week.  He put on a seminar using these tactics.  It's pointless.  Reasonable discussion is wasted on unreasonable people.



straw man


----------



## bullethead (Jul 15, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> straw man



straw man and Mr. Spock, sounds like a new hit cop show.

One can attempt to solve crimes through evidence of God and the other can constantly say it is "logical" or "illogical".
I think we are seeing the pilot episodes here.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 15, 2013)

bullethead said:


> straw man and Mr. Spock, sounds like a new hit cop show.
> 
> One can attempt to solve crimes through evidence of God and the other can constantly say it is "logical" or "illogical".
> I think we are seeing the pilot episodes here.



I'll give you guys credit.  You are a heck of a lot better at mocking than defending your beliefs.  It's comical as all get out.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 15, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I'll give you guys credit.  You are a heck of a lot better at mocking than defending your beliefs.  It's comical as all get out.



1/2 is better than 0/2. You shouldn't give up just yet though.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 15, 2013)

Yet another straw man but I'm glad you picked up on the MOCKING part. We are mocking what you are doing........


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 15, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Yet another straw man but I'm glad you picked up on the MOCKING part. We are mocking what you are doing........



 That would explain the impression I get that I'm conversing with kindergardeners..  Well that, and the fact that you actually felt the NEED to point out the fact that y'all were mocking me.  I mean really?  Sorry, but I can't type for chuckling.  I mean how are you gonna top that...call my sister fat?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 15, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> That would explain the impression I get that I'm conversing with kindergardeners..  Well that, and the fact that you actually felt the NEED to point out the fact that y'all were mocking me.  I mean really?  Sorry, but I can't type for chuckling.  I mean how are you gonna top that...call my sister fat?



Any chance you will pull the straw-man card on yourself every time you use it?
We are just wondering why you are so quick to point it out for others and then use it yourself with impunity.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 16, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> That would explain the impression I get that I'm conversing with kindergardeners..  Well that, and the fact that you actually felt the NEED to point out the fact that y'all were mocking me.  I mean really?  Sorry, but I can't type for chuckling.  I mean how are you gonna top that...call my sister fat?



Mocking means we are doing what you're doing... and you call us childish for it.. Which means you are childish? That's Commutative property. I didn't learn that in kindergarten.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jul 16, 2013)

If you can't say anything nice...


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 16, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Mocking means we are doing what you're doing... and you call us childish for it.. Which means you are childish? That's Commutative property. I didn't learn that in kindergarten.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 16, 2013)

I don't recall ever seeing and adult roll on the floor in laughter...


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 16, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I don't recall ever seeing and adult roll on the floor in laughter...



Given your grim outlook on life I can believe that.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 16, 2013)

Straw man.    I  have no grim outlook on life.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jul 16, 2013)

This was such a promising thread...


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 16, 2013)

You're right.  Let's get back to the OP


----------



## bullethead (Jul 21, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I would like to get an opinion from both Atheist and Theist.
> As a Christian I would have to say pain and suffering.  It is one of the most difficult issues to defend, because it is both personal and intense but also universal.



How about a Sun that is literally self destructing and will eventually render all of "God's creation" on this planet extinct?


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 22, 2013)

bullethead said:


> How about a Sun that is literally self destructing and will eventually render all of "God's creation" on this planet extinct?



God's plan.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 22, 2013)

I saw that one coming.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 22, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I saw that one coming.



He left it hanging


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 22, 2013)

He sure did.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 22, 2013)

jb0704 said:


> god's plan.



lololol


----------



## bullethead (Jul 22, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> He left it hanging



If that is the only answer to a self-destruct button then it must be the best anyone has.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 22, 2013)

bullethead said:


> If that is the only answer to a self-destruct button then it must be the best anyone has.



The question was "what is the best argument against theism."  Indicating that our solar system has a self-destruct button does nto argue against theism.  It argues against the manner of creation.  Which, to me, is not really a good argument against theism.

I usually am quick to admit when I leave one spinning over the middle, when people debate this much, it is bound to happen from time to time.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 22, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> The question was "what is the best argument against theism."  Indicating that our solar system has a self-destruct button does nto argue against theism.  It argues against the manner of creation.  Which, to me, is not really a good argument against theism.
> 
> I usually am quick to admit when I leave one spinning over the middle, when people debate this much, it is bound to happen from time to time.



I think it does have to do with theism. If there is one creator that people worship I think a valid argument against believing in that creator is a self destruct button designed to wipe out all of his creation. (Full well knowing of course that it is going to happen before 'he" creates anything)
It seems to me a more random unexplainable unforgiving unfair Universe is more likely.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 22, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I think it does have to do with theism. If there is one creator that people worship I think a valid argument against believing in that creator is a self destruct button designed to wipe out all of his creation. (Full well knowing of course that it is going to happen before 'he" creates anything)
> It seems to me a more random unexplainable unforgiving unfair Universe is more likely.



To you, that might be the case.  But, if an all knowing, all seeing, omnipotent being were to exist, and such being declares in his holy book that he is gonna destroy it all eventually anyway, it seems to make sense that there is a self-destruct button built into the sytem.

Which is why I said "God's plan."  You will remain unconvinced, but, you don't buy into the holy book to start with.  However, it does easily explain the circumstances to a believer.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 22, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> To you, that might be the case.  But, if an all knowing, all seeing, omnipotent being were to exist, and such being declares in his holy book that he is gonna destroy it all eventually anyway, it seems to make sense that there is a self-destruct button built into the sytem.
> 
> Which is why I said "God's plan."  You will remain unconvinced, but, you don't buy into the holy book to start with.  However, it does easily explain the circumstances to a believer.



A book of plans. Interesting.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 22, 2013)

Just like if scientist create something from nothing... or if they take some mud, swish it around in a dish and create a living cell... It won't matter. That's just the way that god created for it to happen.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 22, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Just like if scientist create something from nothing... or if they take some mud, swish it around in a dish and create a living cell... It won't matter. That's just the way that god created for it to happen.



Believers cannot lose. They change their beliefs to whatever excuse works. Win=Win


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 22, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Just like if scientist create something from nothing... or if they take some mud, swish it around in a dish and create a living cell... It won't matter. That's just the way that god created for it to happen.



Yes.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 22, 2013)

bullethead said:


> A book of plans. Interesting.



I am confident you have read Revelation.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 22, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Believers cannot lose. They change their beliefs to whatever excuse works. Win=Win



A strict interpretation of the word omnipotent does not really require one to change beliefs.  It is a very consistent perspective, I am learning.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 22, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I am confident you have read Revelation.



Don't remember it saying the Sun will self destruct....ohhh yes....literal, metaphorical....whatever fits.
I now know the Super Bowls are fixed because of Revelation also.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jul 22, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Just like if scientist create something from nothing... or if they take some mud, swish it around in a dish and create a living cell... It won't matter. That's just the way that god created for it to happen.



Are there new laws I'm not familiar with? This will never happen. 
BTW, isn't it nice how the universe operates  according to laws? 
Such order is in a great contradiction to entropy. 
They might mix up stuff that's already here, but that's cheating.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 22, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Don't remember it saying the Sun will self destruct....ohhh yes....literal, metaphorical....whatever fits.



There doesn't have to be one or the other under those circumstances.  It is what it is.

The sun self-destructing could just be "how" God does it.  Not whether the act occurs or not.



bullethead said:


> I now know the Super Bowls are fixed because of Revelation also.



Then fill me in next winter, and we can win some money!


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 22, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> Are there new laws I'm not familiar with? This will never happen.
> BTW, isn't it nice how the universe operates  according to laws?
> Such order is in a great contradiction to entropy.
> They might mix up stuff that's already here, but that's cheating.



I think 3x was explaining how that response works in context of the question.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 22, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> There doesn't have to be one or the other under those circumstances.  It is what it is.
> 
> The sun self-destructing could just be "how" God does it.  Not whether the act occurs or not.
> 
> ...



That's not in Gods plan. Uncanny how God and I are on the same page.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 22, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Believers cannot lose. They change their beliefs to whatever excuse works. Win=Win



How about some examples?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 22, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> Are there new laws I'm not familiar with? This will never happen.



100 years ago I am certain someone said the same thing about touch screen mobile phones..


----------



## bullethead (Jul 22, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> How about some examples?



How about every time someone says "It's God's Plan".
As if they know what God's plan is....


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 22, 2013)

bullethead said:


> As if they know what God's plan is....



If God is omnipotent in the strictest sense of the word, you do.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 22, 2013)

bullethead said:


> How about every time someone says "It's God's Plan".
> As if they know what God's plan is....



I wanted some examples of how believers change their beliefs to suit their argument.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 22, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> If God is omnipotent in the strictest sense of the word, you do.



If.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 22, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I wanted some examples of how believers change their beliefs to suit their argument.



20,000 different Christian denominations with each changing a belief just a little bit different than the denomination before them in order to suit what is needed. Take it from there.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 22, 2013)

bullethead said:


> 20,000 different Christian denominations with each changing a belief just a little bit different than the denomination before them in order to suit what is needed. Take it from there.



That's great. What are some actual examples, not of differing beliefs in Christianity, but of believers changing their beliefs to suit an argument?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 22, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> That's great. What are some actual examples, not of differing beliefs in Christianity, but of believers changing their beliefs to suit an argument?



They all altered their beliefs in order to suit. Examples are all around you.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jul 22, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> 100 years ago I am certain someone said the same thing about touch screen mobile phones..



Reminds me of a joke...I can't find it as I know it but will relate what I do remember in my own words here.
An atheist was walking down the beach when he comes upon God walking the beach as well. 
The atheist was astonished. 
God says "I hear you are disappointed in my creation, would you like to try to do better?" 
The atheist responds in the affirmative and so God says that whoever creates the best sand castle will win. 
God goes first. He takes  a bucket and simply fills it with sand and forms a basic castle. 
The atheist knows he can do better. He reaches down, gets some sand and suddenly God stops him. 
"Make your own sand" was God's reply.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 22, 2013)

bullethead said:


> 20,000 different Christian denominations with each changing a belief just a little bit different than the denomination before them in order to suit what is needed. Take it from there.



You forgot something.......all with Christ and the Gospel at the very center of each one.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 22, 2013)

bullethead said:


> If.



See, I hung one up there myself.  Tie game


----------



## bullethead (Jul 22, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You forgot something.......all with Christ and the Gospel at the very center of each one.



Being Christian denominations I figured most would know that.....
And it is Christ and the Gospel that keep these Christians from thinking one denomination is any better than the next.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 23, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> Reminds me of a joke...I can't find it as I know it but will relate what I do remember in my own words here.
> An atheist was walking down the beach when he comes upon God walking the beach as well.
> The atheist was astonished.
> God says "I hear you are disappointed in my creation, would you like to try to do better?"
> ...



I think there's synthetic sand...... Might be mistaken.......


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 23, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You forgot something.......all with Christ and the Gospel at the very center of each one.



So you'd have no problem changing denominations?


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 23, 2013)

Bullet, you said....


bullethead said:


> Believers cannot lose. They change their beliefs to whatever excuse works. Win=Win


Insinuating that believers change their beliefs whenever convenient or whenever they need an excuse. I would like to see some examples of this, particularly in this forum.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 23, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Bullet, you said....
> 
> Insinuating that believers change their beliefs whenever convenient or whenever they need an excuse. I would like to see some examples of this, particularly in this forum.



The examples remain in posts made over the last few years. All you have to do it look through some previous posts.
My main examples are the difference between 20,000 denominations.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 23, 2013)

bullethead said:


> The examples remain in posts made over the last few years. All you have to do it look through some previous posts.


If you're going to make  heavy assertions, it's best if  you can back them up with examples.


> My main examples are the difference between 20,000 denominations.


Those are not examples of the statement you made. You insinuated that believers change their beliefs with consistency for convenience sake. You can't give examples of it so your changing it to differences in denominations. Seems to me like your changing things for conveniece sake.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jul 23, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I think there's synthetic sand...... Might be mistaken.......



I'm afraid I've lost you. 
ANYTHING science creates is only using what is already here. To be like God, one must not need anything else but oneself to create. Hence, get your own sand...


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 23, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> To be like God,






ddd-shooter said:


> Are there new laws I'm not familiar with?





I didn't know being god like was now a law....


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jul 23, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I didn't know being god like was now a law....



The law of preservation of energy. Energy cannot
 be created or destroyed. 
Thus, anything truly created must come from without the system; a God- like quality.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 23, 2013)

Got it.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jul 23, 2013)

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the diversity of theistic beliefs as a weakness... or maybe I missed it.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 23, 2013)

bullethead said:


> The examples remain in posts made over the last few years. All you have to do it look through some previous posts.
> My main examples are the difference between 20,000 denominations.



This one?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 23, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> If you're going to make  heavy assertions, it's best if  you can back them up with examples.
> 
> Those are not examples of the statement you made. You insinuated that believers change their beliefs with consistency for convenience sake. You can't give examples of it so your changing it to differences in denominations. Seems to me like your changing things for conveniece sake.



What I said about all the different denominations is exactly what I meant. They are the examples I wanted used in the point I was making. The reason there are different denominations is because someone decided the current denomination was not quite for them so they started their own by changing something in order to fit their own personal belief because it is convenient for them to believe that way. It goes with what they want/need/believe.
You know that is a good example but now you want me to narrow it down to specific people on here, and find the post that they made....well while there are examples of it, I really do not care to take the time and read through every thread since 2010 in order to give you some examples that you will then ask to be whittled down to whatever request you then want in order to make your argument more valid. I'll show you an example and you will say "yeah, but how many of those guys are left handed..."

So we are now down to "God's Plan" vs the "Free Will" arguments brought on by the same people. The answers seem to change to suit according to the current argument.

Then we have the people that say God is above our human intellect. We cannot possibly begin to understand him, yet in the next breath the same people can tell us exactly what God meant, how he thinks, how God would answer, why God did this and why God said that.

The examples abound string.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 23, 2013)

Hey Bullet, I know this involves String, but, I'd like to jump in for a bit......



bullethead said:


> The reason there are different denominations is because someone decided the current denomination was not quite for them so they started their own by changing something in order to fit their own personal belief because it is convenient for them to believe that way. It goes with what they want/need/believe.



Speculation on the motive.  People may have started another denomination because they figured out the one they belonged to was incorrect according to what they discovered to be true.  Martin Luther did such a thing.  I doubt that was a movement based on convenience.



bullethead said:


> So we are now down to "God's Plan" vs the "Free Will" arguments brought on by the same people. The answers seem to change to suit according to the current argument.



Oh....not sure if it has anything to do with me.....but, I'm still a "free-willer," I just provided an adequate counter-point to your statement.  Making that statement not a good argument against theism.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 23, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Speculation on the motive.  People may have started another denomination because they figured out the one they belonged to was incorrect according to what they discovered to be true.  Martin Luther did such a thing.  I doubt that was a movement based on convenience.



What they DISCOVERED to be true? What they BELIEVED to be true is more like it. What they WANTED to be true is more like it... Which can easily boil down to convenience. They didn't like it, so they just went to do their own thing and call it truth.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 23, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Hey Bullet, I know this involves String, but, I'd like to jump in for a bit......
> 
> 
> 
> Speculation on the motive.  People may have started another denomination because they figured out the one they belonged to was incorrect according to what they discovered to be true.  Martin Luther did such a thing.  I doubt that was a movement based on convenience.



19,999 to go...
I wonder if a little convenience was involved for Koresh?





JB0704 said:


> Oh....not sure if it has anything to do with me.....but, I'm still a "free-willer," I just provided an adequate counter-point to your statement.  Making that statement not a good argument against theism.



Not you specifically JB. I am talking about the flip floppers that go from one to the other out of convenience to whatever is being discussed at the time.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 23, 2013)

triplexbullies said:


> what they discovered to be true? What they believed to be true is more like it. What they wanted to be true is more like it... Which can easily boil down to convenience. They didn't like it, so they just went to do their own thing and call it truth.



bingo


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 23, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> What they DISCOVERED to be true? What they BELIEVED to be true is more like it. What they WANTED to be true is more like it... Which can easily boil down to convenience. They didn't like it, so they just went to do their own thing and call it truth.



Again, speculation.  Many denominational differences are small variances of the same thing.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 23, 2013)

Then why create a new denomination??? What's the point of doing it? So you can claim exclusivity? So that your name can live on with your denomination?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 23, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Again, speculation.  Many denominational differences are small variances of the same thing.



speculation......
that is a good word when coming from believers


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 23, 2013)

bullethead said:


> 19,999 to go...
> I wonder if a little convenience was involved for Koresh?



If the end result is conveniently self-serving.....then I would be inclined to believe so.  However, somebody reading his Bible, and saying: "Dang, I was wrong" would not qualify.  A person growing up "free-will" and being convinced by Gem that that they were wrong, is not a change of convenience.

In fact, it is a bit humbling to have to admit you are wrong when it comes to something as personal as faith.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 23, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Then why create a new denomination??? What's the point of doing it? So you can claim exclusivity? So that your name can live on with your denomination?



Or, so the name on the sign fills folks in on the basics of what's taught inside.....that way, a Calvinist won't waste his time walking into the "1st Free-Will Baptist Church of Pedukah."


----------



## bullethead (Jul 23, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Again, speculation.  Many denominational differences are small variances of the same thing.



They start because many cannot agree on what the Bible says.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 23, 2013)

bullethead said:


> speculation......
> that is a good word when coming from believers



Yes.  But still apllicable.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 23, 2013)

bullethead said:


> They start because many cannot agree on what the Bible says.



That's a given.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 23, 2013)

"Christianity started out in Palestine as a fellowship; it moved to Greece and became a philosophy; it moved to Italy and became an institution; it moved to Europe and became a culture; it came to America and became an enterprise." Sam Pascoe


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 23, 2013)

jb0704 said:


> that's a given.



that's the point.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 23, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> That's a given.



Yes. And convenient to move on in the direction wanted.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 23, 2013)

http://www.christianstoday.org/why-are-there-so-many-different-denominations-within-christianity/

One answer among many to: Why are there so many different denominations within Christianity?


> Answer
> Because people like to tailor their beliefs to suit their own desires and convenience. No two people will ever agree exactly on religion, that’s the main reason there is so much conflict in the world (that, and overpopulation/lack of resources). Christianity is not the only faith that has experienced these disagreements and when it comes down to it, the Bible says one God, one faith and one baptism yet we are still not religiously unified. In the Holy Bible, God says don’t debate my word or my anointed ones for in doing so you hinder your blessing’s so why question God’s word and it may be harder to accept the truth because in this day and time we have too many different translations


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 23, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Too many different translations



speculation


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 23, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> that's the point.



It does not mean it is a matter of convenience to change one's beliefs.  It is just a given that folks disagree on what the Bible says.

Y'alls point was that folks change their mind for convenience sake.  I was saying they often change their mind if they see the information in a different light, and must change.

I once was in favor of actively opposing gay marriage and supporting 10 commandments in gov't buildings.  Then, I viewed the information for myself, and had to change my position.  I promise you, it was not very convenient for me.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 23, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Yes. And convenient to move on in the direction wanted.....



.....OR required.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 23, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> .....OR required.



some required no doubt, but it does not change the convenient ones.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 23, 2013)

bullethead said:


> some required no doubt, but it does not change the convenient ones.



We can agree on that.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 23, 2013)

“evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.” - William Provine

Or,

“Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.” 
― Isaac Asimov


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 23, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I am talking about the flip floppers that go from one to the other out of convenience to whatever is being discussed at the time.



THAT's what I'm looking for, the "flip floppers". Who are they are what issues do they flip flop on?

BTW, This is the last time I'm going to ask the question, if you don't answer I'm going to assume you spoke your original assertion in jest.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 23, 2013)

Already answered string.

THE flip-floppers are the ones that:


> So we are now down to "God's Plan" vs the "Free Will" arguments brought on by the same people. The answers seem to change to suit according to the current argument.
> 
> Then we have the people that say God is above our human intellect. We cannot possibly begin to understand him, yet in the next breath the same people can tell us exactly what God meant, how he thinks, how God would answer, why God did this and why God said that.



IF there is a God, I will now thank him if he is at all responsible for you not asking the question again, that he has allowed the answer to finally sink in after you have supposedly read it and skipped over it.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 24, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Already answered string.
> 
> THE flip-floppers are the ones that:
> 
> ...





			
				bullethead said:
			
		

> So we are now down to "God's Plan" vs the "Free Will" arguments brought on by the same people. The answers seem to change to suit according to the current argument.


How is that a flip flop? God's plan and free will go great together. Some questions get answered with free will and some questions deserve the answer of God's will. I don't recall anybody in one place answering a question with free will, then changing their answer when the same question arises again.



> Then we have the people that say God is above our human intellect. We cannot possibly begin to understand him, yet in the next breath the same people can tell us exactly what God meant, how he thinks, how God would answer, why God did this and why God said that.


God is above our human intellect. Humans cannot fully understand God, but that doesn't mean that humans cannot understand God in any capacity. 

And that still doesn't show how people purposefuly change their answers/beliefs based on an assertion from any athiests.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> How is that a flip flop? God's plan and free will go great together. Some questions get answered with free will and some questions deserve the answer of God's will. I don't recall anybody in one place answering a question with free will, then changing their answer when the same question arises again.
> 
> 
> God is above our human intellect. Humans cannot fully understand God, but that doesn't mean that humans cannot understand God in any capacity.
> ...



String, you might not recall, but you didn't search either. There are a few on here that have done just that and I called them out on it then and every time they do it.

Convenient capacity for understanding God. You can I can't. Apparently.
or is it that I don't want to?


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 24, 2013)

bullethead said:


> String, you might not recall, but you didn't search either.


I didn't make the assertion.


> There are a few on here that have done just that and I called them out on it then and every time they do it.


If you say so....


> Convenient capacity for understanding God. You can I can't. Apparently.
> or is it that I don't want to?


That's a question I can't answer, but you would have to answer for yourself.


Is there anything else you can think of where people "change" the beliefs/answers to suit the argument or accusations? You didn't indicate how often or which topics, but your original post seemed to indicate that it was all emcompassing.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I didn't make the assertion.
> 
> 
> > There are a few on here that have done just that and I called them out on it then and every time they do it.
> ...


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 24, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Nope, that's it.



So your assertion is that believers change their beliefs to suit on only _one_ topic, not _all_ topics, good to know.

We could have saved a lot of time if you would have qualified that statement to begin with, instead of insinuating that believers change all their beliefs to suit.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> So your assertion is that believers change their beliefs to suit on only _one_ topic, not _all_ topics, good to know.



That assertion is totally yours.
I am just trying to put an end to this misery by telling you whatever you want to hear.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 24, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Is there anything else you can think of where people "change" the beliefs/answers to suit the argument or accusations?





bullethead said:


> Nope, that's it.





stringmusic said:


> So your assertion is that believers change their beliefs to suit on only _one_ topic, not _all_ topics, good to know.





bullethead said:


> That assertion is totally yours.


Follow the logic? It's_ absolutely _your assertion. It is the conclusion of our conversation together. You made a blanket assertion, backed it up with one piece of evidence and then said that what all the evidence you had for your blanket assertion.



> I am just trying to put an end to this misery by telling you whatever you want to hear.


If you don't want to back up your blanket assertions, then I wouldn't make anymore.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Follow the logic? It's_ absolutely _your assertion. It is the conclusion of our conversation together. You made a blanket assertion, backed it up with one piece of evidence and then said that what all the evidence you had for your blanket assertion.
> 
> 
> If you don't want to back up your blanket assertions, then I wouldn't make anymore.



This was your assertion



stringmusic said:


> So your assertion is that believers change their beliefs to suit on only _one_ topic, not _all_ topics, good to know.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 24, 2013)

bullethead said:


> This was your assertion



Yes, it was my assertion, and according to our conversation together in this thread, it is a correct assertion, no?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Follow the logic? It's_ absolutely _your assertion. It is the conclusion of our conversation together. You made a blanket assertion, backed it up with one piece of evidence and then said that what all the evidence you had for your blanket assertion.
> 
> 
> If you don't want to back up your blanket assertions, then I wouldn't make anymore.



I appreciate your good advice.

Since I backed up my assertion with a specific answer to the point I wanted made, I am done with that and have moved on long ago.
Since you have admitted that I have backed up my assertion it is time you move along too.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Yes, it was my assertion, and according to our conversation together in this thread, it is a correct assertion, no?



No, because I made a case for more than just one topic.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 24, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I appreciate your good advice.
> 
> Since I backed up my assertion with a specific answer to the point I wanted made, I am done with that and have moved on long ago.
> Since you have admitted that I have backed up my assertion it is time you move along too.



You made a blanket assertion. You're post had no qualifiers indicating that you only meant that believers changed their beliefs on only one topic.

If I said "All cars are red" and then backed up that assertion by showing you a red corvette, that doesn't really back up my assertion very well does it?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> You made a blanket assertion. You're post had no qualifiers indicating that you only meant that believers changed their beliefs on only one topic.
> 
> If I said "All cars are red" and then backed up that assertion by showing you a red corvette, that doesn't really back up my assertion very well does it?



string, I have been very patient with you lately on here. I overlook the fact that you constantly overlook the very answers you asked for, OR if you do see them you dismiss them and continue to go on as if I have said nothing. 
I am going to let you continue to ramble on continuing conversations that were long over after you asked for and already have gotten your answers. But your gonna have to do it without me in this thread.

I gave you more than one example, not one.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 24, 2013)

bullethead said:


> No, because I made a case for more than just one topic.


Then why did you say....


bullethead said:


> Nope, that's it.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 24, 2013)

bullethead said:


> string, I have been very patient with you lately on here. I overlook the fact that you constantly overlook the very answers you asked for, OR if you do see them you dismiss them and continue to go on as if I have said nothing.
> I am going to let you continue to ramble on continuing conversations that were long over after you asked for and already have gotten your answers. But your gonna have to do it without me in this thread.
> 
> I gave you more than one example, not one.



I wouldn't want to keep trying to defend my assertions in this thread if I were in your position either.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Then why did you say....



I already answered that. I answered that specific question the first time you asked it. The answer did not change from many posts ago. Yet you ask the same question again....
THIS is the stuff I am talking about concerning you.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I wouldn't want to keep trying to defend my assertions in this thread if I were in your position either.



Ohh, ok. You got me again.
They were successfully defended a page ago.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 24, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I already answered that. I answered that specific question the first time you asked it. The answer did not change from many posts ago. Yet you ask the same question again....
> THIS is the stuff I am talking about concerning you.



How about this bullet, if you can show me where you have already answered the specific question of why you said "nope, that's it" to my question of "Is there anything else you can think of where people "change" their beliefs/answers to suit the argument or accusations?" I completely leave this topic alone.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 24, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Ohh, ok. You got me again.
> They were successfully defended a page ago.



You mean the 20,000 denominations thing? I've already explained that that wasn't an answer to your original blanket statement.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> You mean the 20,000 denominations thing? I've already explained that that wasn't an answer to your original blanket statement.



It was an answer, IS my answer, and will be my answer. Just because you don't accept it does not concern me in the least.
I appreciate you taking the time to explain to me that my answer is not my answer.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> How about this bullet, if you can show me where you have already answered the specific question of why you said "nope, that's it" to my question of "Is there anything else you can think of where people "change" their beliefs/answers to suit the argument or accusations?" I completely leave this topic alone.





bullethead said:


> That assertion is totally yours.
> *I am just trying to put an end to this misery by telling you whatever you want to hear.*




Thank Zeus it is over.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 24, 2013)

bullethead said:


> It was an answer, IS my answer, and will be my answer. Just because you don't accept it does not concern me in the least.
> I appreciate you taking the time to explain to me that my answer is not my answer.



If can be your answer if you want it to be, just like my answer to 2+2 can be 7, but I'd be incorrect.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 24, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Thank Zeus it is over.



Good to know that's how you defend your postions, telling people what they want to hear.

I'll leave it alone.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Good to know that's how you defend your postions, telling people what they want to hear.
> 
> I'll leave it alone.



It was only after giving you everything you asked for repeatedly up until that point. Saying it over and over just makes me want to end the nonsense, so I did.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> If can be your answer if you want it to be, just like my answer to 2+2 can be 7, but I'd be incorrect.



It is good to show examples of both correct and incorrect so the readers can get an idea.


----------

