Christian organizations are nothing but bullies

Originally posted by leonheartmm
lmao. smiley's can not hide idiocincricy and stupid intentions, {that IS what you were hoping on wasnt it. since the CONTENT of your message is lacking in all areas where brain and logic is required}

first off the lack of brains is clear from your inability to understand what "MODEL" of god mean. for the less idiotic, it mean SUBSET of the universal set defined as GOD. it is limiting god to a certain model based on DEFINITION{e.g. trinity, creater, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolant, omnipresent, angry, selfish. singular/multiple}

and yes, the JUDEO/CHRISIAN "model" of god has been utterly disproven as a fallacious self contradicting construct which is incmopatible with itself and the world. it doesnt EXIST. although your too full of yourself to probe that deeply or sensibly and ill forgive you for that.

lol at point 5. your LYING, now and before. JUST now you referred to the JUDEO/CHRISTIAN god. youve defined it and it was apparent from that beginning what you were referring to. too bad, that has been disproven.

6. yes you have, it is obvious to every1 here not playing games or deluding themselves that you were trying to establish the judeo/christian god's existance by rebutting on kali to counter your argument merely by producing NEGETIVE proof. and here is the evidence.{which i posted before too}

The burden of proof isn't on me. You're the person who seems to have absolute Faith in the non-existance of God. All I asked if you could prove it or is this just your Belief? It's ironic how your Faith and Beliefs in no God are just as unprovable as my Faith and Beliefs in God. I do know Jesus, the Apostles and Moses existed.""

[QUOTE]"*sigh* I never claimed proof, only Faith. I ASKED Kali if there was proof of God's NONexistence which I didn't know about since he claimed God is a myth

LMAO. your very sentence reads, PROOF OF "NON" EXISTANCE. textbook definition of negetive proof. please play your games with people of your own mental level. your inability to understand the argument isnt the problem of other members.

9. your lying because your claims have been proven to be untrue and were all assuming your atleast smarter than a nursery kid who could figure that out. im well aware what faith mean. yet that has nuthing to do with the argument.

thank you for elaborating your mental state 😄 [/QUOTE]

please address these points adequately. especially the last one where it is shown that u were indeed asking for negetive proof, despite your denial later.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Not really. Unless what is logical and what is reasonable are two different thing.

It is illogical to assume that something doesn't exist simply because you have no evidence of it existing.

As an example I will mention electrons. Before we had any evidence of their existence, they did indeed exist. They did not suddenly come into existence when we gained evidence of them existing.

Lack of evidense alone does not make it reasonable to conclude there is no God.

The concept of the Christian Judeo God causes too many logical paradoxes, which have been mentioned repeatedly.

The Bible contradicts itself and science, massively. A Loving God cannot allow Hell, and Heaven cannot be a place of eternal happiness and sincere truth and joy, when people will burn in Hell as well.

Think about it for a second:

Many of the people who end up in Hell will have relatives in Heaven. How do you imagine anyone can truly be happy in Heaven knowing that thier mother, sister, brother, father, lover, son, daughter, uncle, aunt, best freind, etc. is suffering greatly elsewhere?

It doesn't work. They cannot be happy if they truly loved thier loved ones who now suffer in Hell.

If God makes them forget, then he is hiding the Truth from them.

There are too many logical problems posed by Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.

Therefore, I repeat, that it is REASONABLE to conclude that there is no Christian Judeo or Muslim God in existance.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Lack of evidense alone does not make it reasonable to conclude there is no God.

The concept of the Christian Judeo God causes too many logical paradoxes, which have been mentioned repeatedly.

The Bible contradicts itself and science, massively. A Loving God cannot allow Hell, and Heaven cannot be a place of eternal happiness and sincere truth and joy, when people will burn in Hell as well.

Think about it for a second:

Many of the people who end up in Hell will have [b]relatives in Heaven. How do you imagine anyone can truly be happy in Heaven knowing that thier mother, sister, brother, father, lover, son, daughter, uncle, aunt, best freind, etc. is suffering greatly elsewhere?

It doesn't work. They cannot be happy if they truly loved thier loved ones who now suffer in Hell.

If God makes them forget, then he is hiding the Truth from them.

There are too many logical problems posed by Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.

Therefore, I repeat, that it is REASONABLE to conclude that there is no Christian Judeo or Muslim God in existance. [/B]

Ontological argument.

1) I define God to be X.
2) Since I can't conceive of X, X must not exist.
3) Therefore, God doesn't exist.

Not very creative to define the way you perceived the definitions to be. Not even getting int other whole concept of the logical paradoxes not proving anything more than the language's limitation. Yes, I've encountered these "logical paradoxes". There was a thread not to long ago that discussed the paradox of omnipotence.

However simply because something is beyond your understanding does not mean that it does not exist. It might not exist, however it might exist differently than the way that you perceive it to be defined.

At any rate a "proof" is not evidence. If you'd like me to attempt to address each of your points individually you'll have to keep an open mind. There is nothing to be gained here. We have no evidence to his/her existence or nonexistence to assume either stance is illogical.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Ontological argument.

1) I define God to be X.
2) Since I can't conceive of X, X must not exist.
3) Therefore, God doesn't exist.

Not very creative to define the way you perceived the definitions to be. Not even getting int other whole concept of the logical paradoxes not proving anything more than the language's limitation. Yes, I've encountered these "logical paradoxes". There was a thread not to long ago that discussed the paradox of omnipotence.

However simply because something is beyond your understanding does not mean that it does not exist. It might not exist, however it might exist differently than the way that you perceive it to be defined.

At any rate a "proof" is not evidence. If you'd like me to attempt to address each of your points individually you'll have to keep an open mind. There is nothing to be gained here. We have no evidence to his/her existence or nonexistence to assume either stance is illogical.

a serious flaw in your argument. it is true that A god{a model of god having no self contradicting characteristics, unlike the traditional abrahamic god} CAN exist. that is there is nuthing logical STOPPING such a concept from existing. but heres the thing, how PROBABLE is it that such a model of god exists????????

ill give you an example{u seem to be misusing the ontological argument}. i there ANYTHING, LOGICALLY making it impossible for aliens to exist on the earth?{seeing as we have not been to every place and much of the surface remains unexplored as we have not turned over every rock} NO. hence i can not COMPLETELY rule out the POSSIBLE existance of such a thing.

however, what is the PROBABILITY of the existance oif such aliens{going by evidence every where else}????? almost NON EXISTANCE. for ALL practical purposes it is logical to think they do not exist{if you say no, then you have to believe that an infinite number of phenomenon exist simply on the fact that THEY HAVE NOT BEEN DISPROVED. u have to use the ontological argument with others like argument for negetive proof etc}.

this is obviously not true. you should NEVER beleive{in the logical sense} in anything unless you have logical EVIDENCE which makes you believe. for god, there is none.

look up russel's teapot and evidence from negetive proof. it is illogical to think that there is as much reason to believe in the existance of god as there is to NOT believe in the existance of god based on just the lack of NEGETIVE evidence. its a fallacious stance to take. if u take it than you also have to believe in the flying spaghetti monster and the invisible purple unicorn.

unless you have evidence to believe in sumthing, dont believe in it just due to the lack of negetive evidence.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
a serious flaw in your argument. it is true that A god{a model of god having no self contradicting characteristics, unlike the traditional abrahamic god} CAN exist. that is there is nuthing logical STOPPING such a concept from existing. but heres the thing, how PROBABLE is it that such a model of god exists????????

Originally posted by leonheartmm
ill give you an example{u seem to be misusing the ontological argument}. i there ANYTHING, LOGICALLY making it impossible for aliens to exist on the earth?{seeing as we have not been to every place and much of the surface remains unexplored as we have not turned over every rock} NO. hence i can not COMPLETELY rule out the POSSIBLE existance of such a thing.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
however, what is the PROBABILITY of the existance oif such aliens{going by evidence every where else}????? almost NON EXISTANCE.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
for ALL practical purposes it is logical to think they do not exist{if you say no, then you have to believe that an infinite number of phenomenon exist simply on the fact that THEY HAVE NOT BEEN DISPROVED.

We have no evidence either way.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
u have to use the ontological argument with others like argument for negetive proof etc}.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
this is obviously not true. you should NEVER beleive{in the logical sense} in anything unless you have logical EVIDENCE which makes you believe. for god, there is none.

I refer you to atoms and other particles of small size that we didn't have concrete evidence for their existence before they were discovered. They existed even without the proof.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
look up russel's teapot and evidence from negetive proof. it is illogical to think that there is as much reason to believe in the existance of god as there is to NOT believe in the existance of god based on just the lack of NEGETIVE evidence.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
its a fallacious stance to take. if u take it than you also have to believe in the flying spaghetti monster and the invisible purple unicorn.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
unless you have evidence to believe in sumthing, dont believe in it just due to the lack of negetive evidence.

Now again, I urge you to go and brush up on your grammar. It's quite taxing to try and read what you're trying to say.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Rhetorical Query: Where was this merciful God as six million Jews, His chosen, were slaughtered in the Holocaust? Where was this vengeful God as six million Jews, His chosen, cried out for respite in the death camps? Where was this merciful God as six million Jews, His chosen, were starved and worked to death in the name of human evolution?

Statement: God was where He has always been--on high, grieved by the actions of His creations, and giving the murderers and torturers chance to repent, a chance to turn from their evil and to good.

Or he didn't exist. As always.

Should consider both possibilities, shouldn't we?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Or he didn't exist. As always.

Should consider both possibilities, shouldn't we?

Originally posted by Creshosk
Yes.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Query: Why is Urizen angry at God's generosity and His justice?

Assertation: FeceMan has explained this to Urizen on other occasions.

I think it is because Urizen's definition of generosity (as well as the definition in Merriam Webster) is very different from the one God uses.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Oh I see, being openly homophobic is bad, but being secretly homophobic is perfectly fine.

Originally posted by DigiMark007

Gotta stop feeling awkward about it. But it can be hard when you were a freaking figurehead of the young adult church community for years.

Are you an atheist now? Should have spoken out, maybe you'd have converted a few.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali

"Just because I vote against Gay Marriage doesn't mean I dislike Gays or want them to be unhappy. I just don't think they should have the same rights that I do"

Originally posted by Creshosk
My problem with gay parades is there are no heterosexual parades... Where are the people flaunting their heterosexuality in the form of a parade?

Well, why don't you make one?

Gay people have the same rights.

Originally posted by backdoorman
Does a gay individual have a right to adopt?

Originally posted by backdoorman
Does a gay individual have a right to adopt?

Depends where exactly you are talking about - some countries being more liberal then others, or at least politically in insuring equal rights.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Hmm, I am not sure. I suppose that (in Germany at least) single gay guys are allowed to adopt must like single hetero people.

Originally posted by backdoorman
Your "gay people have the same rights." claim was in response to goddess kali, who was speaking of American law, and I am quite sure adoption by gay people is banned in a few states of the US.

Originally posted by Bardock42
My response was also to gay marriage, wasn't it?

Originally posted by backdoorman
Did you even read the quote? It encompasses all "gay rights".

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, then take my post, now that I tell you, as just referring to marriage.

Originally posted by backdoorman
I would but I don't think it did.

I don't see how me taking it as that meaning now would change anything seeing as I was arguing about what you actually said, not meant. Nice talking to you though.

Originally posted by backdoorman
I don't see how me taking it as that meaning now would change anything seeing as I was arguing about what you actually said, not meant. Nice talking to you though.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It does clarify what I said and should make you reply to that specific part. And yes, always a blast to talk to you.