ppl also seem to be terrible when it comes to minding their business on the internet. i can tell you know what that means. it adds up to nothing because i'm bored shitless with this lame ass website. my only purpose for joining was religious debate and really there is not very much of that and when there is, atheists always win. do have fun though. i'll leave you to it..
there's just no way to shut you up is there? i'm not here looking for meaningful relationships. but one thing i am looking for is worthwhile debate and dialogue, not trading childish snipes and other grade school bullshit. i havent responded to your messages because i haven't bothered reading them. being enemies on a website is like being enemies with the boogie man, obviously i dont have lots of patience with annoyances. too many trolls in the world. if you have no actual argument, maybe you might refrain from replying to them.
you can persuade a person of anything if you have the logic or evidence to back it up. if you don't why would you make such claims in the first place?
did you know the big bang was first theorized by a preist? it is the explanation that best fits the observable evidence, thats why it's accepted science. not because 'all scientists are secretly christian'. or 'atheist'. atheism has nothing to do with it. either you can back up your claims or you cannot, and if you cannot, there is no logical justification to believe them.
so god lets you figure out how to help cure yourself of progeria? god lets you figure out how to stop from being raped and killed as a child? you completely missed the point. i mean completely.
i've known theists to make excuses that are transparent but you don't even make the effort.
I read and properly addressed your entire post. how is my etiquette improper? what i would like for you to do is allow someone else to reply to the same argument I replied to, because maybe you would be more receptive to a less technical rebuke. or at least you might be better be able to understand it. 90% of what I say flies over your head, then you claim to understand it but you never even attempt a contextually appropriate rebuke. something you could do in the meantime is look up 'confirmation bias'.
'It could take weeks or months before God finally answers your prayer.'
By this notion a shoe could answer just as many prayers, because the only criterion you're using to judge the prayer as 'answered' is a desirable occurrence. good things happen whether we pray or not, so to say 'it could take weeks or months, all you're demonstrating is that you arbitrarily deem a prayer is 'answered, when something happens that you can construe through bias, to be an 'answer'. this is completely dishonest . in this paradigm both coincidence and completely unrelated events are defined as 'answers'. because you definitively exclude any instance where the prayer would be unanswered or unheard.
no special pleading allowed. no publicly debunked arguments allowed. ( arguments with insurmountable criticisms)
no logically fallacious arguments, as logic is the only common ground between theist and atheist. though theism is not logical, theists cant live practical daily lives without acceptance of logic as a useful tool to separate bunk from that which is sound.
if a person has no faith, why would they see any need to pray? we are operating under the assumption that prayers are born from those who believe. christians say "God answers prayer, and sometimes the answer is no." when the answer is no, the result of the prayer is the same as it would be if a person hadn't prayed at all, or if there is no god to hear or answer their prayers. so how does one make the claim that all prayers are answered?
in this paradigm, an old shoe could answer as many prayers as god. if confirmation is made through bias, any notion can be confirmed.
events occur. sometimes we influence this occurance, and sometimes events occur randomly. random events may occur at any given time, so when you say 'prayer may be answered immediatey or after a long time, your'e supporting the argument that a divinely answered prayer is no different than a prayer answered by an old shoe.
what you should be attempting to show , if you believe prayer is answered, is how an answered prayer is distinguishable from a random occurence or an unanswered prayer.
as i have already stated. good and bad things happen whether or not we pray. how do you distinguish an answered prayer from an unanswered prayer, an unheard prayer, an ignored prayer, or a random occurance? by your description all of these things look indistinguishable. given enough time, good, and bad things happen. so to say sometimes it happens after a long period of time is a hollow argument.
it's 11 - dimensional bacon.
like i said, it's just special pleading. why? because the attributes of your god are coming from you and constructed specifically to fit the criterion necessary to make your argument work.
kalaam's cosmological argument does the same thing. there is nothing to keep it honest because said deity is beyond practical examination. yet you know all about said god because you made him to fit the necessary criterion.
'I always pray to god about the weirdest things that i want happening to me, they happen, they really do, just never to me.'
then you cannot call this an 'answered prayer'. trillions of events transpire daily without the need for prayer. its the nature of the world we live in.
'God helps those who help themselves.'
How does a person with stage 4 terminal cancer help himself? How does a child born with cancer or hiv help himself? How does a teen with progeria help himself? Who really needs help to do what they can do for themselves? 'Oh I prayed for that job and god helped me get it." "god please get this stain out of my dress, it's my favorite dress.' if god only helps us to do things we can do without a god's help, how do we distinguish answered prayers from prayers that fell on deaf ears? if god only helps those who help themselves, an old shoe would appear to answer just as many prayers as god does.
what you deem 'answered prayer' can be too easily dismissed as confirmation bias.
its not about telling anyone what to believe. if you cant get him to have a discussion with logic as the common ground, then there is no point to it. no need comparing apples and oranges. philosophy is not actuality, and if a person wont even admit that, then you cant really cover any ground. he wont provide evidence, he wont operate within the confines of logic and all he gives is his opinion in matters where opinion and special pleas hold absolutely no weight, so what really is the point? there is none. besides, i don't wanna spend all my time explaining basic shit if i can debate with someone who already understands logic and fallacy. anyone can take whatever feels good and argue against anything that threatens it. we're not in a sandbox here. but have fun. my wheels have spun
i spent a great deal of time explaining all that stuff already. he doesnt get it because he needs for it to be wrong. because in his mind, he cant fathom his god allowing people to be born atheist. you cant expect ppl with such heavy indoctrination to turn around and be intellectually honest. it's the equivalent of deciding to take a trip to hell.
no matter what you say, he's gonna disagree and commit logical fallacy in the process.
I'm not getting your point, because your point is subjectively based on what you believe,
not on an actual understanding of atheism or epistemology.
I'm not going to go through that again with you.
Either you get it or you don't, and either way is fine with me.
you must understand that anyone who believes in any religion can say some evil entity wants you not to believe in it.
that's not at all compelling . it's logically fallacious.
we don't care about the evil desires of beings we don't believe to exist.
"Sauron wants you to be a Christian". if anyone tells you that, they would lose all credibility in your eyes. Rightfully so.
without flesh it is not possible to walk. sorry. maybe i should've allowed you to believe you're floating around without your feet touching the ground. you are vitriolic and extremely hateful. any religious philosophy worth holding, is completely wasted on you.
'If its genetic wise guy, then why are there twice as many gays in cities like Seattle and San Francisco then everywhere else (by proportion)? What is that just some kind of fluke?'
there are twice as many gays in seattle and san francisco because like everyone else, gays want to live amongst those who are accepting, not backwater bigots and bible thumpers who want to kill them. ppl move to communities they want to live in. that's why.
why are there so many blacks in black communities?
why are there communities called 'chinatown' and 'little armenia?'
you certainly have not given this much thought.
marriage has existed since long before anyone ever heard of christianity. so no one needs a christian preacher to perform the ceremony., and let's not forget that christian preachers are somewhat revered for their pedophilia. if i was gay, i wouldn't want my marriage tainted by a christian preacher.
It's a good thing we don't spend a lot of time and money on punishing dead ppl. because they would never know they're being punished. no awareness without a brain.
please stay in school. you seem to have trouble understanding the most basic of logical concepts.
no one claims, 'a nonexistent demon wants you to be a christian". because there is no reason to believe that a demon never proven to exist 'wants' anything.
there is nothing riding on proving satan doesnt exist. but a lot is riding on the belief that he does. billions of dollars are at stake, so is political power. there are those who benefit from your belief in satan. thats why fear is cultivated through religion. it increases tithes sevenfold.
I am not a christian and i don't have faith in the bible, but even if i did, that would not prove that the bible is true. I have no reason to hold the bible as truthful or authoritative,. its words make naked claims, just like yours. they demonstrate nothing but an old style of writing ancient parables.
I asked you to demonstrate the existence of satan, not to paste words from an old book. you don't seem to know the difference.
What you believe is obvious. But what can you demonstrate? Demonstrate the existence of Satan. Not ancient writings.
thats the point of the whole discussion. ppl talk about something they cannot know to exist as if its something that is clearly defined and existent. now how many answers did you give before you stated 'we don't know?'
there is clearly no reason to believe in 'the spirit'. because there is nothing empirically quantifiable known as 'the spirit'.
No one is asking you to come here and preach.
demonstrate the existence of the devil and his desire for you to be an atheist or admit that you cannot. all your empty claims about gods , dont demonstrate anything but your beliefs., no one here is unfamiliar with christianity or its naked and empty fallacious claims.
"I have friends that are Christians that didn't grow-up in any kind of church at all but follow God when they felt God pulling at their heart."
I hope you realize that this entire phrase is completely meaningless. youre not talking to a 6 year old.
and you have not demonstrated the existence of the devil or shown that this devil desires anything. which is what this debate is actually about.
human intent is not just one thing. human beings have all kinds of intentions. their intentions depend on their goals. stop making appeals to ignorance. all you're doing is trying to get me to say 'i don't know', so you can act like a lack of knowledge makes it likely that a god did it. but it doesn't. you need to actually demonstrate that a god did it if you choose to posit this. appeals to ignorance are pure fallacy. if you don't know, just say you don't know, don't try shape the unknown into something personal with intent.
that is intellectually dishonest, it is primitive and superstitious and man has progressed so far beyond that.
not to mention that it is totally beside the point. I asked, what is the spirit? either you know, you have some idea, or you don't.
now. to say that the devil wants you to be an atheist, you must have some way of determining that the devil actually exists, and of determining his desires.
you have no way of determining or demonstrating the existence of the devil, satan or lucifer, and you have ignored that fact and gone on to state what the devil desires and your statement is based on a book of old writings indistinguishable from folklore and mythology.. hence there is no reason to take you seriously. because you haven't given any reason why anyone should hold this book or your naked claims, as truthful or authoritative? until you do, your arguments qualify only as special pleas and appeals to belief. both logically fallacious.
everyone is born atheist. the religion of his family members is completely irrelevant. in order for a person to believe in a god, he must be taught to believe in a god. before he is taught this, he lacks belief in a god. he is therefore an atheist. there is no denying this. you simply do not understand this but it is an established fact.
the universe didn't 'decide to make life'. you're applying human properties to the universe. no different than the Norse personifying thunder as an act of Thor. you don't have to place human intent behind everything you don't understand. its 2012 not 1200 b.c.
