@VRAEL
I wish you hadn't ignored my bee string example in relation to this. If nothing else, it's more fun to actually analyze something than spit out the same stuff over and over.
I ignored it because it was a blatantly obvious false analogy. Yahweh is touted as omnibenevolent and omnipotent. Regardless of how small 100 years of suffering is compared to eternity in paradise, its still 100 years of suffering that a supposedly omnibenevolent and omnipotent being has allowed to exist. This is clearly a contradiction.
Many then use the "free will" argument in defence of this. What they don't realise is that this says that God is not omnipotent, free will is something that God cannot create without suffering. There is a limit to his power. Sorry theists, you can't have your cake and eat it too with this one.
In addition, this ridiculous premise is what drives the suicide bombers to fly planes into buildings, the pain of their death is just a "bee-sting" compared to eternity with their 72 virgins.
He may get his definition from the bible but it doesn't matter, we all hold the traits "omnipotent, omniscient, omni-w/e" to be traits of the Supreme Being we are discussing.
But it does matter, because that it was exactly what we were arguing over. I said that the only reason we say that a God is omni-w/e is because thats what the holy books tell us. That is the original source of the information. I am surprised that we are still arguing over this. Let me raise the challenge then, if not from the holy books, then where does this information come from?
So be the bigger man. Explain something.
I'll just copy paste what I said previously, since you obviously didn't read it. "I have already posted the quote that completely
explained why evolution DOES NOT break the second law." He hasn't refuted that since, instead he jumped to the separate topic that the universe is an isolated system.
Now this is where things get interesting. The bible. Word of God or conspiracy to rule by man? I'm no bible scholar, I've only read the first few pages. If people are sent to hell for eternity, then yeah I'd find that a pretty dickish move on God's part. Not something I'd expect of a benevolent God.
I've read the Bible cover to cover. I've done a bible study course at my university as well. Hell exists, you are there for eternity, and it is a place of torture, nowhere in the bible does it say hell is a place of teaching - I don't know how you've come to that assumption, unless your putting words into God's mouth.
Any literal view of the Bible utterly fails, as there are so many contradictions within the Bible, not just between books - but within books, hell (pun lol), even within a single page. In order to make any sense of the Bible you have to "reinterpret" it, which is a slippery slope as you can then just pretend the Bible is telling you whatever matches your own beliefs. You would think that an omniscient being would be able to write something that is a little more intelligible and didn't require so much "interpretation" from his readers.
You familiar with the pot and the kettle?
Yeah, so maybe I am arrogant, argumentum ad hominem is useless in discussion - don't even know why you bothered typing it, unless you
enjoy weakening your own statements.
Those aren't proofs, they're God-hate-junk. There could be some good stuff in there, someone clearly took the time to compile it all and link everything and make the website, but instead of doing anything productive they lather every proof in rhetoric and decide that they've "proved" stuff. If they really want to do something, they should rewrite it from a less biased point of view. People can tell when someone hates something. Hell, even atheists shouldn't read that page. It's a disgrace to atheists everywhere.
Rewrite it from a less biased point of view? That's the whole point of the site for fudge sake! They come across as bias to any believer because that's exactly what they are doing - challenging your beliefs. And I think you are rather exaggerating when you say they "lather" every proof in rhetoric. It's rhetoric is mild compared to most of the literature I read. God-hate-junk is just another silly extravagant phrase, they don't hate God because they don't believe God exists. I also like how you managed to type that whole paragraph without specifically refuting anything on the site, no doubt you only gave it a brief glimpse and jumped to a false conclusion. I will give you another challenge, refute just one of their 50 proofs, just one.
Maybe some folks can't though.
Groundless statement.
@CAPTWILL
You do realise that bin Laden's original tape was censored by the media on the advice of the US Government?
Didn't know that, now I do, thanks.
However he does realise the value of appeals to religion (in much the same way as appeals to nationalism) to mobilise support. The thing is, in the Middle-East nationalism is not a strong force, whereas most people do share a common religion (and some would say, culture) in Islam.
And if religion didn't exist he would have had one less dogmatic concept to use to motivate the people.
This is also starting to look like the "no true scotsman fallacy". Bin Laden identified himself as religious, he extensively studied the Koran, specifically, the Jihad; and he used religious arguments in his speeches. On what grounds do we say that he wasn't religiously motivated? To say his motives were purely political seems to me a thinly veiled attempt at excusing his religious motivations. Same goes for Hitler.
In this sense, how is religion any worse than, say, nationalism?
Nationalism has the potential to become dogma. Religion is dogma by definition.
@JAFF
(Jesus, for example, was possibly the strongest person in history; fictional or real)
The Incredible Hulk would disagree. And dare I mention Chuck Norris?
@VRAEL SECOND POST
but if we disregard the typical notion of hell, I think there could be useful applications for it.
This is the typical cherry picking you see from theists. You say the Bible is the true word of God yet you discard all the parts you disagree with (misogyny, sadism, sacrifices, torture, genocide etc.) and keep the rest.
Now this is quite the interesting idea. I certainly agree that it wouldn't be fair to hold someone responsible for actions that they had no control over, but perhaps the scale isn't "how many lives have you saved" or "how many prayers have you said", but rather "how well have you done with what you were given." Parable of the Talents, if you're familiar with it.
Well this is the interesting philosophical debate about free will. Determinism, Libertarianism, Compatibilism, take your pick. I pose a third challenge toward you Vrael, or anyone else who thinks they have the answer please go ahead. If we are to accept the notion of a Divine Plan, how can we possibly argue that we free? And a follow up question - if we are not free, then what is so just about punishing us for the actions that our Divine Plan entails we carry out. A third and final follow up question, if there is an unchangeable Divine Plan, then why pray to God for this or for that? I will be impressed if you come up with satisfactory answers.
Until next time,
Pinky.
None.