Forum:Atheism and suicide

< Index | Religious discussion

Ok, I wonder if I am makinga thread, I am not forum whatever this is considered savvy. At any rate, just a question. What is your answer to this:

If God doesn't exist, and we (humans) feel pain, are struggling with depression, or basically are living a "bad" life (whatever that is considered nowadays) wouldn't suicide be very simple? Why doesn't everyone just simply...die? Why do they keep on living? What keeps them living? Honestly, if I didn't know Jesus Christ ( I received him when I was 5) I would wonder why we are alive.... People search for "the meaning of life". Well, without God, I reason there is no reason to life. Is it all survival? are humans made to survive? Well, we die anyway, nobody is immortal. So, atheist, tell me, since you don't believe in God, why don't you make life simple and go to death. Scientifically, death is not showing all 8 characteristics of life. Is that all death is? . Scientifically, humans should rejoice, since that's just one less threat to survival, right? So, yay death right? Why do we strive to survive?? I think it's because your searching for irrefutable evidence that God exists (as if the fact that Christianity still exists isn't enough, or the fact that you are reading this...) also, you want PEACE. But, you can't have peace...But you WANT peace, so you try to disprove God, maybe that will give you peace. But it doesn't.... Life isn't peaceful, or happy, or full of contedness witout God. I call drug use, sex out of marriage, and lieing, and stealing, sin. Because it's rebellion against a Holy God. People do those things because they want PEACE. PEACE only comes through God. Why are not the nations united? SIN. LACK OF GOD. ^{— Unsigned, by: Pitzy / talk / contribs}

Why don't people kill themselves? Because they think there's some meaning to life. Most atheists accept some moral code, and most moral codes value life, and so most atheists value life. The same, in fact, holds true for religious believers -- they think there's some value to life, because of their morality, and they think they got their morality from a god.

My question to you: How does the existence of a supernatural thing add value to your life? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 02:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

You must have misunderstood a 10K year old religion (waiting for someone to correct my date) I though God was personal? Not a (italicized) thing. But that's not the point...You ask how does God add value to my life? Well, let me think... My life revolves around worshipping God. That's it. Everything I do is worship to God, that is why humans were created. Worship. I do it on Sunday when I sing, I do it on Monday when I share the gospel, I do it in my prayer, I do it as I read my bible. I worship God continually, and lift the incense to him. It adds value, you know, knowing your loved by an omnipotent (caustic italicized thing) user: Pitzy (talk) 02:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe 3k, tops.

So if you find value in doing something (worship) why couldn't others find value in doing something else (science, reading, etc.)? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 02:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

But, reading doesn't hold eternal value, if eternity doesn't exists, if there is no God. So you read in this life. YOu get a grammy in this life. To people that are alive, that holds value. But as soon as the grammy award winner stops breathing, it doesn't matter anymore. That person doesn't matter anymore, if they have no soul, if there is no God. Worshiping God has eternal value. I would argue that nothing in life matters, except that God gave us reading, and animals, for us to revel in him and his creation. If that wasn't so, why live? Who cares you won a Grammy? Soon as you stop breathing *poof*. Who cares I worshipped God? When I come face to face with God I can proudly say I lived a life worthy of, well, being face to face with him. 3 tildes is completely legal btw. Pitzy (talk)

So why does an eternal existence have value? If nothing matters, then an infinity of nothing is still nothing. Why does heaven matter? FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 02:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Why does heaven matter? Because God's plan of salvation has been fulfilled, and we are saved with God, praising him, forever. I will spend an eternity discovering the nature of God, that's what matters, only, GOD. My Creator is all that I care about (or should, I still sin and commit idolatry). In heaven, at least he is all that I will care about. He is EVERYTHING. Through him I find life valuable, for it is a chance to bring him even more praise. However, you think God doesn't exist, so why don't you go die? Just tell me, you personally FuzzyCatPotato, why are you breathing right now? Pitzy (talk) 03:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Why does God's plan matter? Why does salvation matter? Why does praise matter? Why does any of it matter? Right now, all of your justifications go back to "I could do X forever" (which has already been discussed as meaningless) or to "I could do it for God" (which is, in fact, the conclusion you're arguing).

Why am I breathing? It promotes utility, which promotes the ability to act, which is essential should any morality every be proven beyond a doubt.

And use 4 -- it datestamps your statement. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 03:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It would seem that Pitzy is of the "If it doesn't have some transcendental meaning it doesn't have any meaning"-school of religion. As if the ability to care only for people while you're alive would somehow rob you of the ability to care for others or value your life, or even your post-mortal reputation.

It's a similar style of argument to the one that posits that only a divinely mandated "objective" (a more fitting adjective would actually be "exogenous") moral code can have any meaning and that if you don't believe in such a code you must be a total moral relativist (this is where Godwin's Law typically kicks in when Hitler and his moral code is brought into the picture).

It's essentially a false dilemma which insist that for something to be meaningful it must be divinely ordained/eternal while all alternatives are entirely meaningless.

And btw, Christianity is "only" about 2000 years old. You can't start appropriating the history of Judaism too if you're a Christian (well, actually you can, it just wouldn't be very historically honest or accurate). ScepticWombat (talk) 05:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh look, another Pitzy post where he doesn't indent his posts and makes idiotic statements about religion. Well my question is how fast can this thing HELLTHREAD?! Space Turbo (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Scientifically why do we see Hitler as being a monster? Pitzy (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no morality inherent to science, but there's a variety of potential moral codes to choose from besides 'the' Christian one, most of which condemn murder, especially when implemented on such vast a scale as Hitler implemented it. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Why are Moral codes in place? What is the origin of moral codes? Also, do you have to check if your a robot every time you make a post :/ Pitzy (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Specific moral codes exist because they were articulated and popularized by philosophers and religious figures (who will of course say they were inspired by God). As to the origin of morality, it developed in social groups of animals due to being beneficial to those groups' survival. As to robots, wut? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, you must be a robot because you can come up with easy, logical statements that easily debunk ideas that would get laughed out of theology 101. Quite frankly, if Jesus and Christianity were the basis of moral and right behavior then the US (the most Christian of the developed nations) should have some of the lowest crime rates. Instead we see largely non-religious countries that dominate the list of safest countries, like Sweden or Japan, whose most violent areas resemble the safest areas in the US. You also wouldn't have religious leaders trying to diddle kiddies if more religious means more moral. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

No, you know how you have to do the thing in order to post? Type in this or that, or complete a riddle? To make sure you don't spam robot. Pitzy (talk)

Ah, yup, I have to enter a CAPTCHA code every edit. It doesn't bother me, though. Some of the phrases are pretty funny. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

You could resolve that, 141, by making a goddamn account. Fer chrissakes, man. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 19:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

:P 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, well fair enough on the robot part. Some are pretty funny. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

You need to learn what a "bare assertion" is

It's where you make a statement, and just intend it to be accepted as true. Statements such as "Peace only comes through god." There's no basis for us to believe that, and yet your whole argument is predicated on that notion.

And FYI, you should re-read your bible. According to Genesis, the reason the nations of man aren't united is because God cursed us all with different languages. (This is flagrantly untrue, but you seem to be a literalist) ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

:) Yeah, technology DOES NOT allow nations to communicate. In fact, it is IMPOSSIBLE for different ethnic races to converse, espically if they don't speak the same language. The world could, in THEORY, but they can't achieve Peace because the world is morally corrupt. Pitzy (talk)

This isn't "religion vs technology". This is "according to your holy book, your god literally caused all conflict humanity has ever faced, and yet you still call him good". FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 17:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Potato- The nations were uniting AGAINST GOD, which explains the separation of languages Pitzy (talk) 17:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC).

Uniting against god? The passage doesn't mention god untill the part where he comes down and notices them building it. The tower's purpose was to keep the people united. Also, if god is omniscient, why did he create the situation where humanity does something to anger him and cause him to punish them?Super ^{Dude,What does mine say? Sweet!} 18:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Also way to focus on the FYI part instead of the thing that would help you clean up your rhetoric. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

what is a rhetoric? Pitzy (talk)

In this instance, it refers to your way of arguing. Ikanreed was pointing out that you're mostly arguing by assertion, which is a fallacious way of arguing. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Rhetoric is the framing, language, and tone used to execute an argument advancing a position. Typically the term refers to the things other than the strict logic that comprises the core assertions. In this specific case, I just meant that you should be more careful in how you construct the arguments you advance, which is technically speaking isn't rhetoric. Just keep an eye on each sentence you type and ask yourself the follow question "Why would my target audience believe this statement to be true?" and doing that should be enough to keep you from making bare assertions.

To be entirely clear, bare assertions can be entirely okay when everyone involved in a discussion is likely to agree to them. "Water is wet" doesn't need to be supported unless someone is likely to take issue with it. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow, that was extremely helpful, sincerely! Thank you. Pitzy (talk) 20:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

If God exists why not die quickly?

If God and heaven exist then wouldn't people do whatever they can to get there quickly? This vale of tears is only a fraction of eternity so why suffer it? Get dead as soon as you can and get to heaven!--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 19:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

1. Salvation is the only means of getting to heaven
2. You receive salvation by repenting, asking for forgiveness, and having faith that Jesus Christ died on the cross for ALL of your sins.
3. Once you receive salvation, you don't commit suicide. Why? Because if you believe in Jesus Christ when he tells you to go and make disciples of all nations, that is what you will do. It is God's will for the gospel to be spread and for his name to be praised. you wouldn't commit suicide because you would want to tell OTHER people about the gospel. Pitzy (talk)

Sounds like the morals Anders Behring Breivik. Kill dozens of people, mostly children, in the name of the lord and hope the police shoot you so you can go to heaven for believing so fiercely. He certainly believed salvation was the only way into heaven, repented for the sins he committed (his idea of them), and hasn't committed suicide. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

How does that sound like Anders Behring Breivik? Enlighten me. If he TRULY loved God he would have not committed 77 murders. Although, if he actually did sincerely repent, I will be shaking his hand in heaven. Pitzy (talk)

Oh, he believed in his version of god just as you believe in yours. There is no war as fierce as a holy war. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

People have been killing others in the name of Jesus for centuries. He is part of a long line of rampaging murderers like the crusades, the KKK, the Lord's Resistance Army, Hutaree, or anti-abortion violence. That it doesn't match what you think Christianity should be shows the problem with salvation by grace alone, and the flexible morality that is fine with any horrendous act as long as it's justified by belief. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you. Christianity has been an excuse for wars and death for centuries. But you don't actually believe CHRISTIANS did that, do you? If so, you need to check history again. Perhaps they claimed Christ, but you know, killing people isn't very loving. It's like if I went up to a nation and waged war on it, in the name os Islam. I am Christian, I'm just using Islam as an excuse. Jesus doesn't use the sword ( until judgement day) Pitzy (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Pit, read our No True Scotsman article. If they weren't Christian, what ere they? ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 20:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

If they weren't Christian what ere they? They ere be non-believers, what else? Don't be deceived by Satan. Pitzy (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Pitzy, have you ever read the Old Testament? Did you know it has commandments in it that requires Jews as part of the Law of Moses to "destroy the seven Canaanite nations" and to "wipe out the descendants of Amalek"? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

(Don't forget "happy is you who dashes their babies against rocks" always a favorite) ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

That's exactly why it's wrong, you can't take credit for the people loudly claiming their faith in both god and Jesus as Christians, while frequently pointing to biblical arguments for their actions and beliefs, because it would make you wrong. So you blame Satan in some non-specific way. Tell me, in what particular way did Satan fool pope Urban II when he said "I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to pers­ue all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it is meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it."? That's a fairly specific exhortation from a famously Christian person in the name of Christ. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

They will put you out of the synagogues. Indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God. John 16:2 This shows that people can THINK they are doing God's will ,but in actuality are not, and instead are being deceived. Pitzy (talk) 21:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

But in terms of Christianity and many other religions life gets better after you are dead. So death is far more attractive to theists than atheists.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 08:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Reason For Sin

Satan doesn't make you do anything, and neither does God. He wants us to emulate him, not just mechanically worship him. That's why the choice of good and evil was kept for Adam and eve, and why he didn't stop Satan from tempting Adam.

After the fall I bet God appreciated his creation much more every time it chose good over evil.

He COULD have stopped the tower of babel from ever happening., but he didn't. Why? I don't know. I'm not God, I just trust the Bible is inerrant and that he is perfect. Everyone has had the chance to choose God over Satan # Atheists, you don't believe in God, but you still are on Satan's side. Anyone not for God is against God. # Hell exists # Heaven exists #judgement day is coming # have faith # I know you are all muderers (in your heat) adulterers, schemers, blasphemers (every time you use "logic" to disprove God) hypocrites, gluttons... Then again, so am I. BUT I'M FORGIVEN! Pitzy (talk)

I don't need to be forgiven. Life ain't worth a damn until you can sing I am what I am. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I wish more Christians would act like Jesus instead of like Fred Phelps. If you are an example of those who populate heaven I would desire hell. I thought pride was a sin, as well as making gods judgments for him, covertness at gods favor, and wraith against non-believers according to your book. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Depending on which gospel and which part of it, acting like Jesus might be a mixed blessing (cue: the "cleansing" of the temple or the cursing of the fig tree). ScepticWombat (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

True, crazy is but a bit better then the repelling behavior Pitzy has demonstrated. I can actually feel myself repelled from following Jesus. Does that mean Pitzy is a Satanist then since he seems to be just driving people from god by being a real jackass? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Just pointing out some random sins. Turns out you do them. Turns out you are defending yourself by attacking me, which means that you feel shame for doing those sins? Which means...what exactly. Tell me, scientifically show me a theoretical Darwin theory evolution space time continuem, to explain why you think being RUDE is not GOOD. Pitzy (talk) 20:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

"I wish more Christians would act like Jesus instead of like Fred Phelps."

Don't know who fred phelps is.

"If you are an example of those who populate heaven I would desire hell."

God will remember you said that....Ignorant pagan.

I thought pride was a sin, pauls says that he boasts in the lord. I am boasting in Jesus Christ. THat is no sin to Paul or me.

as well as making gods judgments for him,Am I making God's Judgement? You yourself claim UNBELIEF. you yourself CONDEMN YOURSELF.

covertness at gods favor, DOn't know what that word means

and wraith against non-believers according to your book. Pointing out sins is wraith. *nods head* Sorry I don't know how to format this stuff.Pitzy (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, a slightly less clunky and error prone prose style and a basic grasp of indenting would be a (very small) first step in the right direction...

But yeah, I really doubt that Pitzy-style sermons are going to convert anyone. It kind of remind me of the whole fundie-line of blaming the unbeliever so beloved by the likes of William Lane Craig, Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell, Norman Geisler and the rest of the U.S. Evangelical wingnut brigade.

They all seem to take their departure from the motto that anyone not sharing their fundie views is "without excuse" (it's from Romans 1:20, btw) and screw any alternatives, e.g. that anyone sincerely could find the bible rather underwhelming and unconvincing, or that any objections are in good faith - no, it's all because everyone not of their fundie Evangelism are just angry/disingenuous/sinful/debauched/biased/bigoted/hedonistic/decadent/continue-with-your-favourite-abuse infidels/heretics/unbelievers who are just disagreeing with them out of spite, because their version of Christianity is self-evidently true.

My guess is that you either have to have grown up in such an environment, be thrown into it through some existential crisis, or drift into it from a very similar religious environment to actually find this kind of verbal bullying either attractive or convincing. It's the epitome of preaching to the choir. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It's actually kind of funny to be accused of sins by someone who doesn't even know my first name. Certainly seems to violate the fourth commandment that one should not bear false witness. 8-D Can't make up comedy like this! -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I am more amused the figure mixes atheist and pagan. One has a different believe in god(s) than the other. The figure is comedy, with bonus points for the "your either with us or against us" attitude. --Aile Dhoo (talk) 21:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

My dad is a pastor....Yes, go ahead and rain down fire on me. I feel I'm doing pretty good for being a young teenager, surrounded by ( I was going to say ignorant, but you are not ignorant) highly intellectuals. Seriously, you are all extremely smart. Perhaps too smart? You make the bible and you make God seem..complicated. It really isn't ( I think). Why? Well, we were created areound 10,000 years ago. Of course, you scientists use your limited, very very VERY limited use of knowledge to say "nope, billions of years ago" because you were there, billions of years ago. *nods head*. At any rate, then the fall, then the law, (OT) then the word, (JESUS) then the death,(Cross), then the tomb, (resurrection) then the spreading of the word, (that's now!) then soon the end...I am rambling on, don't know what this has to do with anything. I just want you to know how I see life. Every night I feel my heart pump blood. I realize how mortal I am. I realize how quickly I could pass away. I hear my heart pump. I realize how extremely complex my body is. I realize God is real. Nothing else, NOTHING could have created life. The only way us humans can make life is by the normal means. Of course, you probably have 'debunked' how creation points to an intelligent creator. I realize something else. We can't prove God, we can't disprove God. God will reveal himself to those he choses. It all comes down to faith. I have faith he exists, you don't. Because I have faith he exists my life is changed. Because you don't faith he exists, you try to find a way to make sure he doesn't exist. So, you spend your life on forums, laughing at God behind your computer screen, sounding extremely well educated behind your computer screen, mocking God, profaning God, trying to disprove God, blaspheming GOD. I suspect you stopped reading this a while ago. but, if you DIDN'T...Just, think. IF there is a possibility that God exists..That doesn't mean he does, but it mean's he might. Which means the Bible MIGHT be true, and Hell MIGHT be real, and Jesus MIGHT be alive..And you MIGHT be wrong. I am not wrong, however, because once you take the first step of faith...BAM. your life is in God's hands, and you realize, by the way you have received the Holy Spirit that God really is the only way..way too peace. Jesus... An ETERNITY of singing songs. You don't understand how I want to sout Jesus name everywhere I go... I want to sing all the time, and to pray, and to spread the news that he is alive. one way to do that is to go on a forum, and solidify my conviction that God is real. Because, I don't have any evidence he isn't. You haven't disproved him for me yet. GIve me everything you have, I still believe God exists. How can I not? Holy Spirit lies within me. ^{— Unsigned, by: Pitzy / talk / contribs}

Not all of us are professed atheists, you know. Also, even if there is a God, that doesn't keep the Bible from most likely being just a bunch of fancy tales. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness..Pitzy (talk)

God must have a foul taste in his mouth then, from all the bullshit he apparently breathes out of it. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, there is a term for those who think they are doing great when they are not. Someone who knows a lot about belief, or non-belief, wouldn't confuse Atheists and Pagans. It's like confusing cars with potatoes. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

paganism has also been understood to include any non-Abrahamic, folk, or ethnic religion...141. I could get ticked at you, for calling the bible bull...Is that a very scholarly thing to do? I thought you needed evidence and logic to prove it is bull. Which you don't have any of. You were not at any of the places in the bible, so don't call it false. You have no idea how true it is. Instead, I might pray for you. For your salvation. Pitzy (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Have you actually read the Bible? All of it? Including the genocidal parts of the Torah and the part in the New Testament where Jesus compares non-Jews to dogs? You should know what you're defending before asserting that it's not bull. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Pagan equates non-Abrahamic? That makes the term useless. A atheist and a new age pagan polytheist have different believes when it comes to the god(s). Furthermore defining something as "not this" can become problematic in terms of considerations. What does your definition place Jainism which rejects the idea of a creator deity? Also bringing up "scholarly" and "you need logic" is quite bizare considering the... nature of your arguments, especially in the usage of the term pagan. --Aile Dhoo (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Paganism is a broad group of religions, including modern pagan religions, indigenous religions and historical polytheistic religions. It is often taken to exclude monotheism, and to express a worldview that is pantheistic, polytheistic, or animistic. In a wider sense, paganism has also been understood to include any non-Abrahamic, folk, or ethnic religion. :::that was bing, not me. Pitzy (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay folks, virtual hands in the air, how many Pagans in this thread? Given Pitzy's exceedingly vague, broad and slightly confusing use of the term, I guess even Buddhists might be included, so don't be shy... ScepticWombat (talk) 22:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

What of agnostics? Technically they may as well be classed as Swiss or are they pagan for not ticking Pitzy's preference? --Aile Dhoo (talk) 22:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

In Pitzy World, agnostics probably go into the big black Pagan box. ScepticWombat (talk) 23:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Guys, let's not go on this tangent. In some Christian circles it's common to use "pagan", "heathen", "non-believer" as synonyms. We don't need to be pedantic about the meaning of "pagan" just because Pitzy isn't accustomed to its more specific and more widely accepted usage. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Anywho, if we set aside the agnostics for a second (seeing how Pitzy might be in the process of being enlightened on the meaning of the term below), how many in this thread would go into the Big Black Pagan Box in Pitzy World? Atheists and agnostics please move to the other queue for the moment. ScepticWombat (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Romans 1 24:25

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

Amen indeed. ^{— Unsigned, by: Pitzy / talk / contribs}

Please don't tell me you really believe all non-Christians are sex maniacs. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The main thing I was getting at is this...You have hardened your hearts, all of you, I can honestly the only time you will confess Christ is in the end, when Christ comes. But I need to tell you about God anyway. Pitzy (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Pitzy, do you believe that the Loch Ness monster is real? Why or why not? (not entirely off topic, it has a point) -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe the Loch Ness Monster is real. Why? It hasn't started a religion that has lasted 2 thousand years, or consumed 2 billion lives. Pitzy (talk) 22:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Lots of people believe it's real. You can always make it say elves or fairies or Zeus. Belief in them is over 2 thousand years old.

1. Have you ever been to Loch Ness? (...or to locations where elves are said to be)
2. Do you have any proof that any of those are not real?
3. Have you hardened your heart to the possibility it (or they) might be real?

-EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Emerald City Wanderer isn't Just Asking Questions AT ALL. The link to that article is below. Pitzy (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It's the Socratic Method and a pretty basic exercise to refine your answers (If you would ever give a complete answer). Each of those questions you asked non-believers about their lack of belief in Jesus...which if you turn to any other mythical creature or other god are easy to answer as to why you don't believe in them. Non-believers just don't exempt Jesus from critical thinking used on elves, fairies or Zeus. Since you are leaving anyways it's a moot point...but this is theology 101. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Number one I want a link to a verifiable website with proof that belief in elves and fairies has been around for 2k years. Second of all So, God is not confined by time or the universe, in contrast to fairies, or elves, and Santa Claus - all of which are dependent upon the existence of the universe. Your would be/implied analogy between God and these mythical creatures is shown to be incongruent, so your argument is false. Pitzy (talk) 02:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I've got a question for you. Who would win in a fight, Superman or Batman? Also, what's so special about 2k years? what, when it was 1999 years, the belief was false? If a belief were correct, it wouldn't matter how much time people have held that belief, the reverse is also true.Super ^{Dude,Where's my car?} 17:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Just a question

I wish we could all be in an easier place to talk. Like a chat room or something, because it is time consuming to do this forum stuff, anyone have a site? Pitzy (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, do you view Christians with distaste? Or pity? How do you view religion in general? Pitzy (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Just asking questions? --Aile Dhoo (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

"Just asking questions" takes over when the answers are already well known, where the question embodies a point refuted a thousand times, or where the questioner exhibits willful ignorance. I am serious. I want to know how you view Christianity. Pitzy (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Seriously the framing of the question is itself a hunt of a particular answer set out by that page I link to. You have generalised all non-Abrahamic figures with misuse of the term pagan, up to including mixing the believes in god(s) polytheists have with the disbelieve set by atheists. You have taken a "your either with us or against us" position on this page; regardless whether you are theist, atheist, polytheist, agnostic or whatever my concern is that you are setting out lines like the ill intent who desire conflict. --Aile Dhoo (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It's biblical you know, if your not with God your in the hands of Satan. There is no middle ground. You probably find that distasteful, but, since Christianity is false (I'm still waiting for you to show me good evidence it is false) you shouldn't care. Pitzy (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

You do realist that the goatherds are not clones? By that I speak that along with atheists there are theists and (in my case) agnostics. My concern is the "with us or against us" position, which is not only a diplomatically poor positioning (good look making a enemy of the Swiss) but also such a positioning justify a hostility for hostility sake. Sweeping atheist, Jainist, Buddhist, pagan... placing all under category of "other..." is quite questionable in motive. --Aile Dhoo (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Jesus wasn't considered nice by worldy standards. He was rude. He condemned people to hell. My stance is that if you don't have salvation you are going to hell. Like most Christians. Why are we still stuck on this? I don't care about have a good diplomatic position, lol. Pitzy (talk) 22:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Last Words-

If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet. Proverbs 29:9 Pitzy (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Dunning-Kruger effect in action? --Aile Dhoo (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Seeing as that verse is in the BIBLE...The wise man isn't wise in the world, but wise in things of God. (me). On the other hand, the fool is the one that rejects God. (you.) Pitzy (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Pitzy: Both you AND ratwiki users have made word-noise. So who's the fool? Everyone? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 22:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

A agnostic rejects god? Are you telling me Pitzy that the Swiss are joining a faction of a binary by declaring neutrality? Cause it is too kind to call one a fool if they take the strategy of making opposition of the neutral. As for wisdom: to quote Socrates: “The ancient oracle said that I was the wisest of all the Greeks. It is because I alone, of all the Greeks, know that I know nothing.” Wisdom does not care for your religious (or non-religious) convictions and it is unwise to force a neutral party to 'pick a side' so to speak. --Aile Dhoo (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Giving up already? Pity, I was just about to write up a big section about how even if you're right and the Bible is inerrantly correct, the morality provided by the biblical God is not absolute nor comforting, but alarmingly arbitrary and vindictive. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I am a kid, and mom called me to dinner. but I can stay on longer. Please show me how God is arbitrary and vindictive, if only to make yourself feel better. Potato, you seem like your struggling. Look up a commentary on that verse or something I don't know. Pitzy (talk) 22:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, feel free to go have dinner. Writing it all up will take me a while. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. But before you do, isn't illogical and hypocritical to appeal to morality as you attack scripture? Also, I hardly think you could find a reason to call a omniscient God arbitrary, as (news flash) you are a small, small, SMALL human (LIKE ME!). Also, remember that we are all worthy of death, and that God is just. Pitzy (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

One can critique scripture for moral reasons. The immoral practice of slavery is justified by Leviticus 25:44-46 and Exodus 21:7-11 but Christians nowadays reject slavery. Morality is founded in critique.--Aile Dhoo (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not, actually! I very much doubt the validity of scripture, but I consider myself very moral! This is actually why I feel the need to make you consider the possibility that these words written by mere men are NOT the Word of God; so you may consider a different moral code more grounded in reality! 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Note- my school laptop (this one) will be taken away tomorrow. So, this is last time you will see me.

I don't know how educated you are in the Bible, but..read this. :Covenant Theology-rules apply unless done away with in the next covenant. In other words, each covenant is seen as part of a greater covenant that now has modifications where the rules are still in effect unless abrogated or modified ultimately by the New Testament by God.::Dispensational Theology is when the previous rules tend to be done away with in the New Covenant unless reiterated in that covenant. In other words, the New Dispensation generally does away with previous Mosaic rules because those rules were given to a specific group of people, and new rules need to be stated.

When the new covenant, Jesus Christ came, laws became no longer in effect. You see this happening when the curtain in the temple tore as Jesus was crucified. Pitzy (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

It's funny you bring this up, because this is one of the things that's so troubling. If God's ordained moral code is absolute but he can also change it at his whim, what horrible world would we be living in?!? You can be a good person worthy of heaven one moment and a sinner that'll burn in hell for eternity the next! Didn't get the last update from God about his new moral code? Tough luck! Also, it should be noted in the Old Jewish Covenant there are commandments that explicitly forbid reducing, adding to or abrogating the Law of Moses in any way. So all Jews are stuck in the Old Covenant. Turns out God screwed them over with a set of destined-to-become-outdated moral rules that he expressly forbade them from ever changing! You gotta hand it to him, God is one massive troll. But if you read the story of Job you of course already knew this. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

But the vast majority of humanity is destined for eternal damnation by this ever loving and caring god. You can only obtain salvation through god's forgiveness but.... what about all those who never got the chance. In Nineteenth century Britain infant mortality was at 15%. That's a one-in-seven chance of eternal damnation through no fault but being born in the wrong time. Or all those Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims - off to the fiery pit with the lot of them. God so loved the world that he condemns a vast proportion to the fire. What a guy! Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I want to simplify my life

via suicide, obviously, but there always seems to be one more stupid talk page or forum edit I have to make first. So basically that's my answer. Fonzie (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Galatians 5:12-26

But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, ... Pitzy (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

And you quote this why exactly? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Take a gander Spock Pitzy (talk) 01:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Atheism is a belief system

You believe that God doesn't exist right? Then that means you have faith he doesn't exist, or you might be flat out ignoring his existence, because it is a stance that someone takes. "I believe in God, I have faith he exists. The proof is in the bible, and my life." "I believe in logic and science. I have faith the Bible is false, although it says it is true, and that God does not exist. I have no proof he does not exist."

I found this funny. I laughed when I thought of it. I think it is true.. Pitzy (talk) 00:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

"although it says it is true" Please don't tell me you're that naïve/gullible to believe any person claiming they're telling the truth is telling the truth. And no, people don't "have faith" that the Bible is false. They're convinced that it's false because reality indicates that it's false. Which are you gonna believe, some story written down thousands of years ago (though it hasn't gone unaltered) or the reality we live in today? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, I find the notion that your prime reason for believing in God is a book with some fanciful tales as quite offensive to God. Surely devotion to such a grand entity should be more substantively founded. It's like being a fan of Elvis because you read in some magazine that's he's a cool guy. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Josephus certainly didn't think Jesus was fake. Pitzy (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, Josephus. We have a nice article on him. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand why Christians would infiltrate his works. Pitzy (talk) 02:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

For similar reasons as why Catholic scribes snuck references to "the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost" into the Bible, probably. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Listen to this.

YOu don't think God exists. You think Humans created God. Well...If humans created God, why would he be such a God of judgement? Why does hell exist? Why does Satan exist? Why do you have to abstain from sex before marriage and not do drugs? If Humans were the creator of God, those would be the types of things you would expect to see. But the Christian God, since he is not created, is an extremely, extremely hard God to follow, to believe in. Do you agree? Pitzy (talk) 02:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Why would he be a god of judgement? Why a hell? Why sexual rules? Why drug rules? So that the creators of the god could control their fellow humans, and because humans constantly feel judged.

Why Satan? To explain evil.

Is the Christian god hard to follow? Not harder than the myriad of rules of other religions.

"since he is not created" is begging the question again FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 02:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Pitzy mentions drug use as being a 'hard to follow' rule from God. Just to follow through on the logic, with some quick checks, I see an estimate for 25% of Americans having used illegal drugs. With some more quick checks, I see that 75% or more of Americans regularly ignore speed limits. Speed limits are clearly MUCH harder to follow than restrictions on drug use. If humans were the creator of speed limits, surely you would see speed limits that are easy to follow. Because speed limits are so hard to follow, they must have been created by God. Cat Not Included (talk) 23:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I would say that a lot of the strictures of Islam are a lot tougher than Christianity. If Pitzy's logic works then he should become a Muslim. This would give him the added advantage of having a much more explicitly exciting afterlife in the Muslim paradise.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 12:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

PRATT check list

Pitzy's brand of Christianity, while both blockheaded and rather naive, is at least refreshingly honest in the sense that it lacks the convoluted sophistry that comes with the more well-versed apologists and instead goes for a no-nonsense argument by assertion, though that (sadly) may change in time.

Still, I can already see a pattern of several well-known PRATTs which I list in no particular order, but numbered for easy reference:

1. Appeal to Josephus as a piece of evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ.
2. Appeal to biblical literalism (see biblical contradictions and biblical scientific errors as well as the general Bible article).
3. Claiming that objective morality is only possible when you believe in God, incl. the obligatory appeal to Hitler (as if it takes belief in a god to reject a(n im)moral code that led to the Holocaust).
4. Atheism is a belief system.
5. You're going to hell (well, not really refuted, just exceedingly unlikely and unfalsifiable).
6. Conflation of skepticism, atheism and science.
7. Conflation of Darwinian evolution with cosmology.
8. Select reading of the New Testament in general, incl. the claim that Christians are not bound by such Jewish laws as kosher (and presumably circumcision too), despite at least the Gospel of Matthew claiming that Jesus insisted that he didn't want to change "one jot or one tittle" of it (Matthew 5:18, see 5:17-20 for context).

Other editors should feel free to add further examples to the bottom of the list, btw.
I don't necessarily present this list this list as a ridicule of Pitzy, but as both a score card and a reference list for Pitzy and others to check to see why the level of flippancy and snark can get quite high in some of the answers in this thread; that's simply because most of us have heard these points countless times before. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. I would also ask that Pitzy watch The Atheist Experience on YouTube. They are easy to find, pretty amusing, and go through each one of these points pretty often and why they are wrong in clear concise ways. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Hellthread is complete. My work here is done! Space Turbo (talk) 01:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)